Bible Archives - FAIR: Recent Episodes
FAIR
Her Hidden Namesby Autumn Dickson
Esther’s story is one of courage. She is a remarkable woman who was placed in humble circumstances and rose to save her people. In a land that often looked down upon Jews, Esther’s heritage should have prevented her from being able to save her people. And yet, she rose to prominence was guided by the hand of the Lord. Here is one verse that introduces Esther and sets the foundation for what I want to talk about.
Esther 2:7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter.
In this verse, we learn that Esther’s given Hebrew name was “Hadassah.” In an effort to protect her, her name was changed to “Esther,” a Persian name. Jews were often looked down upon, discredited, and hated. Having a Persian name would have protected Esther from some of the prejudice she would face in court.
There is beautiful significance in the fact that Esther changed her name.
“Hadassah” means “myrtle.” The myrtle was a fragrant, humble evergreen plant often symbolizing righteousness, peace, beauty, or God’s people in biblical imagery. Esther was many of these things, and she rose to represent all of her people. The name “Esther” was also significant. Its Persian roots connect it to the word “star” which she certainly rose to be. Interestingly enough, the name “Esther” also has Hebrew roots, but those Hebrew roots mean “hidden.”
Esther’s names, with their many meanings, all tell her story very well. It also connects her back to Christ.
Esther was placed in a position to save her people. So much of her identity was “hidden” so that she could fulfill her role to save her people. Had her true identity been known, she may have been barred from being queen due to prejudice.
In the Old Testament, Christ is known as Jehovah, a latinized version of “YHWH.” This means, “I am.” It is a powerful statement of our Creator. It emphasizes self-existence, sovereignty, and eternal nature. When He comes to the earth, His name is revealed to Mary as “Jesus.” Jesus is the English version of Yeshua, which is a shortened version of Yehoshua. Yehoshua means “YHWH saves.”
When Christ came to earth, He did so quietly. Much of His identity was hidden. It was so hidden that the people in Nazareth, who knew Him while He was growing up, rejected Him thoroughly. They were angry when He claimed divine authority and purpose, and they tried to kill Him. If He had come in all of His glory, would things have been different? How would they have felt about Him then?
If He had come in all of His glory, He might not have been rejected and put in a position to save us.
On a broader note than Nazareth, many of the Jews didn’t recognize Him. They were looking for a powerful rebel who would throw off the Roman empire. They did not understand that Jesus was coming to save them in a more important way. Because He didn’t come in all of the glory that was due to Him, He was betrayed and rejected.
And though He didn’t deserve it, we needed it. We needed His true identity to be rejected so that He would be able to fulfill His atonement on our behalf. His “hidden” identity placed Him in a position to save the entirety of the human family.
Let’s take it a step further.
Esther’s hidden identity placed her in a position to save her people, but it wasn’t just her hidden identity. It was also her humility. Because of her docile and peaceful nature, the king really liked her. When she entered the throne room, the king extended his scepter towards her, sparing her life. Even after being spared, her humility continued. Rather than making a big fuss in the middle of court, she invited the king and Haman to a banquet. At the banquet, her request on behalf of her people was not widely viewed.
This likewise ties her to Christ.
When Christ saved the world, He did it quietly and without fanfare. As He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane, He may have had an audience on the other side of the veil, but they were likewise hidden. His only companions fell asleep, and Christ accomplished His mission humbly. When it was all over, His success remained quiet as He was betrayed and taken to die. Not even His apostles seemed to understand just what He accomplished in that garden.
Both Esther and Christ had identities that were hidden that placed them in a position to save. Both Esther and Christ did so quietly and humbly, and this likewise enabled them to fulfill their missions.
What does this mean for us?
Each of us has a mission given to us by the Lord. We made promises before we came here. The Lord can place us in the position we need to be in to set us up for our mission. Regardless of whether we are born as an exiled, lowly orphan or born in a stable, He has the power to place us exactly where we need to be. Though it is counterintuitive, sometimes it is the very humble circumstances we are given that enables us to fulfill our own personal missions. Christ utilized kings like Cyrus and Hezekiah to save His people, but He also used those in the humblest circumstances to save His people. None of your circumstances matter; those are easy enough for the Lord to manipulate. What truly matters is whether you’re following the Savior.
Your mission may be quiet and humble, but if that is the case, then you are in good company. We don’t have to go over a loudspeaker to save His people. It doesn’t have to look outwardly dramatic. It doesn’t have to be filmed or livestreamed or hold a huge audience. We simply have to be willing to follow the Savior, and He will lead us to do good.
I testify that we can learn about Christ when we study the scriptures. I testify that everything was set up perfectly for Him to save us, not just with the alignment of circumstances in the New Testament, but also in your own personal life. There is a Plan of Salvation at large, and it has been successfully won. There is also a Plan of Salvation for you, and through the power of God, the circumstances can align for Him to save you too. We can trust Him.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Esther – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Esther – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
Mordecai as a Type of Heavenly Fatherby Autumn Dickson
The book of Esther is generally well-known. A Jewish orphan finds herself in the harem of the king, and she becomes queen after winning his favor. A plot against the Jews unfolds, and all of them are going to be destroyed. At the peril of her life, she stands before the king and invites him to the banquet to plead on behalf of her people.
It is very easy to see how Esther is a type of Christ. She intercedes on behalf of her people. She is willing to die in order to do it. She delivers the Jews from death; she gives them a fighting chance. She “rises” on the third day of fasting to go to the king on behalf of delivering her people. There are many parallels that we could talk about.
But after pondering on the fact that Esther is a type of Christ, it occurred to me that Mordecai is a type of Heavenly Father. It’s not a perfect parallel, but there are two details that point to Mordecai being a type of the Father.
Esther 2:7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter.
Esther was an orphan, and Mordecai raised her. He loved her. After Esther was taken by Persian soldiers, he walks in front of harem court to check on her everyday. In all the important ways, he was her father.
And then, of course, there was this parallel.
Mordecai asks Esther to intercede on behalf of the Jewish people. She responds that it might kill her. He responds with this verse.
Esther 4:14 For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?
Mordecai warns that deliverance will come from elsewhere, but that she might not escape in the king’s court. He encourages her to risk herself, and we get his famous line that suggests she had been placed in a very specific place where she was capable of saving the kingdom.
I love this little parallel too. Christ likewise asked for the cup to be passed by Him in the Garden of Gethsemane, but He willingly took it when it was presented before Him.
But it’s actually Mordecai that I want to talk about.
As Latter-day Saints, we believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are two separate Beings. If it is true, then this is actually a very important theology. Combining them into one Personage, completely eliminates the sacrifice of the Father. There is great love in sacrificing yourself; there is also immense love in allowing your loved one to be sacrificed.
But unlike with Esther, where deliverance would have risen from elsewhere, there was no one else to save us but Christ.
Heavenly Father could have stopped the atonement of Jesus Christ because of His great love for His Son, but He didn’t. He allowed Him to be sacrificed. This is no small thing, and we can’t afford to look over Heavenly Father’s sacrifice.
Mordecai understood what it meant to sacrifice a child. Despite the fact that he had likely been moved upon by the spirit to help him see that Esther had been set up to save her people, I can’t imagine that there weren’t nagging little feelings. Did Mordecai ever think, “What if I ask her to do this and I’m simply sending her to her death for nothing? What if the Lord has a different means of deliverance but Esther is simply killed because I asked her to approach the king? What if her death is my fault?”
Obviously, Heavenly Father knew what the sacrifice of Christ was really going to entail. However, Mordecai’s experience of worrying over Esther helped him get a better taste of what Heavenly Father experienced as He watched His Son suffer.
I’ve never been asked to sacrifice a child on behalf of the world or even a nation (or at all). Because I’ve never been asked to sacrifice in this manner, I can only imagine what Heavenly Father felt when He allowed the Savior to take on the sins and pains of the rest of us. Mordecai has a better understanding of what Heavenly Father went through.
Esther was separated from her family and taken into the Persian court, a place of danger and intrigue. When Mordecai asked her to go walk into that court and face death, he was asking her to do it alone. Her handmaidens fast with her, but when she truly goes in to face her death, there is no mention of anyone standing with her.
Heavenly Father likewise had to completely withdraw from His Son in order to complete the atonement. Christ had to understand what it meant to be truly rejected by God in order to fulfil the atonement completely. Not only did Heavenly Father have to ask the Savior to suffer what He did, Heavenly Father had to leave His Son to do it alone.
We cannot overlook what Heavenly Father did for us without robbing ourselves of the chance to be grateful. We cannot combine them into one Personage without running the risk of completely disregarding the sacrifice of our Heavenly Father. The story of the atonement of Jesus Christ is a story of sacrifice. Christ willingly laid Himself upon the altar, but there is One who loved Christ who also allowed it to happen.
And honestly, I rather lay down on the altar than ask my child to do it. But in the case of Heavenly Father, He couldn’t. He simply had to let Christ do it.
The atonement of Jesus Christ preaches great love in the form of self-sacrifice. It preaches love in the form of watching a loved one suffer. Is there any greater love than that?
I testify that Christ loves us and volunteered to do what He did. I testify that when Heavenly Father asked who He could send down to the earth to perform the atonement, He knew that only Christ could do so. Christ 100% volunteered, but Heavenly Father knew what He was asking for. I testify that Heavenly Father loved us enough to ask His perfect Son to do that. Between the two of Them, I can think of no greater love that has been offered to us.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Esther – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Covenants, Gospel, and Protectionby Autumn Dickson
In the readings this week, we find three changes for the Jews under the kings in Persia. There were three men who helped with these changes.
First, we have Zerubbabel, a Jewish governor who worked tirelessly to build the temple.
Ezra 5:2 Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them.
Then we have Ezra who taught the people the Law of Moses.
Nehemiah 8:2-3
2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.
And lastly, we have Nehemiah who rebuilt the wall around Jerusalem.
Nehemiah 2:17 Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach.
I want to talk about these three elements of the Jews returning to their homeland and why it’s so relevant to the Lord working with us in our day.
The three elements are this: covenants, gospel, and protection.
When the Lord is seeking to build us and sanctify us and bring us to Him, those are the three elements He uses.
It starts with the covenants. Covenants are promises to and from the Lord. They bind us to Him in significant ways and offer us protection. It gives us access to Christ’s power. When I think of a covenant with Christ, I always think of it in terms of marriage covenants. Christ often uses the allusion of marriage to describe His relationship with us as well.
When two people get married, they make promises to each other. They’re going to stand by each other even in imperfection and trial. Traditionally, their finances also merge. Whatever debt or surplus they bring is combined. When we enter into a covenant with Christ, we promise to stand by Him, and He promises to stand by us even in imperfection and trial. Our “finances” merge with His. All of our debt is erased by His infinite surplus but beyond that, we have constant access to that surplus to call upon in times of need or want.
This is the first step. We cannot be saved without Christ. We need to be bound to Him in a way that enables Him to save us. Hence, covenants. Hence, Zerubbabel and the temple.
The next portion of rebuilding Jerusalem was the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is often described as the “preparatory gospel.” It helped the people start to figure out Christ and what He meant in their lives. All of the rituals and remembrances were put in place to help them better understand Christ’s role.
In our day, the Law of Moses is fulfilled and we have the gospel. The gospel, with all of its truth, is taught to us regularly so we can understand Christ in our lives. What good is being bound to Christ if we don’t know the point of Him? What good will a covenant do me if I don’t know that my sins are paid for and I don’t know that I can draw upon His strength and peace and power? We need the covenant, but we also need the information that enables us to draw upon Christ and take effect in our life.
The last portion of rebuilding Jerusalem was the wall. City walls were tremendously important. When the walls of Jericho fell, the Israelites were able to immediately take the city. The walls around Jerusalem offered protection from enemies who would want to hurt what was inside of the city.
It would be easy to put “protection” under the umbrella of covenants and gospel learning, and it would likewise be accurate to do so. Covenants protect us; covenants are our promises that allow us to call upon Christ in need. That is definitely protection. Gospel learning protects us; understanding our Savior and His love and power keeps us close to Him where we can remain safe.
But I want to separate the wall from the temple and Law of Moses readings in order to highlight specific portions of protection.
Joseph Smith taught the following regarding the gospel:
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.
The gospel (Ezra and the Law of Moses equivalent) is that the apostles and prophets testify of Christ and His mission; everything else is an appendage. The church is an appendage, an important and beautiful appendage, but it is separate. This is what I’m thinking of when I picture the wall around Jerusalem.
There are additions to the covenants and gospel that protect us. For example, commandments protect us. The Word of Wisdom protects us from all of the terrible things that can happen when you don’t have complete control over your body. The spirit of revelation protects us by warning us about certain situations or leading us towards where we need to be. There are a ton of different church programs that put us in safe and holy places to protect us.
City walls were not foolproof. Christ could make our “walls” foolproof, but part of mortality was opposition. Sometimes we leave the walls and find ourselves in trouble. Sometimes the trouble finds us even when we stay behind the walls. However, city walls still provide more protection than we would otherwise have. Not to mention, when an enemy breaches the gate, we still have complete access to our temple covenants and gospel knowledge and that heals us. The opposition hopefully pushes us closer to Christ so that no lasting damage can be done.
The stories we find in Ezra and Nehemiah have these overarching themes that point our minds back to Christ and what’s important to Him. We see His patterns. We see what He utilizes when He’s trying to build us and sanctify us: covenants, the gospel, and spiritual protective barriers.
I testify that the scriptures contain beautiful messages that teach us about God’s plans and purposes for us. I testify that Christ offers Himself to us by giving us covenants, knowledge concerning His gospel, and specific protections that build a barrier between us and our enemies. I testify that Heavenly Father thought of everything when He came up with His plan, and I testify that He is purposeful in preparing us to come home.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Ezra 1; 3–7; Nehemiah 2; 4–6; 8– Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Ezra 1; 3–7; Nehemiah 2; 4–6; 8 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
95 Years of Waitingby Autumn Dickson
I’m going to give you a bit of a timeline to help you follow what is going on with these chapters. The bible is not chronological, and so it can get confusing. There are different names for the same people, and different names for the same ethnicity of people. Ezra also jumps around which isn’t particularly helpful. So here is a brief timeline to help you keep track of where we’re at.
There are three main waves of Jews returning to Jerusalem.
Context: Babylonians were the ones who took Jews away from their homeland. Cyrus easily defeats Babylon, and now Persia is in charge with a more tolerant hand.
The first wave happens with Zerubbabel, a Jewish governor, and Jeshua (Joshua) is the priest who helps with the religious portion of returning to Jerusalem. This happens under Cyrus, and the temple foundation is laid. About 50,000 people have returned, and they brought sacred temple treasures with them. Opposition stalls the rebuilding of the temple.
Cyrus has a son, but he’s not mentioned much and there is simply more stalling that occurs from local opposition.
Then Darius takes over, and he finds Cyrus’ decree to let the Jews go back and build. The work resumes. It is still Zerubbabel and Jeshua who are leading the rebuilding. The temple is completed, and Passover is celebrated. Haggai and Zechariah were prophets who became involved at this stage in urging the continuation of rebuilding.
Xerxes comes onto the throne. He is also known as Ahasuerus. Jewish rapport is building in high places within Persia, and this is the king who marries Esther.
Now we get our second wave of people returning to Jerusalem. Artaxerxes comes on to the throne. He is sympathetic to Jews, possibly influenced by Esther. Ezra is part of this second wave, and he goes and starts teaching the Law of Moses again. Unfortunately, letters of opposition once again stop the work.
Then there is our third wave. Thirteen years later, Nehemiah gains sympathy from Artaxerxes. He is the cup-bearer, and the king notices Nehemiah is sad. He allows Nehemiah to go and build the wall (which affords great stability and protection to the Jews against all of the local opposition). The king even gives Nehemiah resources to do so. Despite continued opposition, Nehemiah finishes the wall in 52 days. The people celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.
This entire timeline, from the first wave of Jews under Cyrus to when Nehemiah finishes building the wall around Jerusalem, occurs over approximately 95 years. 95 years of waiting. There were 70 years of exile under Babylon, and then there was another 95 years of waiting until they truly got any momentum in rebuilding their home.
Despite the decrees of kings, the Jews found their work halted again and again and again by local enemies, primarily the Samaritans who held long-standing rivalries with Judah.
And maybe that’s my message this week. The Lord is patient even when we’re anxious to reach our happy ending. Maybe we keep finding moments where we’ve finally “made it” only to have things fall apart again. Perhaps we find ourselves in the trenches, and it feels like no one is listening.
God knew exactly where His people were, and He was not as worried about rebuilding His temple as He was about rebuilding His people. After all, the temple isn’t the end-all. The temple is a tool to get to the end-all: a redeemed House of Israel.
Perhaps it’s time to realign our goals with the Lord.
I’m going to keep referring to the goal of “rebuilding the temple and walls of Jerusalem,” but you can insert whatever goals you’re currently working towards.
I’m sure it was discouraging for the Jews to face all of that opposition. I’m sure it was discouraging every time a page turned, and they thought it was “finally time.” Perhaps they kept thinking, “This is it,” only to get halted all over again. I wonder if they felt like they were taking one step forward and ten steps back.
Interestingly enough, the Lord sees the entire process differently. Where you see ten steps back, He sees 11 steps in the correct direction for His goal. The Lord wasn’t just rebuilding Jerusalem; He was rebuilding His people. And despite the fact that it likely made them feel broken down, those trials were an important part of their refining process. He was making them powerful by helping them face obstacle after obstacle.
I can only imagine how much more they appreciated their home because of how much longer it took to rebuild it, and that was really the successful part for the Lord. They had a holy city, but more importantly, He had a people who loved their holy city.
If you’re struggling to find peace in the midst of the ups and downs of trying to find your “happy ending,” might I make a recommendation?
Prayer.
Prayer is not about changing the Lord’s mind or getting yourself out of a situation. Prayer is about talking with the Lord so that you see the way that He sees. So turn to prayer; not just so you can ask Him to save you but so that you can see how He is actively working within your life. Perhaps He might even show you how the seeming setbacks are the exact stepping stones you need. He has a glorious goal in mind: you.
I testify that the Lord remains with us through the ups and downs. I testify that even when we’re doing His work, He purposefully allows for opposition because opposition is an important ingredient for His goal. He can’t accomplish His goal without that opposition so don’t despair. It’s all part of the plan. He loves you. He’s got this. He knows exactly what He’s doing.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Ezra 1; 3–7; Nehemiah 2; 4–6; 8– Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Turn Back to Godby Autumn Dickson
Time for another Old Testament story.
Jehoshaphat is a king of Judah. He is a righteous king who worked on pushing the hearts of his people towards the Lord. He tears down idols. He seeks out the will of the Lord. He’s a good man, though imperfect at times.
At one point in time, Jehoshaphat finds himself in Israel with his ally, the wicked King Ahab. Ahab wants to go fight Syria to recapture a city that was taken from Israel. Jehoshaphat agrees but wants to consult a prophet first. After consulting 400 false prophets who declare that they will be victorious, Jehoshaphat insists on consulting a true prophet.
The true prophet, Micaiah, comes and prophesies that they will lose and Ahab will die. Micaiah is actually quite awesome, but he is a story for another day.
Despite Micaiah’s prophecies, Ahab and Jehoshaphat try to fight Syria. It obviously doesn’t go very well. Ahab tells Jehoshaphat to wear royal robes, and Ahab dresses like a common soldier. Syria immediately starts trying to kill Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat calls out to the Lord and is saved. Ahab takes a random arrow and dies.
Jehoshaphat returns home and is greeted by a prophet from his own kingdom.
2 Chronicles 19:2-3
2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord.
3 Nevertheless there are good things found in thee, in that thou hast taken away the groves out of the land, and hast prepared thine heart to seek God.
After this experience, Jehoshaphat continues to make reforms to point his people towards the Lord. Jehoshaphat was not a perfect king, but he was a good king. In the Old Testament, we read a lot about the Lord punishing disobedience quickly and strongly. There is a reason for that; the Lord is warning us about the spiritual consequences of disobedience. And yet, the Lord doesn’t do this with Jehoshaphat despite his multiple recorded failings.
We see Jehoshaphat’s weakness a few more times over his reign.
Later on, Jehoshaphat makes another alliance with Ahab’s son, the new king of Israel. They built a bunch of ships together, and the prophet, Eliezer, prophesies that the ships will get destroyed. They get destroyed.
One of the ways that these two nations were allied was through a marriage. Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram, marries Ahab’s daughter. It comes back to haunt Jehoshaphat later when Jehoram starts worshipping idols and Ahab’s daughter tries to wipe out the Davidic line.
I love the nuance here.
Jehoshaphat made mistakes, but God spares him. He has weaknesses; he keeps trying to connect himself further with the northern kingdom that is wicked and idolatrous. There are two “despites” here that teach something really important.
Despite the fact that Jehoshaphat loves God, his disobedience and lack of trust come back to bite him. He loves God, but he has to experience consequences because of his flaws.
Despite the fact that Jehoshaphat has flaws, God continues to save him. He is directly saved in the battle that he fought with King Ahab, but he is preserved upon the throne until he “rested with his ancestors.” This is a biblical phrase that suggests he died peacefully.
I see it in my own life all the time. Despite the fact that I love God, I have flaws and they come with consequences. They drive me to be unhappy. When I get frustrated with my kids or get prideful or uncharitable, I find innate consequences that come back to bite me.
And yet, despite the fact that I have flaws, God continues to save me. We just keep on trying to move forward.
As I pondered this pattern, I thought of some of the other patterns I find in the Old Testament, specifically the pattern where God punishes those who trust mankind over Him. We see examples of kings that trusted Egypt but found themselves completely fallen to Babylon. Why didn’t Jehoshaphat find himself in this category? As I pondered Jehoshaphat’s exception, I was reminded that Hezekiah is another example of this. Hezekiah tried paying tribute to Babylon to get them to go away, and he even stripped the gold and silver out of the temple in order to pay that tribute.
So why were Hezekiah and Jehoshaphat spared when they also didn’t put their trust fully in God?
There is one more verse I want to share. It’s about Jehoshaphat, but Hezekiah did a similar thing.
2 Chronicles 18:31 And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, It is the king of Israel. Therefore they compassed about him to fight: but Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him; and God moved them to depart from him.
What was the difference? Jehoshaphat called out to God. Hezekiah did similarly. After stripping the temple and failing, Hezekiah went to the temple and pleaded with the Lord.
When do we really lose the battle? When we turn on the Lord and don’t turn back to Him again after.
I think that’s really one of the keys to life here. We all fail. It’s inevitable. What keeps us in the pattern of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah? We turn to the Lord again even after we failed Him. We plead to Him and ask for forgiveness even in the midst of the potentially devastating consequences that we got ourselves into.
We just keep turning back, no matter how many times we’ve failed.
I testify that we can turn to God, no matter how many times we’ve failed. I testify that this pattern is the one that really grants us success: turning to the Lord over and over and over and over. Even when we’ve failed Him, we turn right back. We trust that He will still love us, and we ask Him to help us get out of it and get better.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Chronicles 14–20; 26; 30 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Chronicles 14–20; 26; 30 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
God loves to make us work for itby Autumn Dickson
Asa is one of the kings we read about this week. He was a king of Judah, the southern kingdom. He starts out his reign really strong, tearing down idol worship and deposing his own grandmother who worshipped idols. He encouraged people to seek the Lord. Unfortunately, he also took a turn for the worse and started trusting in human solutions over God, and he died.
There is one verse in the midst of his story that I want to share.
2 Chronicles 14:6-7
6 And he built fenced cities in Judah: for the land had rest, and he had no war in those years; because the Lord had given him rest.
7 Therefore he said unto Judah, Let us build these cities, and make about them walls, and towers, gates, and bars, while the land is yet before us; because we have sought the Lord our God, we have sought him, and he hath given us rest on every side. So they built and prospered.
Asa had a time of peace during his reign, and in the midst of this peace, he built fortified cities in Judah.
Asa goes on to face an Ethiopian army, and he is vastly outnumbered. As he faces his enemy, he cries out to God.
2 Chronicles 14:11 And Asa cried unto the Lord his God, and said, Lord, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O Lord our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O Lord, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee.
The Lord proceeds to smite the Ethiopians, and they are driven back.
So here is my question…why did they fortify their cities?
Over and over and over again in the Old Testament we read about this same pattern. The Israelites (or in this case, Judah specifically), do all of the things only to have the Lord completely fight their battles.
The Lord parted the Red Sea. He made the walls of Jericho come down. He struck down 185,000 Assyrians outside Jerusalem’s walls during Hezekiah’s reign. This is a consistent pattern throughout scripture. The Lord fights the battles. Entire armies are defeated or become confused or simply flee.
So why bother even fortifying the cities?
Even in this specific story where the Lord defeats an army of a million Ethiopians, it doesn’t say that the fortified cities made a difference in the slightest. So why? Why fortify the city when the Lord defeats the enemy?
The only way I can think to explain it is this: chores.
Every Monday, our house gets totally cleaned. Bathrooms, mopping, dusting, vacuuming, all of it. Then, throughout the week, my three oldest kids are assigned one chore a day. It is usually the same list of chores that is done on Monday.
I remember watching my four year old wipe down the mirrors in the bathroom on Tuesday. That mirror went from clean to streaked in no time flat. My soul kinda died a little bit watching her make the mirror dirtier, and then it died a little more when I had to sneak back in to clean it a third time in two days.
But. I have to remind myself that it’s not about a clean mirror. It’s about a healthy, growing child. She doesn’t clean the mirror so that I can have a clean mirror (obviously). She cleans the mirror so that she learns how to clean a mirror (eventually).
The Lord paid for our sins. He paid for the sin you committed years ago, the sin you committed yesterday, the sin you’re going to commit today, and the sin you’re going to commit years into the future. The mirror is already clean.
But He still asks us to learn how to clean a mirror. Even when we’re actually just making the mirror dirtier again or when we’re cleaning an already clean mirror.
Being saved means you’re clean again, and to some extent, all of us will be saved in some degree of glory. Being saved means you’re clean, but being exalted means you grew up.
And that’s important because it determines our level of happiness.
There is inherent worth in knowing how to clean a mirror. There is inherent worth in learning how to fortify your city and do labor. There is inherent worth in growth even if it’s not actually contributing to anything yet. There is inherent worth in work even when it’s not paying for our salvation.
The Lord saves us. He cleaned the mirror. He protected His people throughout the scriptures.
But He asks us to learn how to clean the mirror because we won’t find happiness unless we know how. Some of the most miserable people I know are the ones who don’t appreciate the value of working hard. It won’t do you much good for the Lord to save you if you’re still miserable, and He’s not going to hook you up to constant happy drugs in heaven. Where do you think happiness comes from? It doesn’t really come from the mirror simply being clean. It comes from growing, and the clean mirror enables you to live with God again.
So we follow the Lord and His commandments so we learn how to be happy, and then He pays for the whole experience. He cleanses us so we can return to live with Him, and we return with the knowledge and experience required to find deep and lasting joy.
I’m grateful for the scriptures that teach true doctrine. I’m grateful that I get to watch these patterns over and over and over throughout the Old Testament. The Lord does the work, but then He asks us to grow. I see it everywhere. I’m grateful He paid the price for me to get messy and come home with the knowledge and experience I need. I’m grateful that I get to learn, through my own experience, the good from the evil. I testify that the Lord saves, and I also testify that He gives commandments for our good.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Chronicles 14–20; 26; 30 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
When You Have Nothing but Godby Autumn Dickson
This week, we find a righteous but imperfect man surrounded by legitimate reasons to be afraid. How do you respond when you’ve been backed into a corner? Let’s talk about how Hezekiah responded.
Hezekiah was a righteous king especially when contrasted with his wicked father, Ahaz. When Hezekiah rose to the throne, he threw out all of the idolatry and tore down all of the false places and altars of worship. He was reforming Judah, and he was helping them repent and turn back to the Lord.
Assyria was a superpower in the ancient world. They had just dominated the northern kingdom of Israel, and they set their sights on Judah next.
I am a firm believer that the Lord protects the righteous. It’s one of the main themes of The Book of Mormon, and yet, we see something interesting happen here. Judah is not completely protected. Assyria is able to take some of their fortified cities, and Hezekiah responds by offering to pay them a tribute to go away. In order to afford the tribute required by Assyrian, Hezekiah strips the temple.
It doesn’t work. Assyria sticks around.
One of the Assyrian commanders comes to the walls of the city and starts speaking in Hebrew so that the people of Jerusalem can fully understand the danger they’re in. It’s psychological warfare, and the people respond with silence as instructed by Hezekiah.
Hezekiah responds differently this time. He covers himself in sackcloth and ashes and goes to the temple to pray to the Lord. He prays and tells the Lord, “They’re mocking Thee. Show them who You are.” The Lord does. He slays 185,000 soldiers in the Assyrian army, and Sennacherib goes home to be assassinated by his sons.
We get to see Judah change and repent at this particular period in time. There are many good details; let’s cover a few.
Detail one. The Lord allows Assyria to defeat some of the fortified cities in Judah.
Judah was in the process of repenting. Hezekiah had torn down a lot of the idolatry, and this was incredible faith. Unfortunately, Judah had a long history of turning away from the Lord. Losing these cities was not an indication of the Lord being powerless. It was about discipline so that Judah could learn.
I actually find it really poetic that the fortified cities were conquered, but Jerusalem remained. What was in Jerusalem?
The temple.
The kingdom of Judah was being stripped down to its center, specifically to that covenant relationship that it held with the Lord.
I’ve seen this kind of repentance in my own life. I didn’t actually recognize it until a couple of days ago as I sat in my car in a parking lot. There was once a time when the Lord dismantled huge parts of who I used to be in order to make way for more important things.
Music used to be the most important thing in my life. I would drive down the highway, listen to some good country songs, and I always felt like I was on fire. It was such a strong feeling. So much of my identity revolved around music. There were a lot of reasons I was worried about getting married and starting a family, but I actually think music was a huge portion of those reasons. I didn’t want to sacrifice music.
Music was taken away from me. I stopped college to try and be a musician. I was working in the industry. I was entering competitions and playing small shows. I did it for months. Then it all collapsed a bit. I was surrounded by darkness, both within my own mind and in what I had surrounded myself with.
After being separated from that dark period, I put up a barrier between me and music. It didn’t touch me like it used to. I couldn’t write anything anymore. It was too associated with darkness.
As I sat in my car pondering this, I found myself bawling my eyes out that the Lord had taken it away. Only, I was bawling in gratitude not in despair. Music is powerful and wonderful and I don’t think I’m done with it yet. However, it had become an idol to me. I needed it taken away because the Lord had something much more important in mind. If I had kept music, regardless of whether I was successful or not, I think it would have prevented me from fully stepping into more divine callings. I wouldn’t have had room for these other things that the Lord wanted to give me.
Would I have willingly chosen children or resented them? Would I have ever had time to bear my testimony in the capacity that I do now? Would I even have been able to enjoy my role as a wife as much as I do now if music hadn’t been taken away from me?
I can’t totally be sure, but I think music would have robbed me of those things. I was that obsessed. It was an idol. I know that’s not the case for other musicians, but it was for me. It would have kept me from some of the most important parts of my life.
As I think about the beautiful life I’ve been given, it makes me sick to think that I could have missed it.
The Lord stripped away all of these parts of me that felt so important, and He left just Himself and His covenant with me. With all of the problems I had accumulated combined with the music having been taken away, there wasn’t much of me left. Just a covenant.
And the Lord upheld that covenant. He somehow got me on a mission and gave me my family. He had to remove all of that other stuff so that He could build something better with nothing but the covenant protection He had given me.
Detail two. Hezekiah goes from stripping the temple of riches to praying in it.
Hezekiah originally tried to give money over to Assyria to get them to leave, and it didn’t work. They camped outside of Jerusalem. He doesn’t make the same mistake twice. Hezekiah receives a letter telling him, “Don’t trust anyone who tells you that your God can save you. We’ve defeated so many other gods before you.”
Hezekiah had overturned altars and torn down idolatrous images in Judah; he did all the things. Now he gets to prove how much he really trusts the God of his fathers. Hezekiah tells the Lord that the Assyrians have done all of these major feats of strength and power, but Hezekiah also acknowledges that it is only the power of mankind. He continues his beautiful prayer with this sentiment.
2 Kings 19:19 Now therefore, O Lord our God, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God, even thou only.
He implores the Lord to show the Assyrians who the true God is.
This isn’t about saving his own skin anymore. Hezekiah’s heart has turned towards God’s glory. That is the result he wants: God’s glory.
God shows up with a whole lot of glory, and He shows Judah and the rest of the world who holds the real power.
Hezekiah repented. He spiritually up-levelled. He went from knocking down idols to facing fear with nothing but his trust in God’s covenants with Judah. He went from fear of losing his life and kingdom to simply wanting the glory of God. He stood to lose a lot in facing off with Syria, but he chose trust and it saved him.
I testify that a covenant relationship with Christ is a powerful foundation. I testify that sometimes the Lord strips away parts of us that feel so important so that He can uncover that foundation and start anew with something more powerful. I testify that spiritually maturing means stepping into trust, and I testify that trusting in God saves us. It’s not enough to keep the commandments and do the things. Hezekiah did the things, and they were SO important and necessary, but even that was not enough. Hezekiah still had to trust, and that was what turned the tides of Judah. It can turn the tide for you.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Kings 16–25 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Start HereQuestionWhy did King Josiah remove objects from the temple?
Short AnswerKing Josiah removed temple objects because many had become closely associated with pagan worship and Assyrian religious practices. Rather than rejecting the temple itself, he sought to restore covenant worship by removing symbols that no longer pointed people toward God. According to this episode, these reforms represented spiritual cleansing and covenant renewal rather than political power or religious innovation.
Key Takeaways* King Josiah inherited Judah during a period of political, economic, and spiritual collapse. * The rediscovery of the Book of the Law sparked a national covenant renewal rather than the creation of a new religion. * Many temple objects Josiah removed had become symbols of idolatry under Assyrian influence. * Jeremiah praised Josiah for defending the poor, seeking justice, and remaining faithful to God’s covenant. * Josiah’s death at Megiddo marked the end of Judah’s last righteous king before the Babylonian captivity. Continue readingThe post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Kings 16–25 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
Learning to Accept the Lord’s Consequencesby Autumn Dickson
For a few weeks, two of my kids were really struggling. They would fly off the handle at little provocations. I would ask them to do things, and they would throw a fit (or throw other things). It was beyond normal kid misbehavior. I still don’t know whether it was a phase or something going on at school. I tried hard to figure it out, but couldn’t.
After trying to connect with them first, we ended up just spending a lot of time in our rooms. If they made my home miserable, they were going to spend time in their room. My normal philosophy is that as soon as they are truly repentant, they can come out. As soon as their ready to be part of the family, they can come join the family.
Unfortunately, it didn’t seem to be cutting it.
So we spent extra time in our rooms for just a couple of days. Some days, they would spend the whole afternoon into the evening in their rooms, and I would bring them dinner. There was one day where Warner tried talking to me through the door. He asked me, “Mom why are you being so mean? I’m sorry. Can I come out?” I had let him out previously, and we ended up exactly where we were within minutes. So he stayed.
There are a lot of moments in parenting where you question whether you’re getting it right. This was definitely one of those times. I didn’t know what my kids needed in order to turn themselves around and choose happiness, but I had exhausted other options so we were trying this one.
The spirit was super kind and as I walked away from their doors, a verse was brought to mind. In Mosiah 21, we learn that the Lord was slow to hear the cries of His people because of their iniquities. The Lord is perfectly loving, and He made a perfectly appropriate choice to be slow in responding to their cries.
Sometimes we need to sit with the discomfort a little bit longer in order for the lesson to sink in.
After a couple days of this torture (for them and for me), we finally started controlling our tempers and choices again. My home isn’t perfect, but it’s definitely more peaceful than it was for those couple of weeks.
This week in the Old Testament, we read about some people who found themselves in similar situations. I want to specifically talk about Zedekiah.
I want to tell Zedekiah’s story. Many of the details are actually found in the book of Jeremiah who was the prophet at the time of Zedekiah.
At this point in our timeline, the southern kingdom of Judah has been conquered by Babylon. Babylon puts Zedekiah in as a puppet king. Zedekiah swears an oath of loyalty to Babylon. Zedekiah reigns for a total period of 11 years. Around year 9, he starts rebelling against Babylon. He stops paying tribute and seeks help from Egypt. Most importantly, he ignores warnings from the prophet, Jeremiah.
Over and over and over and over, Jeremiah warns Zedekiah to bow down to Babylon. Zedekiah receives a very clear warning: submit or the city will be destroyed. Egypt will not save you.
Unfortunately, Zedekiah believes Jeremiah, but he keeps rebelling against Babylon anyway. He pays the price for it.
2 Kings 25:6-7
6 So they took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment upon him.
7 And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.
Zedekiah’s sons were killed, and he was blinded.
The principle I want to teach in this post requires highlighting a very specific fact: Judah’s subservience to Babylon was a direct result of breaking their covenants. Judah needed to repent, and the Lord sent Babylon to help them do it. Apparently, their repentance process was not quite over. The Lord was slow to hear their cries. They were not going to be immediately delivered from consequences because the Lord knew what they truly needed.
Judah was unimpressed with the Lord’s choices, rebelled against their consequences, and found even deeper consequences.
Sometimes when we’ve found ourselves entrenched in the consequences of sin, we bristle against it. We get tired and want to throw it off. We believe that surely, we’ve repented enough. We can move on. We can do what we want again. We don’t want to deal with the pain or humiliation anymore. I think of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies who almost broke their covenant and went back into battle. I think of the consequences of addiction and the continuous maintenance of keeping yourself clean. I think of people who believe it’s easier to walk away from the church completely than to try and keep working towards worthiness.
We rebel. We find consequences so that the Lord can soften our hearts and reach us. We are annoyed by the consequences, and we find ourselves in deeper trouble than before. We blame the Lord instead of recognizing His desire to help us step in a better direction.
The kingdom of Judah hated being a vassal state of Babylon. The leaders and priests found it humiliating and degrading. They did not want their consequences anymore, and it cost them dearly.
Consequences are not fun, but they are there for a reason. The Lord doesn’t hand out consequences generously to uphold His own control. No, the Lord gives them out as necessary to get us to turn our hearts around. Consequences are a gift and bristling underneath them only drags out the pain further. It doesn’t necessarily make the consequence longer, but it does drag out the pain. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Think of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. They were about to break their pacifist covenants when they saw the Nephites suffering on their behalf. The consequences of their past violence was that they needed to keep their “swords bright.” They couldn’t stain them with blood again.
The Anti-Nephi-Lehies had changed hearts. They were hurting for their Nephite brothers. The consequences were too much to bear. And then I can imagine that it only got worse when their young sons volunteered to go in their place. Can you imagine the grief that filled their hearts? Can you imagine the regret they felt over past actions that kept them from defending their sons?
The consequences were REAL.
But they accepted the consequences and let their sons go. And because this is the gospel of Jesus Christ, we get a happy ending. The sons were all protected. They performed miracles. They made their fathers and mothers proud. And what’s more? They probably developed an intense testimony because of their experiences.
The fathers submitted to the consequences of their actions and because of the atonement of Jesus Christ, their submission to the ongoing repentance process became a blessing to them and their families.
Any pain they might have felt at sending their boys off surely paled in comparison to the joy they felt at watching their sons come home as incredible, powerful, spiritually gigantic men.
Zedekiah bucked against his consequences, and in doing so, told the Lord that he still needed his consequences. He hadn’t learned anything yet.
Consequences are not fun, but I testify that they are signs and reminders of the love of our Father in Heaven. He wants us to be better because that is the only way to be happier. I testify that the sooner we submit to whatever lessons the Lord is trying to teach us, the sooner we find hope and peace (regardless of whether the lesson continues on). I testify that even if we have to carry consequences the rest of our lives, it is not a sign that the Lord has rejected you. Be patient and submit to what the Lord sent. There is a bright horizon coming.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Kings 16–25 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
The Eternal Significance of Sevenby Autumn Dickson
There are many patterns in the Old Testament. The story of Naaman, the Syrian, falls right in line with one of these patterns.
Naaman was a Syrian captain. The Lord utilized Naaman to deliver Syria. He was a good man, but he was also a leper. A captured Israelite girl resided as a servant in his home. She audibly wishes that Naaman could visit the prophet in Israel because the prophet could cleanse him of his leprosy. The testimony of the captured servant girl reaches Naaman and through a series of diplomatic relations, Naaman finds himself outside of Elisha’s door. Elisha doesn’t come out, but he does send instructions for Naaman.
2 Kings 5:10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.
Naaman is supposed to wash in Jordan seven times. He’s annoyed about these instructions for a number of reasons: Elisha didn’t come out to greet him, the river Jordan isn’t as nice as the rivers in his homeland, and it seems like such a silly thing. Despite his annoyance, his servants are able to convince to wash seven times. He does so, and he is cured of his leprosy.
I actually talked about this story four years ago when I went through Come Follow Me the first time. I talked about how arbitrary it was for Naaman to wash seven times in the river Jordan. I still stand by the principles I taught in that post. However, I am now four years older and wiser, and I have learned that washing in the river seven times is not arbitrary at all. Seven is a very symbolic number.
In the bible, the number seven symbolizes completeness, so let’s look at this story from that angle and let’s also generalize the details just a tad so that they become relatable.
A man wants to be clean (it specifically says that he was “cleansed” from leprosy). He has to go to a prophet to figure out how to be cleaned. The prophet instructs him to “be complete,” and he will be cleansed. He is cleansed.
I think this is so cool.
If we want to be clean in our day and age, the Lord still works through the same patterns. He works through His prophets to point us in the right direction. Through his prophet, we are given instructions. If we follow through on those instructions towards completion, we are cleansed. Naaman’s story is a parallel for receiving salvation.
I was definitely mistaken in thinking that seven was an arbitrary number. However, I actually love that I made the mistake because it led me to an important realization: bathing in the river seven times is not what healed Naaman. I don’t think there was some odd organism in the river that year that ate away at his chronic bacterial infection. I think the Lord healed him for his obedience.
And isn’t that the key here?!
As Latter-day Saints, we believe in salvation through grace. Naaman didn’t actually wash off his leprosy in the river. He was healed by the Lord. It was a gift that was given to him.
But the Lord didn’t cleanse Naaman until after Naaman was obedient in washing seven times, in being “complete.”
Latter-day Saints believe that salvation is a gift; we also believe we will be judged by our actions and whether we followed the Lord. The Lord judges us, cleanses us, and gives us that gift of salvation if He judges us worthy.
We see this same pattern multiple times in the Old Testament. It was the same with the walls of Jericho. The Israelites were instructed by the prophet to circle the city seven times, and the Lord made the walls come down so that they could enter into the promised land. The Israelites didn’t make the walls come down; they were obedient and the Lord judged them and enabled them to enter into the promised land.
We work towards completion, and the Lord cleanses us so that we can enter into the Celestial Kingdom.
So what does it mean to be complete?
There are probably a lot of things to be said about reaching completion, but the first thing that came to mind in this particular moment was the captive Israelite girl.
There were skirmishes along the border of Syria and Israel. Syria would perform raids into Israel, and they would steal women and children and turn them into slaves. This is likely how she came to be a slave in Naaman’s household. She was young. Some biblical scholars believe she was anywhere from 8-14 years old. We know nothing of her family, whether they were killed or put into slavery elsewhere or whether she was simply taken away from them.
What we do know is that she was in a pagan household, and despite her youth, she believed in a prophet in Israel. Belief will take us so far, and yet, she takes it beyond belief. That little servant girl held true compassion. She loved Naaman’s household enough to want Naaman to be cured and okay. Despite the fact that Naaman might have been partially to blame for her slavery, she had compassion.
Completion does not mean perfection. If we specifically strive towards perfection, we often end up discouraged. Instead, I would hope that we strive for completion. In my mind, completion means that we become beings that mirror Christ. We have faith. We have enough love in our hearts that our actions follow suit.
That little servant girl reflected Christ. She loved the very people who betrayed her. Being betrayed enabled her to save Naaman. We don’t know if she had to work through homesickness or anger or deep depression, but we do know she loved. I think that love helped her be complete in the sense that she turned outwards and was like Christ, but I also have the distinct impression that her love healed her. No matter what she went through, that love healed her enough that she could be compassionate.
I testify that the Lord teaches us His gospel in patterns. He teaches His gospel again and again and again through His servants, the prophets. I testify that He is the one who gives salvation to us, and I also testify that doing our best to become the kind of person who reflects Him brings healing and joy and peace into our lives no matter what we’ve been through.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Kings 2–7 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Kings 2–7 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
Faith to Ask; Faith to Acceptby Autumn Dickson
One of our people from this week’s readings is Elisha. He is the prophet who was called after Elijah. We don’t get many of his words or sermons, but we do get to read about many miracles. One of those miracles includes a Shunammite woman who took care of Elisha.
The Shunammite woman recognized Elisha as a man of God despite the fact that she lived in an idolatrous nation. Elisha and the prophet before him, Elijah, both worked to address the sins of the northern kingdom of Israel, but it only went so far. Widespread problems still occurred. Yet despite the widespread sin, the Shunammite woman chose faithfulness.
She constrained Elisha to come in and eat one day. After that first time, he came in to eat as often as he passed by. The Shunammite woman takes it farther and convinces her husband to make up a room for Elisha, and Elisha stays for them some time. Because of her kindness, Elisha prophesies that she will have a son. The son later dies from a tragic reaping accident, and the Shunammite woman goes to see Elijah.
2 Kings 4:22-23
22 And she called unto her husband, and said, Send me, I pray thee, one of the young men, and one of the asses, that I may run to the man of God, and come again.
23 And he said, Wherefore wilt thou go to him to day? it is neither new moon, nor sabbath. And she said, It shall be well.
Her son has died, and she wants to go to the prophet. Her husband asks, “Why are you going to the prophet? It’s not a religious day.” She simply responds, “It will be okay.”
She moves quickly to find Elisha and finds him at Mt. Carmel. Elisha sees her coming and sends his servant to meet her.
2 Kings 4:26 Run now, I pray thee, to meet her, and say unto her, Is it well with thee? is it well with thy husband? is it well with the child? And she answered, It is well.
I want to draw your attention to two details that speak volumes for this woman and teach us valuable lessons about approaching prayer.
Detail one. Her husband didn’t make the connection between the death of his son and his wife’s desire to go and see the prophet. This implies that it didn’t even cross the husband’s mind to ask the prophet for a miracle. It occurred to the wife though.
How often do we pray for miracles? What is our mindset towards miracles? When something tragic happens, does it even occur to us that we can ask for a miracle? Maybe we believe in miracles, but maybe we don’t even think to ask for them. It makes me think of the quote from Elder Holland, “God is anxiously waiting for the chance to answer your prayers and fulfill your dreams, just as He always has. But He can’t if you don’t pray, and He can’t if you don’t dream. In short, He can’t if you don’t believe.”
It certainly didn’t occur to the husband to dream and ask the prophet to bring back his son. This isn’t a pronouncement of judgment on the husband, but it does reflect the strong faith of the wife. She had enough faith to dream up something miraculous in response to the tragedy. When her son died, she went for the prophet to ask for help.
As I look back on my life, I think I got the concept of faith wrong sometimes. When something tragic would hit, I would often despair and think God was mad at me or I would try to press myself into faithfulness and acceptance of whatever the Lord was sending my way. Perhaps tragedy was the Lord’s way of softening my heart sometimes, and it is always the appropriate response to accept what the Lord sends your way.
But faith isn’t just about accepting. Sometimes the Lord sends tragedies (or allows tragedies) because He wants to bless us directly. It draws us to Him. He wants us to have enough faith that we feel comfortable approaching Him in humility. There is power in humbly approaching the Lord. You see His hand when you’ve asked Him for it.
My husband is super handy. I’m convinced he can fix anything, and apparently, my kids are likewise convinced. Whenever they break something that matters to them, it is placed on dad’s desk. And he does fix it. Conner often fixes it.
One time, near the end of a pregnancy, we were all gathered in the kitchen. I turned to my husband and said, “I think my water just broke.” I didn’t realize my oldest was even listening, but she didn’t miss a beat. Before my husband could respond to this life-altering detail, my daughter called out, “It’s okay mom! Dad can fix it!”
We all laughed pretty hard, but as I write this particular post, I actually find myself in tears. My kids trust their dad. They have faith in his abilities to fix things. They have so much faith that my daughter’s immediate response to the word “broke” is to call for her dad’s help. I hope that I can keep building my faith until my response is that immediate.
What tragedy or uncertainty are you facing right now? What miracle can you pray for? What’s your happy “ending” for this particular episode in your life? Have you prayed for it?
Perhaps sometimes we simply forget to ask for a miracle, and other times, perhaps we’re simply afraid the answer will be no. The second detail I want to point out can likewise help with this.
Detail two. She responds with, “It is well.”
The Shunammite woman, in the face of horrifying tragedy, responds, “It is well,” two times. When her husband asks and when Elisha asks, that is how she chooses to respond. Her son had just died but when asked if everything is okay, she says, “It’s okay.”
I don’t think the woman was trying to downplay the tragedy. I don’t think this is one of those quintessential stories where you ask someone if they’re okay, and they sigh really big and say, “It’s fine,” when it’s anything but. I believe the wife was declaring trust in the Lord.
I believe she was saying, “It’s going to be okay. I can ask the prophet to save my son, but if not, it will still be okay.”
As I mentioned before, maybe it’s hard to ask for a miracle when you’re scared of a “no.” When Elisha tells the wife that she is going to have a son, she responds with, “Please don’t lie to your handmaid.” This could signal a lack of faith, but the fact she calls herself his handmaid is significant. She is calling herself his servant. She is saying “I serve you. Please don’t lie to me if this isn’t a real thing, but I’m your servant.”
So even the Shunammite woman was afraid to ask at some point. However, turning to the Lord, even when He is going to say “no,” can still be a cathartic experience if we approach it with the right heart. Demanding a miracle sets us up for failure because the Lord won’t take away every hardship.
But turning to the Lord with a specific type of heart will always bless us. We find this type of heart in the Shunammite woman. Her heart trusted in the Lord’s ability to fix things, but she also declared that it would be fine if He chose not to. She would trust Him. We talked about the blessing of the first detail, but the second detail can be just as important.
When the Lord says no, we’re willing to say “okay.” This faith enables Him to bless us even when He won’t fix things. It is this humble, trusting attitude that allows Him to comfort our hearts with the life-altering facts that we have a powerful God who orients His every action towards giving us what’s best for us. We trust that He can fix anything. We trust that He loves us. We trust that if He chooses not to fix something, He’s got a good reason and all things will be made up to us. Even when He has told me no, I have found special comfort when I’ve responded with, “Okay.”
I testify that prayer is healing. I testify that it brings great blessings into our lives. Building that childlike faith that the Lord can fix anything is powerful in our life. It brings joy and hope. Building that faith even farther brings a mature faith that withstands even the hardest of tragedies on earth. It is the kind of faith that will carry us. It is the kind of faith that can’t be brought down because it leads one to trust that He will fix it, even if it’s not immediately. I testify that He can and will fix everything. Trusting Him soothes and carries us in the meantime.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Kings 2–7 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Scraping the Bottom of the Barrelby Autumn Dickson
Do you ever feel like you’re desperately scraping at an empty barrel? Maybe it’s with physical resources to take care of your family, or maybe you feel emotionally or spiritually drained.
Well this week holds a story that can give us the key to finding peace with our barrel.
There is a huge famine in the land, and the Lord is providing for the prophet, Elijah. Elijah is living by a stream and getting water from it, and some birds are feeding him. When the stream dries up, Elijah is instructed by the Lord to go to Zarephath where a widow will take care of him.
When he gets to Zarephath, he finds the widow. He requests water and a piece of bread. Here is where our story continues.
1 Kings 17:12-14
12 And she said, As the Lord thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but an handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse: and, behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die.
13 And Elijah said unto her, Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son.
14 For thus saith the Lord God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth.
Elijah requests bread. The widow said she only has enough for her and her son before they die. Elijah tells her to get him some bread anyway and promises that if she does, she will have enough flour and oil until it rains again.
HERE IS WHY I LOVE THIS STORY AND WISH IT WERE ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS STORIES IN THE BIBLE: There is always enough in the barrel.
The widow of Zarephath chose to feed the prophet, and his promise was fulfilled. She had enough food for her and her son, and that food continued on. Absolutely incredible.
But. What did the miracle look like?
When the widow of Zarephath woke up in the morning and she lifted up the lid on her barrel, how much flour was there? Was the entire thing full? Did it always remain full? Did it empty over time and then one morning, she would awake to a full barrel again? Or…did it always stay almost empty?
Was there always a slight tinge of fear that one morning, it would simply be gone? Every night when she used up the “last” of the flour, did it prick at heart and push her to pray for another day? How long did it take for her to trust the miracle?
I’m going to highlight it again: There will always be enough in the barrel.
But even more than always giving enough, the Lord is trying to teach us something important.
I don’t know how the Lord continued the miracle of flour, but I would feel pretty comfortable guessing that it was the last option. The barrel always had just enough. If we’re going off of the Lord’s past patterns in almost everything (not just physical and monetary resources but spiritually and emotionally), we see very clearly that the Lord likes to give us just enough.
Here is my theory as to why I think the Lord chose the last option: that there was always just enough flour left.
Let’s say the Lord filled up the barrel and kept it perpetually full. There is not as much need, and therefore, there is not as much reliance upon the Lord. The widow always had plenty of flour. This is awesome, but there is an option that actually gives the widow more than just flour.
Let’s say the Lord filled up the barrel, let it empty, and then filled it up again. I don’t know how big her barrel was, but let’s say it took a week for her to empty the barrel. Once a week, the widow would go to bed with a prayer in heart that there would be more tomorrow.
And then my personal theory: The Lord only ever gave the widow just enough. Every single time the widow opened the barrel, she was praying that there was enough. She had so much more need which meant there was more opportunity to rely on the Lord and learn to trust Him. There were way more opportunities to build trust, and so the widow had flour AND she gained trust.
Some might argue it was cruel of a loving Father to not give her more flour and more security and confidence. I think the gift of trusting Him is one of the greatest gifts He can offer, and He’s very limited in how He is able to build that trust. Hence, the withheld flour.
So how does this relate to us?
If He’s withholding flour, it’s not because He wants to torture you. It’s because He wants a relationship with you. He wants you to trust Him, and giving you these repeated exposures builds trust even if it’s stressful until you figure out that He’s going to show up.
So the solution? Trust! Trust that there will be enough.
Perhaps the widow even had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to make sure there was enough, but the simple fact remained true: there was enough. Even if you’re only ever receiving enough for your needs, your barrel might as well be overflowing because the Lord’s resources are infinite. You don’t have to worry about that part. The part you should really start to work on is trusting Him.
Because even with a full barrel, there is never true security in this world. Everything could blow up tomorrow. But if you put your trust in the Lord instead of a full barrel, you never feel empty. In fact, I don’t think scraping the barrel is the stressful part. I think worrying about whether you’ll have enough is the stressful part. The real part that is killing you right now is not the physical motion of scraping the barrel; it’s being terrified that there won’t be enough tomorrow. If you can release that fear, the barrel will no longer feel tortuous. You’ll see the miracle as it is. You will see infinite resources.
If you can learn to trust, you won’t feel empty. You will rejoice and trust in His infinite resources. You will feel confident as His heir. Your barrel will feel full.
Every night, as you go to sleep, switch your thinking. Don’t ask yourself, “Will there be enough tomorrow?” Instead, recount the many times there has always been enough. You will find that the worries begin to disappear on their own.
The widow of Zarephath is one of my favorite stories because it teaches me that I don’t have to be scared about what’s in my barrel. I can look at my barrel and see the emptiness, or I can look up and see His infinite flour. Just because He’s only giving me a scoop at a time doesn’t mean I have nothing. It means I get as much flour as I need AND it means that I get to look up at Him everyday. I testify with all of my heart that there is enough for you.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Kings 12–13; 17–22 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Kings 12–13; 17–22 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
The Deadly Lie of the Old Prophetby Autumn Dickson
There are major themes throughout the stories we read in the Old Testament. Some of the more negative themes are idolatry, fear over losing power, disobedience, and corrupting influences. The Old Testament does not shy away from showing the fallibility of humankind. There is great hope in faithful stories in the scriptures; there are also important warnings in the stories of people who were not obedient to the Lord.
One of the stories we read this week shows themes of obedience and disobedience. We see people who have a connection to God and follow Him, but we also watch them choose against God and find themselves in deep water because of it.
There are a lot of details for our story in this post, but stick with me. They are important because they set the stage for our principle.
In 1 Kings 13, we read about a man of God and an old prophet. Those are the only “names” we receive for these men, and these titles can get confusing especially when you’re reading the details of the story. Though they were labeled as a man of God and an old prophet, we see their fallibility on full display.
For some quick background, Israel has split into two kingdoms: Judah and Benjamin in the south and the rest of the ten tribes in the north. The man of God was from Judah where the true temple was. The northern kingdom had fallen into idolatry. The man of God was commanded to go to Bethel (in the northern kingdom) and condemn the idolatrous practice. He does so and performs a couple of wonderful miracles as well.
The Lord warns and commands the man of God to not eat or drink in Bethel. The man of God originally follows this command very well as he works to return to Judah. Unfortunately, another man, the old prophet, comes along and finds the man of God resting under the shade of a tree. The old prophet offers the man of God some food and drink, and the man of God refuses. The old prophet says this.
1 Kings 13:18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him.
The man of God listens to the old prophet and partakes in food and drink. While the man of God eats, the old prophet tells him that he won’t make it home because of his disobedience. On the way home, the man of God is killed by a lion. The old prophet collects the body, gives the man of God an honorable burial, and requests to be buried next to the man of God when he dies. The old prophet calls the man of God a brother. He testifies that the prophecy made by the man of God earlier regarding the idolatrous altar in Bethel will come true.
There are a lot of confusing details. I don’t know if this was one of those parts of the bible that was translated incorrectly or whether it’s simply highlighting the fallibility of real people who sometimes follow the Lord.
Who was the old prophet? Was he an actual prophet to the Lord? He was in the idolatrous kingdom so when they called him a prophet, was he a false prophet? Was he trying to tear down the man of God for prophesying against the northern kingdom? We know that the old prophet received some revelation from the Lord. He prophesied of the death of the man of God, and he testified of the prophecy given by the man of God. So why did he lie? Was he threatened by the man of God or did he see no harm in his white lie? Was he trying to just nourish the man of God? Was he wicked but then received a testimony while he watched the man of God come and eat?
There is a lot of ambiguity. Oftentimes, I’ll try to take one biblical theory and talk about true principles from it regardless of whether the details are perfect. This time, I’m going to embrace the ambiguity.
The man of God listened to the old prophet and found himself dead because of it.
I’ve seen a pattern on social media. This is a pattern that has existed for a long time, but I’ve seen it more readily because of its prevalence on social media.
On social media (and in real life), we find people who are disgusted by the church. They hate it. They actively fight against it. Their entire online persona can be defined by, “I hate the church.”
But there is another group of people. They claim to be part of the church, to receive revelation, and to love the Lord. Some of their posts are uplifting and encouraging, but some of their posts teach things that can be found in direct conflict with the Lord’s commandments. Some of their posts might not necessarily be in direct conflict, but they are critical of the church in the name of their love for the Lord.
These people are much more ambiguous. What are their true motives? What does it mean that they call themselves members? Because heaven knows you can call yourself a member without actually following Christ.
I don’t have any real desire to discover their motives. If they are sincere, the Lord will work with them and hopefully they will listen. If they are not sincere, then the Lord can handle all of that. I don’t need to know their motives or even condemn them.
Rather, I’d like to highlight a warning from this story. The man of God died because he followed the ambiguous old prophet who had some claim to God but also lied.
I don’t think we’ll get killed by a lion if we follow these accounts, but I do think it can spiritually deaden us. It can blind us.
Isn’t that funny? The rest of the world would call us blind and accuse us of drinking the Kool-aid, and yet, either side could be logically labelled as propaganda. Both sides label themselves enlightened. Everyone thinks their version is the closest one to the truth.
So how do we know whether we can trust the old prophet? How do we know whether we should whole-heartedly follow the prophet of our church?
I can’t answer that question for everyone. All I know is that I talk to the Lord, and He responds. I can’t answer for other people, but the more I study the gospel and the church, the more I see the Lord’s perfect hand working with the imperfection of mankind. I have watched some of my loved ones listen to these posts and believe they can disobey the Lord in little ways and be fine, and I have watched some of my loved ones turn these voices off. With the experiences that I’ve had in the gospel, I have no desire to follow anyone (real or on the internet) who tells me that I can disobey the Lord. It’s not just about avoiding dying either. I have found too much joy in the protection and safety of the Lord, and I refuse to lose that joy.
I testify that being obedient to the Lord provides safety and warmth and true happiness. I testify that even in the darkest times, following Him is where we will find respite. I testify that He teaches us through powerful stories in the scriptures, and that His patterns reflect across all generations on the earth. I testify that there is safety in joy in following the word of the Lord as given from Him directly.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Kings 12–13; 17–22 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Solomon’s Sword and Crazy Plansby Autumn Dickson
This week, we get to learn a bit about Solomon’s reign. Solomon was known for his wisdom, a spiritual gift that was the direct result of a request he made as he was ascending the throne. The story of the two women and the baby is well-known and highlights this wisdom.
In the last post, we talked about how the Lord reflected Solomon’s heart back to him when the Lord offered to answer a prayer for Solomon. This week, we get to read about Solomon imitating the Lord in the story with the two women.
Here is a refresher on the story with the two women and the baby.
Two women lived in the same home. They both had babies. One woman accidentally laid on top of her child and killed the child. She snuck into the room of the other woman and switched the babies. The second woman woke up to the dead child and realized he wasn’t hers. They took their case to King Solomon. This is how King Solomon responded.
1 Kings 3:24-25
24 And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king.
25 And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.
The lying woman wanted the child cut in half. The true mother offered to let the other woman have the son; she just wanted him to be alive. Solomon obviously gave the baby to the woman who wanted to protect the baby at all costs.
Now, I want you to imagine being the true mother of the child who found herself in this nightmare through no fault of her own.
I don’t know exactly what she was feeling, but I think my response to this wild suggestion from the king would be this: “What?! I thought this guy was wise! Why would he do this? Is he crazy?”
I think this is sometimes how we react when the Lord makes decisions in our lives as well.
Sometimes the Lord sends or allows trials to happen in our lives. Sometimes we respond with, “What?! I thought the Lord was wise! Why would He do this?”
Throughout my life, and especially while working through sharing my testimony online, I have received this testimony over and over and over: The Lord loves me and works very carefully as He makes decisions to interfere in my life. He is wise! He knows what He’s doing! I know this testimony. I believe it. I find a lot of comfort in it.
And yet, even though I already had a testimony of this fact, I’ve found that there were limits to this testimony that needed to be expanded. When certain events have cropped up in my life, such as getting pregnant three months after having a baby, I have tried to trust in that growing testimony that the Lord loves me and is trying to give me the best of what mortality actually has to offer. Despite my desire to trust that He was trying to do what was best for me, I simply felt scared and betrayed and powerless.
I’m sure that woman was terrified when Solomon made the crazy suggestion to cut the baby in half. He was a king, and she was a harlot. I’m sure she knew what it meant to feel powerless and to have someone making decisions regardless of what was best for her.
And yet, Solomon wasn’t trying to torture her. He had very specific purposes. He was not rash or ridiculous. He was intentional. He was a mortal man blessed with wisdom to discern what was going on in his kingdom. He “sent a trial,” and it revealed the hearts of the women he was judging.
The Lord already knows our hearts, but He still sends little tests in mortality. I’m becoming increasingly convinced that He isn’t testing our hearts for His own sake, but for our’s. We spoke about this in my last post as well: He reflects our own hearts back to us.
Solomon actually needed to see the reflection of the hearts of the women so he could judge well. He was wise, but he did not know these women perfectly. He needed a way of seeing their hearts.
The Lord’s purposes are slightly different, but His methods are similar. His purpose is showing us our own hearts. Sometimes that means sending or allowing trials that allow the deepest parts of our heart to go on display. It highlights the boundaries of what we truly know and feel and desire. It gives us opportunities to expand those boundaries.
Going back to my example of getting pregnant so quickly, I felt incredibly betrayed by God. I am so miserable when I’m pregnant, and now I was going to be in that dark state of mind for 18 months with very little reprieve (honestly, with no reprieve since my body and mind still hadn’t completely recovered in between babies). I thought I had a testimony that the Lord loved me, and I did. But apparently there were limits to that testimony. This specific experience showed me the boundaries of my own testimony. It brought my heart right up to the surface where I could look at it very clearly. I then had the opportunity to work through those experiences and expand those boundaries.
Despite the fact that this woman likely thought King Solomon was out of his mind, I would guess that she felt differently after the experience. Despite the initial fear and distress it caused her, she gained a testimony that Solomon acted with purpose. By the end of this, she knew that Solomon wasn’t crazy. He was trying to be a good king and make sure that baby went back to its rightful mother.
Surely, the experiment could have gone poorly. What if both mothers had pled for the life of the baby? Yes, it could have failed, but this story is a parable. Even if Solomon’s experiments fail, the Lord’s “experiments” never have to. Solomon was a mortal man. The Lord has much more to offer in the way of helping us discern the boundaries of the testimonies that will carry us and help us get where we need to go. The Lord also has the ultimate power of delivering what will be best for us. Even when He sends or allows dark times, He has the power to help those difficult times become sacred experiences.
I testify that the Lord loves us. I testify He knows what He’s doing. I testify that He already knows our hearts, but like Solomon, He sends and allows trials that bring our very essence up to the surface where it’s noticeable. We get to find the holes and limitations of our testimonies, and in turn, we can fill the holes and broaden the boundaries until we are fully protected and constantly uplifted by them.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 6–9; 11 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 6–9; 11 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
What Would You “Wish” For?by Autumn Dickson
Solomon, David’s son, has become king. Very early on in his reign, Solomon has a dream in which the Lord appears to him.
1 Kings 3:5 In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee.
This is a really incredible experience as Solomon is stepping into his kingship; the Lord appears and offers to grant a prayer to Solomon. Solomon asks for wisdom and discernment in judging his people. The Lord is pleased with what Solomon asked for especially since Solomon could have asked for more selfish things such as riches, long life, or the defeat of his enemies. Solomon does none of this; he wants wisdom.
For a moment, I asked myself what I would ask for. It turned into quite the exercise as I pondered what I really wanted. Going through this experience taught me a couple of principles.
Principle one: No dream required.
I began thinking of all the things that would bless my life the most. I thought of a grateful heart, seeing people clearly, or or to see His hand moving in my life. I thought of spiritual protection for my kids. I tried to think of which spiritual gift would be the most effective for my own life.
It suddenly occurred to me that I didn’t have to wait for a dream from the Lord in order to ask for things, and I didn’t have to pick just one gift. I could ask for all of them. That’s my first principle. The Lord answers prayers regardless of whether He came to us in a dream and agreed to answer a prayer. What would you ask for? What do you ask for? What will you ask for now?
Ironically, I haven’t prayed for any of those things in a long time. I don’t think my prayers have been bad by any means, but I thought so hard about what I really wanted from the Lord and realized that those values had gotten buried by the day-to-day.
Principle two. It is powerful to have your heart reflected back to you.
The normal pathway for prayers and answers goes like this: We are encouraged by prophets and scripture to pray to the Lord, and He answers according to His wisdom.
The pathway for Solomon in this specific experience: The Lord appears directly to Solomon and essentially offers a wish.
So here are the differences:
The Lord appears directly instead of going through a prophet.
He basically offers a wish which is highly unusual (at least in my experience).
The experience that Solomon had was very different than normal. Why? The Lord is intentional so why did He make this particular choice with Solomon? Both of these differences combined to make a special thing happen. Whether this was the Lord’s intentional purpose is a question that only He can answer. However, one of the side effects was that Solomon had his heart reflected back to him. Let’s talk about both differences.
Difference 1: He appeared directly.
The Lord does not often appear when we have sufficient for what we need. For example, He doesn’t always answer “yes” to everything we ask Him about; sometimes He simply refrains from saying “no.” In my experience, He directly interferes only as necessary. Obviously, He is very involved in our lives and manipulates the details in our favor. I’m talking about when His actions would affect our faith. So the Lord is taking care of me behind the scenes and influencing things to help me out, but He’s not appearing in a manner where I can have a very clear conversation with Him.
And there are reasons for this.
Later in life, Solomon turns towards worshiping other gods, influenced by his many foreign wives. I wonder how much more intense Solomon’s betrayal was because Solomon had this dream from the Lord directly. The Lord is very involved in our life, but He also keeps direct interference to a minimum in order to protect our faith.
And yet, despite the fact that the Lord could have allowed Solomon to simply pray without receiving a dream, the Lord chose to come to Solomon to ask and offer. This extremely direct experience opened up Solomon’s heart in a way that normal prayer doesn’t always achieve. Perhaps ideally, normal prayer would achieve this, but I’m not sure that it often does.
If the Lord came to you, I have a feeling you would be much more intentional in comparison to praying in faith. As least, I would be more intentional…and because it forces intention, you get to see what really matters to you. It reflects your heart back to you.
Difference 2: He offers a wish.
If you knew you had the opportunity to ask the Lord for something that He had offered to grant, it changes how you approach what you’re asking. The Lord has already offered to answer prayers, but this is different. He offers to directly answer one prayer. It’s almost like He offered to give Solomon a wish.
When I approach normal prayer, I am very open and talk through things and ask for little things. I’m not always perfectly focused. I ask for a lot of things. When I was thinking about what my request would have been, I suddenly got extremely intentional and this wasn’t even my experience! This didn’t even happen to me, but all of a sudden I was way more concerned about what I was asking for. It gave me an opportunity to reflect on what really mattered to me. What are my values? What do I really want?
It’s interesting because the Lord already knows our hearts. While mankind looks on the outside, the Lord looketh on the heart. So this wasn’t about the Lord trying to figure out Solomon’s heart. One of the effects was that Solomon was able to take a good look at his heart as he ascended the throne where he would have power and responsibility. Not only do we pray more intentionally, it also pushes us to live more intentionally.
How did Solomon feel when he approached that throne to govern his people? How did this experience change how he approached that throne?
I have not stepped onto a throne recently. I have not received a dream or a wish, but even my less-intense experience of pondering what I would ask for has changed my prayers. And in turn, as I pray for help with specific gifts, I’m more intentional as I approach experiences that call upon those gifts.
I testify that the Lord is intentional. I testify that He already knows our hearts. I testify that He is very involved in our lives and acts with purpose. If we can learn to act with purpose as He does, we start to change more readily. Our lives become much more available to Him.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 6–9; 11 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
David Fought Goliath Without Armorby Autumn Dickson
In 1 Samuel 17, we read about one of the most famous stories in the Old Testament: David and Goliath. It’s an incredible story of faith that can teach us a lot about following Christ. The fact that David saved the Israelites was a big deal, but how he defeated Goliath is likewise significant. Let’s talk about a couple of those “hows.”
Goliath taunts the Israelites for 40 days. David comes forward and offers to battle Goliath. Saul agrees, and he even puts his own armor on David. It doesn’t go well…
1 Samuel 17:39 And David girded his sword upon his armour, and he assayed to go; for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, I cannot go with these; for I have not proved them. And David put them off him.
David tried on the armor and “assayed” to go. In other words, David had a hard time moving. David hasn’t “proved” the armor, or in other words, David has never trained with it. He doesn’t know how to fight like a soldier, only like a shepherd. So David takes his shepherd weapons, forgoes the armor, and goes on to defeat Goliath.
Let’s talk about how David defeated Goliath and what it teaches us.
Detail 1. He went up with nothing but faith in God; the armor specifically hindered him.
A couple posts ago, we talked about how Israel came to Samuel and wanted a king. One of the direct messages we pulled from that story was the fact that the Israelites were rejecting God by wanting a king. They had a King; they wanted a different king.
In 1 Samuel 8, the Israelites specifically requested a king because they wanted someone to go out before them in battle. Like other nations, they wanted a physical defender in front of them when they were at war. This is significant.
So now we’ve found ourselves in 1 Samuel 17, and the Israelites are facing the giant Philistines. Goliath goes out and taunts the Israelites for 40 days. And where is Saul? Definitely not out in front of the Israelites.
Samuel gave the Israelites their king, King Saul, and then what do you know…Saul doesn’t go out before them. No one saw that coming. Shocking, right?
When we originally read this story, it would be easy to think David was being an arrogant punk by refusing the armor. Earlier on in the chapter, Eliab (David’s oldest brother) gets annoyed with David and accuses him of pride. But this isn’t about pride (even if David possessed some of that). This is about the fact that once again, the Lord was saying, “Hey Israel! I will go before you, not some mortal king!”
David didn’t just outright refuse the armor. He put it on, and it weighed him down. David was better off without man’s attempts to fight off Israel’s enemies.
The principle is NOT this: Don’t use anything manmade or you’re faithless. Refuse medicine. Refuse gear. The Lord will protect you if you have enough faith.
That is not the principle here. Sometimes having faith is understanding that the Lord inspired man to build tools.
However, for THIS specific example, it is important that David went without armor that weighed him down. The fact that David went without armor in this specific scenario can teach us the true principle: relying on man over God hurts us. It doesn’t help us. This is not every scenario. This is a very specific scenario in which the Lord was very clearly telling the Israelites that He was their King and Defender. The Lord didn’t want any confusion about why David won against Goliath. This detail is poignant with the backdrop of the Israelites rejecting God and choosing Saul. They didn’t want God’s protection; they wanted man’s. David and his lack of armor was God’s response.
Using tools is not wrong, but relying on tools over God is wrong. The armor in this story represents the same thing King Saul represented: insufficient protection from man. King Saul did not help the Israelites. The refused armor would have prevented David from defeating Goliath.
Detail 2. David showed up after Goliath had taunted the Israelites for 40 days.
So maybe the fact that David showed up after 40 days doesn’t necessarily seem like one of the “hows” of David defeating Goliath, but in my unqualified opinion, it is.
Gospel according to Autumn teaches this: If David had come sooner, he wouldn’t have been able to defeat Goliath because the Israelites wouldn’t have let him battle Goliath at all.
The number “40” is significant. It is used to describe a period of testing and trial. Christ fasted for forty days. It rained and flooded the earth for forty days. The Israelites wandered the wilderness for forty years.
Did Goliath truly taunt them for 40 days exactly or was this the Lord’s way of describing a full cycle of testing for the Israelites? Does the 40 really mean 40 or does it teach us that the Israelites had finally reached a point of desperation and were willing to utilize a young boy to fight Goliath?
Regardless of whether it was exactly 40 days of taunting, the lesson for us is clear: the Lord allows us to go through a period of testing until we finally reach the point where we are willing to rely on Him alone.
Have you ever reached that point in a trial where you’re like, “Hey Lord, if you could show up right now, I would really appreciate it! I’m dying down here!” And then He waits even longer before showing up? Perhaps it’s not forty days for forty months or forty years. Maybe it’s just the right amount of time for your testing period. Maybe it’s the right amount of days for us to finally reach a point where we are ready to rely on Christ alone and then recognize His hand when we come out on the other side.
That second part is just as important. If the Lord doesn’t allow us to wait for the full period, we might attribute our success to something else like our own fortitude. Allowing us to wait until we feel really lost serves the unique purpose of forcing us to realize that He was the only thing that could have saved us.
Would the Israelites have let David try his hand against Goliath if they hadn’t waited their full “forty” days? Honestly, I have no idea. What I do know is this: They got desperate enough to let him try and when he succeeded, all heaven broke loose and they cheered and ran against the Philistines at the same time. Their faith had been bolstered, and for a small moment, they recognized who was standing at their side.
I testify of a Lord who teaches us about Him in incredible detail in these stories. I testify that we start to see patterns as we study these details in the scriptures. More and more and more layers come out and teach us and refine us and help us invite Christ into our lives more fully. I’m so grateful the Lord has taken me on this journey to teach me these lessons in the scriptures. I testify that Come Follow Me can change your life if you use it, and I testify that Come Follow Me can change your life because it can teach you about Christ.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Samuel 17–18; 24–26; 2 Samuel 5–7 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Samuel 17–18; 24–26; 2 Samuel 5–7 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
Correction Without Condemnationby Autumn Dickson
David is one of our center characters this week as he rises to the throne and protects Israel. There are a lot famous stories this week, including the famous story of David and Goliath. However, I want to talk about a lesser studied portion of the Old Testament. It’s a relatively tiny detail, but it can teach us a lot.
David has conquered Jerusalem and brought the Ark of the Covenant there. After all the celebration, David is sitting in his palace and it occurs to him that the Lord doesn’t have a proper place of worship. David is living in a house of cedar, but the Lord only has a tent. David feels a desire to correct this and approaches Nathan about it. Nathan approves and tells David to do what his heart desires; the Lord is with him. Later on, the Lord corrects Nathan.
2 Samuel 7:12-13
12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
So interestingly enough, the Lord disagreed. That night, the Lord sends a revelation to Nathan. David will not build the temple; his son will. David is associated with war, and the Lord approved much of that conquest. However, from a symbolic and theological standpoint, the temple is associated with peace and rest. Solomon’s reign was associated with rest, and so he was the one to build the temple. Nathan passes the message on to David, and David accepts this answer from the Lord.
Perhaps this doesn’t seem like that big of a deal in comparison to other scripture that we’re reading this week, but that’s actually partially my point. Making a decision all on your own and then being corrected by the Lord doesn’t have to be that big of a deal. Let’s delve in a tad deeper.
Sometimes we get really caught up in making sure we’re following the Lord. The problem isn’t wanting to follow the Lord; the problem comes when we make it a problem.
There are two fears that we can often run into in regards to revelation:
Fear one. We don’t want to do wrong by the Lord and get in trouble.
I’m not 100% where this fear comes from…probably Satan? The Lord tells us over and over and over that He loves us and wants us to try and act. Yet despite His assurances, we get nervous about doing things wrong.
As far as I can tell, the Lord wasn’t angry with David or Nathan for getting excited about building a house for Him. I would be shocked if the Lord was anything less than beaming over two of His sons trying to worship Him. That didn’t mean it was the right direction, but the Lord wasn’t mad about it.
The Lord wants us to act and move forward and do good things of our own free will. He will course correct as necessary. Which leads me to my next point.
Fear two. Even if the Lord isn’t angry, we don’t want to end up in the wrong direction.
We’re often afraid to move forward without the explicit green light from the Lord. We don’t want to take the wrong steps.
When we were looking to get a house, I was really worried about making the wrong decision. I was praying about it and praying about it and praying about it. Conner didn’t. I had a hard time wanting to move forward without the Lord’s approval, but he approached the situation very differently. He weighed the pros and cons and went over our finances. He made the best decision he could with the information he had.
And that was it.
I don’t think he prayed about it even once.
It used to worry me. I wanted him to seek out the Lord’s will more often than I thought he was, but I had an experience with him that shifted my perspective. We were looking at getting a car years and years ago. We stopped to look at this van on our way to a family dinner. I stayed in the car while he went and looked at the van. When he climbed back in, I asked if we were buying it. He answered in the negative. I asked him what was wrong with it (he’s worked as a mechanic previously), and he told me that he didn’t see anything that was wrong with it. When I asked him why we weren’t buying it, he replied, “I had a bad feeling about it.”
Conner didn’t necessarily wait for green lights, but he listened to red lights when they came along as needed.
That was the first step in a journey that changed how I approach revelation. I no longer feel held back by fear. I’m not afraid of the Lord being mad. I recognize that the Lord wants me to be wise like Him, and that requires practicing my decision-making skills like Him. He knows that allowing me to make decisions also means that I’m going to make mistakes, but He’s not worried about that. Not to mention, He’s happy to course correct as necessary. I make a decision that I truly want and think is best, and I trust Him to speak to me if I’m wrong.
That’s how I pictured the context of this particular conversation between David and Nathan. They were rejoicing and ready to worship the Lord. They were purposefully thinking of Him and trying to do good works without being directly asked. Then the Lord simply corrected them as needed.
We can move forward in faith and excitement and trust the Lord to close the door or correct us if it’s not the right path. There is no reason to be afraid.
I testify that the Lord wants us to make decisions and become wise like Him. There is no other way to do this except to practice. I also testify that He is powerful and knows how to speak with us. He doesn’t give us our agency so that He can condemn us when we make mistakes. He paid for those mistakes and stands ready to help us along. He knows how to speak to you if you’re trying to listen. Trust that He can lead you along. Be excited about the decisions before you; the Lord can turn them all for your good when you’re seeking to worship Him.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Samuel 17–18; 24–26; 2 Samuel 5–7 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
God Gives Us What We Ask Forby Autumn Dickson
In the last post, we talked a bit about how the people implored Samuel for a monarchy. They were insistent, and Samuel saw their folly. He tried warning them; he understood what they were really asking for even if they didn’t. Here is a modern rendition of that conversation.
Israelites-We want a king! Give us a king like other nations!
Samuel-Do you even understand what you’re asking? Kings take your sons for war and your daughters to be servants. They take the best of your property. They serve themselves. Why do you want a king?
Israelites-Give us a king!
Samuel knew Who they were rejecting, and he knew they were trying to replace the ultimate Defender with a mortal. The Israelites already had a King, but they wanted a different one. They insisted on it.
And interestingly enough, the Lord tells Samuel to go ahead.
Samuel 8:22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
The Lord tells Samuel to give them a king, and then He guides Samuel through the process of selecting and anointing kings. He gives the people what they want. The Lord literally just gives it to them. He didn’t directly condemn them. He literally just gave them the curse they asked for.
What I want to share today is my own interpretation of Judgment Day. I do not know exactly how Judgment Day or the eternities will look, but this is what I have come to believe thus far as I’ve studied the words of prophets and scripture. I’m sure it will evolve as I grow older, but this is my working theory.
Part (and I emphasize part because I’m sure there are exceptions to this) of Judgment Day is the Lord saying, “Give them what they want.” I think we often picture the Lord condemning and cursing and exiling people, but I think we’ve got it a bit wrong. I think people choose where they’re going more often than not. Let me give some examples of what I mean.
Woman-I refuse to be a baby factory. I won’t be oppressed like this.
Heavenly Father-Okay. I won’t force you. I’m not trying to make you a baby factory, I’m trying to make you a mother. I’m trying to save you from eternal emptiness, but I will give you what you want.
Woman-You can’t fool me! You’re just trying to control me!
The woman separates herself from what she perceives is a controlling, power-hungry god. She separates herself because she doesn’t know the true God, because she doesn’t understand what He’s trying to offer her.
It drives me nuts when people mischaracterize the Lord. Eternity is going to be painfully empty without posterity. PAINFUL. What do you even live for? Do you really think being single and childless is going to fulfill you for eternity? Sure, you’ll be fine for a while, but there will come a day when you realize that you have no purpose because there is no progression or struggle. Eternity will be hell, and you will have put yourself there. Someday you’re going to wake up and realize that God was trying to bless you, and you cursed yourself instead.
It often blows my mind how people get things so wrong, but this has been prophesied. In the latter-days, people will call good evil and evil good.
As a mother, I’ve been experimenting with how much agency to give my kids. And when I say “experiment,” I mean I get so tired of giving them instructions and being labelled a bad guy that I hide out in my room and let them go Lord of the Flies on each other. It usually gives me a small reprieve in exchange for hours of fixing the problems that cropped up while I was hiding.
If I were to let them choose exactly what they wanted, they would refuse any kind of schooling, sports, self-development, and anything else that is essential for healthy adjustment to adult life.
The irony is that for a long time, they would likely think they were happy, but I can see the misery that would come from never learning to read or work with a team. I can see the misery that would stem from watching their friends move on without them, watching the whole world move on without them. And if I allowed them to completely sink into TV and iPads, they would live there and be miserable and not even know it. If I let them take full control of their tiny-human-inclinations, they would scream at each other and kick each other, and they would turn into mean, miserable little gremlins who no one wants to be around.
I get it, Heavenly Father. It’s exhausting. It’s so frustrating to give your loved ones everything they need to be truly happy and live a worthwhile life only to be labelled bossy and mean.
Now that’s a pretty bleak assessment of my parenting right there, and it’s not always like that. Sometimes they appreciate me coaching them into better people. Sometimes I wake up and they’re making bagels for their baby sisters without me. Sometimes I watch them play games with each other for hours. I watch them control their anger or forgive each other or do any number of wonderful, mature, Christlike things. So we’re not complete failures over here, but I’ve definitely learned important lessons after becoming a mom.
I have learned that humans often love making themselves miserable. Heavenly Father doesn’t even have to curse us or send us to hell. We walk there willingly. We choose oppressive kings and empty saviors to fight our battles. We choose hell.
How much of Judgment Day will be arrogant people cursing His name because they supposedly know better? How much of Judgment Day will be people walking away from the Lord because they have Him all wrong? How long will it take for them to wake up and realize the path they took is a curse and He was trying to save them?
I testify of a Lord who is not a tyrant. He doesn’t force our hand. He is the one who gave us our agency and protects it. Despite all that it costs Him, He preserves our agency while Satan would try to destroy it and enslave us. Despite the fact that He had to pay for it with the blood of His Son, despite the fact that He is spit upon by His enemies because He allows them to, despite the fact that He gets labelled as an oppressive tyrant (ironic when you consider the fact that He is allowing them to call Him a tyrant), He protects our agency. He will let us walk away and choose those difficult lessons. Don’t choose the difficult lessons. I testify that He knows what He’s doing. Follow Him! Let Him be your King.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Samuel 8–10; 13; 15–16 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
by Jared RiddickIn May 2026, FAIR published two new volumes, the first of which was A New Translation of Isaiah: Based on Ancient Scrolls and Texts, edited and translated by Donald W. Parry, an established and well-published Isaiah scholar and professor of the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls at Brigham Young University.
I met with Don in January of this year, when he was recording an episode of his podcast “Jesus Christ in Scripture” produced by our friends at the Ancient America Foundation. As we chatted, and I told him about FAIR’s publishing goals, he mentioned the manuscript for this translation, which he had been working on for some time. I offered FAIR’s help in publishing it, and he accepted.
Over the next several months, we worked together closely, going over the minutiae of editing and typesetting, and we became increasingly excited for the book that was emerging, and the resource it would be for Latter-day Saints in their Isaiah study during the “Come, Follow Me” Old Testament curriculum this year. The result is the volume that you can see and order today, with which we are very pleased.
Shortly after copies arrived, I sent Dr. Parry a series of questions about his background and new translation, which I think you will enjoy and get you excited to take a look at the book yourself!
Get your copy at the FAIR Bookstore or Amazon today!
QuestionYou served on the International Team of Translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls, giving you direct access to the oldest surviving biblical manuscripts in the world. How did working specifically with the Great Isaiah Scroll allow you to clarify passages in this translation that have been obscured or confused in later versions?
Response: It has been a distinctive opportunity to serve as a member of the International Team of Translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls since January 1994. I was first assigned to work on the Samuel scrolls; later I worked on the 21 Isaiah scrolls. Additionally, for several years I served as a member of the directors of Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation. To your question, having access to primary texts (the actual scrolls) versus secondary images (e.g., photos or digital images) is vital to scholars. Although there are advantages to viewing high quality photos, there is no substitute to working with ancient leather scrolls! Reading the Great Isaiah Scroll in the Scrollery of the Shrine of the Book Museum, Jerusalem, was a crucial course of action in the process of translating Isaiah’s text from ancient Hebrew to English. This enhanced my entire experience as I engaged with a scroll that is 2,100 years old. I viewed several minuscule properties on the leather—creases, folds, guide and separation dots, horizontal and vertical rulings; and a multitude of scribal marks and features. Most significantly, the leather exhibited scores of paleographic elements that may be indiscernible on photographs; this is vital because a correct reading of letters and words is vital as one conducts his/her translational work.
QuestionYou’ve made a deliberate effort to update the archaic language of the King James Version—like changing “durable clothing” or “mean man” to their actual modern meanings—while retaining important ancient Hebraisms. How did you balance the need for modern readability with preserving the ancient, sacred feel of the Hebrew?
Response: The King James Version sets forth hundreds of English archaic words, e.g., astonied, beseech, besom, cauls, mirth, mufflers, rereward, stomacher, tabret, tow, wimples (see A New Translation of Isaiah Based on Ancient Scrolls and Texts, pages 15-16); inasmuch as archaic phrases may confuse readers as they seek to comprehend Isaiah, I avoided such archaisms in my translation.
In my translation of Isaiah, I have attempted to retain many of the Hebraisms and Hebrew-like expressions, including the following: “and it came to pass,” the many “ands,” the construct form “House of the Lord” instead of “Lord’s House” (there are hundreds of these), idea-amplifying plurals, ancient idiomatic expressions (even when they are rather difficult to comprehend), and so forth.
QuestionOne of the most striking visual features of this book is your identification of approximately sixty different speakers in the left-hand margins. Why is knowing who is speaking—whether it’s the Lord, Lady Zion, or the Assyrian king—so crucial for unlocking Isaiah’s closed book?
Response: Three chief obstacles to comprehending Isaiah are: (1) Isaiah’s poetry, (2) his usage of symbols (figures of speech and literary devices), and (3) his complex utilization of speakers. In the book of Isaiah, there are many different speakers, or individuals who express words.
Time after time, Isaiah (as God’s prophet, spokesman, and messenger) served as the speaker, narrator, and relater of history (see, for example, Isaiah 36–39); Isaiah also had the important role of introducing other speakers. In my translation, I offer suggestions (throughout, in the left-hand column, in bold letters) regarding who the speakers are, but my suggestions are tentative and provisional, because we are not always certain who the speaker is. Identifying Isaiah’s speakers removes one of the three obstacles.
QuestionMost readers don’t realize that Isaiah is almost entirely ancient poetry. You’ve painstakingly formatted the text into over a thousand poetic parallelisms. How does seeing these “rhymes of thought” visually laid out on the page change the way a reader comprehends the prophet’s logic and message?
Response: Most of Isaiah’s book is composed of ancient poetry, which consists of parallelisms and other blocks of scripture. Like numerous examples of modern poetry, Isaiah’s poetry displays qualities of beauty as well as a power to influence our emotions and sensibilities. In total, there are more than 1,100 parallelisms in Isaiah. As we gain an appreciation of the concept of parallelism in Isaiah’s writings, we will better understand his message and prophecies. A New Translation of Isaiah Based on Ancient Scrolls and Texts does indeed visually lay out the poetic parallelisms, thus making Isaiah’s poetry more readable and understandable.
QuestionThis translation offers something truly unique by placing the Hebrew text side-by-side with bracketed insights from the Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon. Can you share a specific example where reading the Hebrew through this lens of the Restoration profoundly expands our understanding of the ancient record?
Response: There are dozens of variant readings in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of Isaiah. Major readings (and many minor readings) are incorporated into this volume. I have utilized brackets ([ ]) to indicate readings from the JST and Book of Mormon. Here are two examples: (1) In the dialogue between the Lord and Lady Zion (see Isaiah 49:13-21), the words [“O house of Israel”] (see 1 Nephi 21:18) make it evident that Lady Zion is none other than the house of Israel. This Book of Mormon reading greatly enhances our understanding of this dialogue; (2) Isaiah’s prayer to the Lord is made explicit with the words [“O Lord”] in Isaiah 2:6 (from the JST, 2 Nephi 12:6). Again, this reading magnifies our comprehension of the text.
QuestionYou point out that Jehovah (translated as LORD) speaks over two-hundred times in Isaiah. You’ve also chosen to capitalize all pronouns referring to Him. How does reading Isaiah with the explicit, constant visual reminder that Jehovah is the premortal Jesus Christ completely reframe the emotional impact of the book?
Response: The fact that Isaiah presents the direct speech (the actual words) of the LORD more than two-hundred times is evidence that Isaiah’s text is indeed about Him. In this New Translation, I have capitalized all pronouns that refer to God (Me, My, You, Your, He, Him) in order to (a) reverence Him with the highest regard, by separating Him from all other characters in the text, and (b) to help the reader know when God is the speaker, thus making the text easier to comprehend.
QuestionIf someone is still feeling intimidated by diving into Isaiah this summer, what is the single most important piece of advice you would give them before they open to chapter one?
Response: Take your time, enjoy every word and every verse of Isaiah! Don’t rush through Isaiah as if it is a fictional work, a news article, or a common writing. Here is an analogy—according to one study—“museum goers spend an average of just 17 seconds looking at an individual painting—and that statistic might be generous.” Perhaps for this reason, in 2009, Phil Terry started “Slow Art Day,” an initiative that encourages museum goers to examine a painting for several minutes before moving on to the next painting. Let’s compare one’s viewing a classic painting (think Vincent Van Gogh) to reading Isaiah—rather than read a single verse in a few seconds, and then moving on to the next verse, I recommend that we search diligently (see 3 Ne. 23:1) every single verse of Isaiah before moving on. Take your time, carefully study Isaiah, and find joy in every verse!
QuestionThis volume represents the capstone of a trilogy, building upon your comprehensive commentary Understanding Isaiah and your guide Search Diligently the Words of Isaiah. How does having this dedicated, modernized translation complete the “toolkit” for a student trying to truly master these complex writings?
Response: To return to the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah scrolls—I began searching the Great Isaiah Scroll with considerable intensity in 1996. The three volumes identified in your Question cover many significant aspects of studying Isaiah: Understanding Isaiah (authored with Jay Parry and Tina Peterson) is a verse-by-verse commentary (imagine that, a work that seeks to explain every verse in Isaiah!); Search Diligently the Words of Isaiah presents a multitude of tools and keys to comprehending Isaiah (including his complex parallelisms, figures of speech, and literary techniques); and A New Translation of Isaiah Based on Ancient Scrolls and Texts, derived from ancient scrolls, which is formatted into parallelistic lines together with the identification of speakers.
Do you like what you read here? Be sure to grab your copy of A New Translation of Isaiah: Based on Ancient Scrolls and Texts, linked at the top of the article, and check out this recent review of it, written by Chad Nielsen on the Times & Seasons blog.
We have been thrilled with the interest in FAIR Books so far, and we cannot wait to show you what we have in store for publications for the rest of the year and going forward.
Stay tuned! And Happy Reading!
Donald W. Parry, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls at Brigham Young University, is married to Camille Mills, from Las Vegas, Nevada; they have six children. He has served as a member of the International Team of Translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls since 1994. He has authored or edited thirty-three books, ten of which pertain to the scrolls and five deal with the writings of Isaiah. Parry has also published articles in journals, festschrifts, conference proceedings, and encyclopedias. He is also a member of several other professional organizations, including the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Groningen, The Netherlands, Society for Biblical Literature, Atlanta, Georgia, and the National Association of Professors of Hebrew, Madison, Wisconsin. Parry presently serves as a member of the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation Board of Trustees.
Jared Riddick is the Managing Editor for FAIR. From 2015 to 2025, he was the research librarian and archivist for Scripture Central, where he established, built, and curated their digital library of over 14,000 items. He graduated from the University of North Texas with a Masters in Library Science with two graduate academic certificates in Archival Management and Digital Curation and Data Management. He received a Bachelor of Arts in History Education from Brigham Young University-Idaho. He was also an editorial consultant for Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith Scholarship from 2012 to 2017.
The post A New Translation of Isaiah: Q&A with Scholar Donald W. Parry appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Samuel 8–10; 13; 15–16 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
What King Will You Follow?by Autumn Dickson
At the beginning of chapter 8, we find Samuel getting older. He made his sons judges, and they were corrupt. The people went to Samuel and asked for a king. Samuel didn’t like that much, and he turned to the Lord. Here is the Lord’s response.
1 Samuel 8:7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
The people wanted a monarchy instead of a theocracy. They wanted to be like other nations despite the warnings that Samuel gave them. He warned them of all the problems that come with a king, but they insisted.
We’re not in the same situation as the Israelites. None of us are asking President Oaks to give us a king, but there are still lessons for us here. Let’s look at some details.
Israel wanted a king; they wanted someone who would rule over them. The irony here is that if you had asked Samuel whether the Israelites had a king, he would have answered, “Yes.” The Lord was meant to be their king. The Lord had a mouthpiece, a messenger for how He wanted His kingdom ruled, but He was meant to rule over His own people.
So when the Lord says that the Israelites rejected Him, He is accurate. They had a king, but they wanted a different kind of king.
There are a lot of parallels we could find in our own lives. Rather than explicitly stating the parallel, I rather just give one potential manifestation of this parallel.
The Lord has come before each of us and promised to bless us. He wants to make us kings and queens, priests and priestesses. He wants to make us like Him. He wants to shower us with warmth and promises. He wants to open our eyes and show us everything. There is so much to be had as heirs of God.
All of that sounds pretty wonderful. Unfortunately, these things don’t just get bestowed upon us. We have to grow into it.
So when we are faced with the decision of opening our scripture app or social media, we often find ourselves on social media.
The Lord comes and says, “Let me be your king. I won’t ever betray you. I won’t take from you; I only want to give. I want to show you all that you can become.” The Lord comes and warns us, “Taking a different king can be dangerous. The king will take your children, and it will take the best parts of what you have. It only serves itself; you will be its servant.”
And yet, like the Israelites, we insist on choosing social media. We choose a different king. We choose a king that robs us of moments with our loved ones. We choose a king that does have the power to take our children away from us. We choose a king that is only looking to profit itself, and we make ourselves slaves to it.
Why?? Why do we do this??
And it’s interesting. The Lord doesn’t mind if we have a mortal king. In Mosiah 29, Mosiah tells his people that it would be fine to have a king if they could guarantee that their kings were righteous. The Lord doesn’t mind if we have social media, TV, video games, or any other of these other banal activities. The Lord can utilize these tools to enhance our life and make it better.
The problem comes when we essentially reject the Lord for something pathetic. If you had asked the Israelites if they were rejecting their God, I wonder what they would have said. Maybe they would have told us, “We’re not rejecting our God. We will still follow our God. We just want a king too. Having a king doesn’t mean that we don’t worship God.” If you ask us if we’re rejecting God when we pull open something vapid instead of something inspiring, we would probably answer that we’re not rejecting God.
Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps you’re not outright rejecting God.
But have you ever tried to connect with someone who was too busy on their phone? Have you ever gone to someone for help only for them to be too distracted to love you? Have you ever done this to someone else?
Perhaps you’re not turning to that person who is seeking a connection with you and saying, “Stop. I don’t like you. Go away. I hate you.” But aren’t you still rejecting them? Don’t you feel rejected when it happens to you?
So we can tell ourselves all we like that opening instagram instead of the scriptures isn’t rejecting God, but isn’t it? He’s trying to connect with us. He’s trying to draw us higher, and we turn away. That is rejection too.
I’m not describing a world where we become monks that don’t take part in any other type of material. Social media isn’t evil. I just think it’s wise to take inventory of who is ruling us. Our phones often do this cool thing where it keeps track of where we’re spending our time. Look at your phone. Where did you spend your time today?
And as a sidenote, this isn’t a message about social media. I’m sharing an example that shows an overarching principle. What is ruling us? Is it God?
As I was reading about the Israelites choosing a king, I thought of all the pain that was coming to them. I thought of everything we would read about Israel and the trials that were coming. If they could have seen what was coming, would they have chosen differently?
If we could see what our kings would bring us, would we choose differently?
The Lord has warned us about how to spend our time. He has warned us about what to invite in and what to leave be. Who is your king? What is your king taking from you or giving to you?
I testify that there are many good things to enjoy in life, but only one King who is willing to give rather than take. I testify that the Lord knows what He is talking about in how He directs our lives. I testify that you don’t have to verbally reject the Lord to be cutting Him out of your life, and that being careful of what we choose will bless us in the long run. It may seem easier to choose something else, but it’s not.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Samuel 8–10; 13; 15–16 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Trusting the Lord With Your Childby Autumn Dickson
The story of Hannah is almost too much for me. Hannah struggled with infertility. She went to the tabernacle and prayed her heart out. She told the Lord that she would dedicate her son to Him. Her prayer was so intense that Eli, the priest, thought she was drunk. He tells her the Lord will grant her petition. She goes home, and it is fulfilled. She conceives a son.
Hannah kept him until he was weaned. This could have happened as early as 24 months and as late as five years old. After he is weaned, she takes him to Eli. She reminds Eli that she was the woman who was fervently praying for a child before, and then she says this.
1 Samuel 1:27-28
27 For this child I prayed; and the Lord hath given me my petition which I asked of him:
28 Therefore also I have lent him to the Lord; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord. And he worshipped the Lord there.
Hannah leaves her son with Eli. She gets to see him annually when they go to the tabernacle to make their sacrifice. This is the part that makes my heart desperately ache. I have two children who currently fall within that age group, and I can’t imagine dropping them off and only seeing them once a year. I am quite certain that it would kill me.
But Hannah had promised her son to the Lord, and she stuck to that promise. Samuel went to Eli at the temple.
Samuel goes on to do incredible things in the name of the Lord. He became the first centralized prophet to Israel in a long time. His ministry is marked by attempts to pull the Israelites out of apostasy and idolatry. He helped Israel transition to a monarchy first with Saul, and then he later anointed David and protected him from Saul. He was known as a great prophet like Moses.
When I attempt to put myself in Hannah’s shoes, I think there is really only one testimony that would bring me any semblance of peace in the midst of handing my child over.
The Lord can do better with him than I can.
Luckily, I don’t think most of us are facing a time where this sacrifice is required of us. We don’t drop our kids off at the temple and dedicate them to the Lord, but there is still a lesson here for all of us.
The Lord can do better with your loved one than you can.
That doesn’t just apply to our children. The Lord can do better with your sister, brother, friend, parent, cousin, grandchild, niece, nephew, spouse, or anyone you love. We can “hand them off” to the Lord and be at peace that the Lord can take them on a journey that’s going to be better than the one we can take them on.
What does that look like? I can think of two different ways that we can hand our loved one over to the Lord.
1) We closely follow what the Lord has in store for them.
I can think of two contrasting examples that depict one principle: I have two family members that strayed from the gospel for a while. They had zero interest in taking part of what the Lord wanted them to have.
The first relative was forced to go to church. As long as he lived under the roof of his parents, he would be attending church. His father was adamant about it. And you know what? One day, this relative of mine went to church and one of the speakers said something that reached him. He was no longer forced to go to church because he didn’t have to be.
My second relative went a different route completely. Her mother received the impression that she should allow her to stay home. This was the right way for my second relative. Because of her personality, forcing her to go would have only caused her to hate it more. It wouldn’t have fixed anything. In all honesty, it would have made things worse.
Two different approaches that teach a principle when placed side by side: We don’t always know what to do, but the Lord does. We may think we know what to do, but we have to let go of trying to control the situation and turn to the Lord for what’s going to be best for our child. If one of my children grows to hate the church, my knee-jerk reaction would be to force them to go as long as I could in a desperate attempt to draw them back. And perhaps that’s the right answer, but the key is to turn your loved one over to the Lord and follow the path that the Lord has in store for them.
Even if part of that path means letting them choose a different path for a while, it’s going to end up being the most powerful path if we’re following the Lord. Even if that path takes them on a journey like the prodigal son, that journey may be the very thing that makes them so powerful in the end. It may be the very experience they need to finally develop a relationship with a Savior who can watch over them.
Fear is natural when we worry about our loved ones, but we can hush our fears and lean on the promises of the Savior. His atonement reaches wide and far. It can turn sin into stepping stones. Consequences become opportunities to turn to the Savior. The Savior has earned our trust. We can lean on Him and let Him lead.
2) Sometimes trusting the Lord with your loved one is an internal battle.
Hannah’s path looked a little different than both of my relatives. She wasn’t trying to save Samuel. In many ways, she was simply letting him go. Sometimes that is the path we have to take. Even when our children are young, we can’t really control them. It can be easier to force them to do something when they’re little. However, even then, control is often an illusion.
As they get older, the illusion disappears and you have to hope they’re wise enough to follow the Lord.
But no matter how we hope, sometimes they take a different path.
Sometimes the Lord is going to seem rather silent on the matter when we’re desperately trying to save our loved one. That isn’t a sign that you screwed up or that He doesn’t love them; sometimes, that loved one is simply going to choose what they’re going to choose regardless of the path that you choose to take.
Sometimes turning your loved one over to the Lord means seeking out the Lord’s will for them; sometimes turning your loved one over to the Lord means finding peace in the midst of being powerless to help them (at least for a time). Even if the Lord is silent, that doesn’t mean He doesn’t have a plan. It likely just means there isn’t anything you can do to help that plan along at this point. When there is nothing you can physically do to help your loved one, you do what Hannah did. You let go and trust that the Lord has a plan for them.
Just like with Hannah’s situation, I think a knowledge of my Savior’s power and love is the only thing that would bring peace. I can’t change anything externally, but I can orient my heart towards the Savior and let His promises enable me to hope.
I testify of a Savior who does have a plan. He has the Plan of Salvation which included the creation, fall, and atonement, but He also has individual Plans of Salvation for each of us. He knows exactly where your loved one is. He has steps to take and action to follow through on, and He will do so. It may take a long time, longer than you want or even imagine right now, but the Lord’s plans can stretch that far. You can trust Him to take care of them, and you can put that burden down and rest. That doesn’t mean you don’t mourn, but it does mean you simultaneously carry the Savior’s promises in your heart so that you can keep going. I testify that He will fulfill His promises.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Ruth; 1 Samuel 1–7 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Ruth; 1 Samuel 1–7 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
Ruth Had Nothing to Offerby Autumn Dickson
Ruth was a woman in an extremely vulnerable position, and she placed herself in an even more vulnerable position with Boaz. Let’s talk about it, and let’s talk about how it relates to us.
Ruth was a Moabite who followed her mother-in-law to Bethlehem. She was not originally part of God’s people, but she voluntarily chose to be a part of them at great risk to herself. She was vulnerable as a widow, and she was stepping into a life of poverty by following after her mother-in-law instead of going back to live in her father’s house. Not only did she face poor circumstances and the necessity of providing for herself and Naomi by gleaning the fields, she likewise faced potential ridicule and social rejection because of her foreign status.
But she wanted to be with Naomi and follow after the God of Israel, so she chose that sacrifice.
After spending some time in Bethlehem, taking care of Naomi and gathering up meager amounts of food from hard work, Ruth put herself in an even more vulnerable position.
Boaz, a respected and wealthy man in the area, had taken note of Ruth and took steps to make sure she was okay. After hearing about Boaz watching out for Ruth, Naomi encourages Ruth to essentially propose to Boaz. According to the direction of Naomi, Ruth follows Boaz to the threshing floor one night, uncovers his feet, and goes to sleep there. Boaz wakes up and finds her, and she asks him to essentially take her under his wing. She asks him to marry her and bring her into his protection. Boaz agrees to do so if another relative relinquishes his first claim upon her.
In order to understand the vulnerability that Ruth found herself in, it’s important to understand the context of the threshing floor. Threshing floors were not inherently evil; they were community spaces where people went and prepared their different grains to finish the harvesting process. However, threshing floors were associated with a celebratory period that sometimes got out of hand. It was a male-dominated space, and there was drinking. It was not uncommon for prostitution. Let it be known, it was also common for wealthy men to sleep there and protect their grain piles. Boaz wasn’t there to get in trouble; he was there to protect his grain. And yet, I want to highlight the potential danger for Ruth.
Naomi trusted the integrity of Boaz and sent Ruth anyway. Beyond just protecting her, here is an extra thing that Boaz did for her.
Ruth 3:14 And she lay at his feet until the morning: and she rose up before one could know another. And he said, Let it not be known that a woman came into the floor.
So Boaz protected her in every sense of the word. He could have taken advantage of her and probably gotten away with it. He could have thrown her to the wolves and ruined her reputation. As an outsider, she already faced scrutiny. She could have been branded a loose woman and made herself ineligible for future marriage. Regardless of whether it’s just or moral that he had the power to do this is a question for another day. The fact remains that he did have power to do so, and he didn’t. Not only did he avoid taking advantage of her, he also protected her from potential shame.
If we generalize some of these ideas, we might find some personal parallels in our relationship with Jesus Christ. Here are a couple of reflections.
1) Boaz didn’t actually have a responsibility to take care of Ruth.
It is important to note that Boaz didn’t have to legally take care of Ruth. In ancient Israelite custom, a brother of the dead husband would marry the widow and buy the land to keep the inheritance in the family. Boaz was a more distant relative. He was eligible but not required. It wasn’t expected of him. In fact, the relative who was closer to her wanted the land but refused when he found out he would also inherit Ruth.
Boaz married Ruth. He went above and beyond what was required of him to protect her.
And how poignant is that?
Christ was eligible to save us but not obligated. He chose to do it. He wanted to protect us.
2) She had nothing to offer Boaz except loyalty and need.
Boaz didn’t reap any benefit for marrying Ruth other than receiving her love and gratitude. Even beyond the fact that he didn’t have a legal obligation, he was essentially bringing on “dead weight.” I understand that sounds heartless, but let me expound.
Boaz had the option of marrying advantageously. He had to pay to get the land that had belonged to Ruth’s previous husband; it didn’t just come to him. He could have married someone that would have contributed to his own wealth or social standing without any complications of marrying a foreigner. Not to mention, any children he had with Ruth would be considered heirs of her first husband. That’s why the other relative had refused. It endangered his personal estate. Boaz was willing to pay the price for kindness.
Obviously Ruth had value as a human being. However, when she is logically compared with other options, she isn’t bringing much to the table.
Sound familiar? We hold very limited benefit in the traditional sense. Even as long-term investments, the Lord gives us everything we have and then gives us more when we try to serve Him. We don’t offer much. And yet, Christ knows the value of being loved in return. Boaz recognized a woman who would add much more to his home despite the costs. He watched her love Naomi, and he knew that she would be the kind of person that brings joy.
Christ is willing to pay the price of kindness, and He recognizes that investments don’t necessarily bring joy. Our loyalty and gratitude and willingness bring joy.
3) And then, of course, the point I highlighted before: Ruth was vulnerable and Boaz protected her.
Ruth could have been ridiculed and rejected. She was already prone to it because she was born a Moabite. It became that much more dangerous when she voluntarily chose to approach Boaz on the threshing floor.
Someday we will stand vulnerable before the Lord. Someday we will live in a time where secrets are shouted from the rooftops. What secrets are you worried about? What do you want protected and kept private?
I testify of a Lord who “forgets” our sins when we repent. I believe in a Lord who is willing to cover for us and take us under His protection. I believe in a Lord whose name is so powerful that we don’t have to fear rejection and ridicule. He covers us when we approach Him in faith and humility. He doesn’t despise our weakness; He honors it by taking it upon Himself.
I testify of a Lord who pays the price of kindness and simply wants our love in return. It brings Him joy. Do not withhold it from Him. Do not withhold yourself from Him. He loves you.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Ruth; 1 Samuel 1–7 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
God’s Mercy With Gideon’s Doubtby Autumn Dickson
The book of Judges records a time period in which Israel had no centralized prophet. There was apostasy and partial restorations as the Israelites would sway into worshipping like the Canaanites did. The Lord sometimes sent judges to help Israel against their enemies. These judges were charismatic, military leaders. Some of the judges would save all of Israel; other judges were more regional.
Gideon was one of these regional judges, primarily protecting Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun, Naphtali, and Ephraim.
Gideon is interesting because he struggled with his faith in the Lord, and yet, the Lord was merciful. There are plenty of instances in the scriptures where the Lord doesn’t seem to respond to that very well. Right after the Red Sea parted, the Israelites demanded a sign of Moses to show his favor with God. They were complaining and challenging Moses to show a sign. The place was named Massah as a memorial to their lack of faith. When Zechariah was told that his wife would have a son, he didn’t believe it because she was old. He was struck as a mute. Thomas the apostle was likewise rebuked for his lack of faith.
Gideon receives not just one, but multiple signs from the Lord. The angel burns up his offering to the Lord. His blanket is covered with dew while the ground is dry one night; his blanket is dry while the ground is wet one night. As he stands in the camp with his 300 men to go against the Midianites, the Lord encourages him to go spy on the Midianites and see what they’re saying in order to receive comfort. He does so and overhears a Midianite sharing a dream in which a barley loaf came and flattened a tent. The Midianite’s companion interprets it as God helping Israel defeat them. Here is Gideon’s response.
Judges 7:15 And it was so, when Gideon heard the telling of the dream, and the interpretation thereof, that he worshipped, and returned into the host of Israel, and said, Arise; for the Lord hath delivered into your hand the host of Midian.
Multiple signs! God continually blesses Gideon and gives him signs to encourage him along. In fact, Gideon didn’t even ask for the last sign. The Lord just gave it to him, and He gave it to Gideon in a powerful way. It would have been one thing to send a dream to Gideon about defeating the Midianites. It would have been easy for Gideon to wonder if it was just wishful thinking. In comparison, hearing the mighty Midianites have a dream and interpret it as defeat by the Israelites was much more powerful in calming Gideon’s fears.
So why did Gideon get multiple signs while others seem to be rebuked for asking for the same thing?
I think there are a lot of reasons because the Lord works according to individual circumstances, but I want to talk about two potential reasons that can be applied in our own lives as we work to approach the Lord.
The first reason the Lord was willing to work with Gideon is because the Lord is wise enough to understand that Gideon didn’t have much of a relationship with the Lord. The fact that his father had a Baal altar implies that Gideon’s family had fallen into idolatry. How much did Gideon know about God? We know Gideon had some knowledge of God because he asks about the deliverance from Egypt, but how much had Gideon experienced God? There’s a difference. How much could the Lord reasonably expect Gideon to trust Him? The Lord knew Gideon, but did Gideon know the Lord?
The Lord isn’t looking for blind, obedient dogs. He is looking to have a true relationship with us. The fact that Gideon was cautious about running into danger isn’t a sign that Gideon is faithless; it is more an indication that Gideon did not yet know the Lord.
So what does this teach us about our own lives? The Lord will not begrudge us the time it takes to learn how to trust Him; He doesn’t mind allowing us to approach Him until we’ve built up a number of encounters and start to understand His character.
David fought off two wild animals before he fought off Goliath. We recently read about Moses whose trust in the Lord was extremely fragile in the beginning; Moses grew to the point where he encouraged the Israelites to have faith in the face of certain death even though he did not yet know the plan for rescue. The Old Testament gives us a front row seat to watching people experience the Lord and grow in their trust of Him.
In contrast, imagine a powerful stranger coming up to you and saying, “Trust me.” When you ask them why you should trust them, they respond with, “Because I told you to.” Um…what? You may not immediately hate them or be wary of them, but you’re not going to give them your darkest secrets or social security number (or hopefully you won’t…).
The Lord understands that He is a stranger to us; He is the one who put the veil there. He understands that we need experiences with Him before we’re ready to run into danger when He asks. Once again, He isn’t looking for blind, obedient dogs. He wants His children to be wise and consciously and voluntarily choose Him.
He gave Gideon experiences because Gideon likely hadn’t had many previously. He was patient with Israel. He was patient with Moses. The Lord has no problem being patient. If He seems impatient in specific scenarios, we can usually assume it’s for the benefit of the person He is working with. He is trying to get their attention or get them moving.
Which leads me to my second reason: The Lord allowed Gideon to approach Him multiple times for signs because Gideon’s heart was soft.
Over and over and over and over and over we read about the Lord responding with intensity in response to a hard heart and responding with mercy and encouragement to a soft heart. Gideon’s heart was obviously soft. Look at this verse.
Judges 6:17 And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, then shew me a sign that thou talkest with me.
Gideon approaches the Lord so humbly. When the angel gave him a sign, Gideon immediately built an altar unto the Lord. That night, Gideon went and took down the altar of Baal according to the direction of the Lord. We see this multiple times with Gideon. He approaches the Lord in humility and asks for help knowing the truth. Gideon was willing to follow the truth and power and peace; Gideon was just trying to make sure he was looking in the right direction before moving forward.
It is only when we’ve closed our heart off to that truth and power and peace that the Lord shakes the earth to reach us.
I think of the Egyptians that saw all the same signs as the Israelites but didn’t bother to ask whether they should follow after the same God as the Israelites. I think of Rahab and her people. The Canaanites were all terrified, but it didn’t change who they put their faith in. Only Rahab was willing to follow the Israelite God and was spared because of it. You would think that people would open their eyes and ask, “Is there something here?” You would think that they would pause long enough and open their hearts so that the Lord could speak to them.
Gideon asked, but Gideon was likewise prepared to follow through. This was part of why the Lord was so willing to encourage him along.
I testify of a Lord that responds with wisdom. He knows what He is doing. He will not condemn us for approaching Him for reassurances if we’re doing so with the intent to follow after Him. He doesn’t even condemn us when we struggle; His intensity is not a sign of condemnation. It’s a sign of God’s love in trying to reach us! However the Lord is working in your life, you can take it with the perspective that He is trying to do what’s best for you. I’m grateful for a Lord who is wise and can train me so purposefully and deliberately.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Judges 2–4; 6–8; 13–16 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Judges 2–4; 6–8; 13–16 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
What Does it Mean to be a Prophetess?by Autumn Dickson
In a day and age where many are curious as to why women can’t hold specific positions in the church or be ordained to priesthood offices, reading about Deborah the prophetess can be confusing. Here is a verse that describes her as a prophetess.
Judges 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
If Deborah can be a prophetess, can we have a prophetess in our day? What does it even mean that she was a prophetess and what are the implications for women in the latter days?
I think it’s important to note that I’m not an official representative of the church. However, I’d like to share some of my own perspectives and interpretations surrounding Deborah and what it means as a female Latter-day Saint.
But first, some context.
Judges is a book of scripture that describes the time period when Israel had no king. Joshua, the prophet after Moses, died, and there was no prophet that directly succeeded him. We don’t know exactly how long it took before the Lord called another centralized prophet (Samuel), but educated guesses suggest 300-450 years.
As a society, they had the Law of Moses, and the government could be described as a tribal confederation. Despite having a law given unto them from God, they often fell in with Canaanites and found themselves in varying levels of apostasy.
Sometimes, in response to the Israelites finding themselves in trouble, the Lord would send a “judge.” The way that we define “judge” is not necessarily accurate in this particular book of scripture. In this context, a judge was a charismatic military leader that would help Israel. There were some major judges such as Samson; there were other minor judges that would help regions rather than the entire nation of Israel.
So who was Deborah?
Deborah was one of the major judges sent by God to help Israel. She was a judge in every sense of the word. She was a military leader, but people also literally went to her for guidance to settle their problems. She was also a spiritual leader over the nation of Israel.
Was she a prophet? The scriptures describe her as a prophetess, and she led all of Israel politically and spiritually. But was she a prophet in the way that we define “prophet” in our day?
At this point, I think it’s important to clarify what it means to have a prophet.
Definition One. The way that we usually define “prophet” in our church in the Latter-days is unique. It’s not just someone who studies the scriptures and knows them really well. It’s not just someone who receives revelation. When Latter-day Saints speak of prophets, we are often describing the man who has the authority to speak for God on behalf of the entire church. He is the only one with spiritual jurisdiction to lead (under Christ) the church. He holds all of the priesthood keys.
And yes, he is a male.
We don’t know if that will ever change. I don’t know if it’s doctrine that means this particular role will always be male, or if someday the Lord will use His unchanging love and wisdom to adapt His church according to circumstances as He has throughout the course of history.
But there is also a broader definition of this term, “prophet.”
Definition two. Anyone can have the spirit of prophecy which is defined as a “testimony of Christ.” We know that Jerusalem had centralized prophets in ancient times as well as lesser “prophets” who would also be sent by the Lord to teach and call upon people to repent. I am not a prophet in the sense that I hold all the priesthood keys or can define doctrine on behalf of the Lord for the entire church. However, I have come to view myself as a prophetess within my own family. Beside my husband, I lead our home. I receive revelation on behalf of our kids and what we need to do. I learn the will of the Lord for our family. I fulfill so many of the “prophetic” responsibilities often associated with prophets; I simply do it within the context of my own family. Most importantly, I am a witness of Christ to my family.
What kind of prophetess was Deborah? With the information we’ve been given, I feel pretty safe assuming she was the second kind of prophet. The Lord had declared that priesthood responsibilities would go through male descendants of Aaron and the tribe of Levi. Deborah was not ordained nor did she hold any keys.
So Deborah was a prophetess but not necessarily how we often define it in our day.
Perhaps there are some who are disappointed by this news. Perhaps there are some who hoped that because Deborah was a prophetess, we could have one in our day. Perhaps there are some who cling to the idea that things will change and long for the day to see a prophetess lead the church. I don’t know whether that will be a thing. If anyone has any insight into that particular doctrine, feel free to comment. But as far as I know, we don’t know.
Here’s what I do know.
Deborah doesn’t need to be disappointing. In fact, if we understand her properly, we should be exultant. If we understand what the Lord would like to bestow upon His daughters and His sons, then we would hold no fear. Deborah is excellent proof of what the Lord would have all of us do.
Deborah may not have been a prophetess in the modern sense of the word, but guys! She was still a prophetess! She was a national leader, and people followed her. She changed Israel. She made a difference. She has been regarded with respect by millions who learned about her generation after generation.
And she didn’t need the priesthood keys to do it.
The Lord is wonderful and wise and set up a priesthood organization with offices and keys. I know that can be a painful sticking point for some. I understand that. I’m personally grateful for this organization, but I can simultaneously understand why it’s painful. But that’s not really my point today.
My point is that you have all that you need to become everything God wants you to become, and He has much more in mind for you than you have for yourself. This has implications for men too. About 3-5% of men will hold priesthood keys at any given time in the church. That number jumps to 10-20% of men who will hold priesthood keys at some point in their lifetime.
BUT YOU DON’T NEED KEYS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND CHANGE THE WORLD.
No one came to Deborah and ordained her as a prophetess. The bible doesn’t tell us how she rose to that role, but I have my guesses as to how it happened.
It happened because she was a faithful daughter of God who chose to follow the Lord wherever He chose to lead her.
Following the Lord and handing your life over to Him in faith (female or male) does not mean you will be recorded for people to pore over your life story for generations to come. It doesn’t mean you’ll be famous or even particularly loud. But if that’s what you’re looking for, then you’re in the wrong place anyway.
I love the example of Deborah, if for no other reason than her story means that I can be a powerful tool for the Lord regardless of what mankind recognizes in me. Regardless of whatever official roles I’ve been given, I could part seas or change lives. Really what it comes down to is what the Lord wants for me and what He’s trying to teach me. Having enough power to change the world isn’t really the question here; the Lord will give me everything I need. The true question is whether I will give my life over to Him in whatever capacity He asks.
I have as well as I can, and I love my life.
I testify that we have everything we need to do everything the Lord wants us to do and become everything He wants us to become. I likewise testify that He has much more in mind for you than you have for yourself. If you (female or male) feel left out because you can’t be or aren’t a bishop, then hold tight. The Lord has much bigger plans for you. He loves you so much. You are so important to Him. It would be silly to ask more from Him when He already plans on giving you everything that He has.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Judges 2–4; 6–8; 13–16 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Rahab: From Prostitute to Type of Christby Autumn Dickson
How could I not take some time to speak about Rahab? She was incredible. Here is our introduction to Rahab.
Joshua 2:1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot’s house, named Rahab, and lodged there.
Rahab was a prostitute who hid Israeli spies as they were coming to look at Jericho. In exchange for hiding them, she asked them to spare her and her family. They gave her a red cord to put in the window, and all of Jericho was destroyed except for her and her family.
In order to understand precisely why she was so great, it’s important to understand the background she was born into.
Jericho was getting utterly destroyed. There have been times throughout history where the Lord helped His people conquer without utterly destroying everything. Jericho was not one of those times. The land of Canaan was “full” of sin to the extent that destruction was necessary. It was so filled with misery that it needed a clean slate.
Except for Rahab.
The fact that she’s a prostitute during this time period isn’t unsurprising. What she’s had to go through is not a sign of her moral failings but of her society failing her. We can see the type of person she is from her reactions.
She is willing to follow the Lord after hearing the testimony of others.
She wants to save her family, not just herself.
She utilized her circumstances for the Lord’s work.
These are not the only reasons Rahab is incredible. The fact that she married is also amazing when you learn what trauma she likely accrued because of her circumstances. This is not a comprehensive list of her good qualities, but I specifically chose these ones. These qualities are what make her like the Savior.
Rahab is a type of Christ. Let’s talk about a couple of things in her life that reflect the Savior.
1) She is willing to follow the Lord despite what the society around her is doing.
Rahab could have been blinded by her own society. She could have followed what everyone else was doing and simply been afraid. Imagine if the rest of the Canaanites had the heart that Rahab had. Imagine if all of them had approached the Israelite army and were like, “We heard how your God protected you and took care of you. We would like to follow Him too.” Imagine if all of us were able to look at what was going on around us and be willing to follow a better way.
The Jews were not especially righteous when Christ came to fulfill His mortal ministry. In fact, many of them were evil. If Christ had been born to any other nation, they would have recognized Him as God. Some of the Jews of this time period were too wicked to see Him for what He was. Jesus broke a lot of their made up rules. He followed the Law of Moses perfectly, but He broke a lot of the rules that they had built up around that law. He looked at society and knew there was a better way to live.
2) She wants to save her family, not just herself.
Rahab could have followed the spies out. Perhaps that would have been easier than sitting in her home and hoping all the soldiers followed the direction to spare her. We don’t know all the reasons why Rahab stayed, but we do know she sought out her family and brought them into her home where they could be protected too. She cared enough about her family that she sought saving them too. Maybe she even felt that being saved wouldn’t be worth it if her family couldn’t be saved too.
Christ’s heart also pushed Him to look beyond Himself. Christ is the only One who was perfect enough to go to heaven. He could have come down here, lived perfectly, and gone on to live in heaven forever, but He loved us too much. He put Himself through difficult things in order to save us too. He was concerned with saving His family. He obviously didn’t think heaven was going to be good enough without us despite our many failings. He loved us, and looked beyond Himself.
3) She utilized her circumstances for the Lord’s work.
It was actually important that Rahab was a prostitute. With all of the tension in the air from the Israelite army, it would have been difficult for the spies to get into Jericho. Because she was a prostitute, it allowed them to enter into the city. It wasn’t as uncommon for strangers and foreigners to visit brothels in comparison to visiting repectable houses. Not to mention, Rahab’s house was within the city wall and allowed them to escape.
Now, the fact that she was a prostitute did not mean that the spies went undetected. Somehow, the residents of Jericho noticed the spies and they came knocking. Rahab hid them on the roof before helping them escape. This is actually also an important reflection of Christ.
Only Christ was in the correct circumstances to save us. Because of His birth, He held power that no one else had. He had the ability to save us because of His circumstances.
But, it was still ultimately His decision to save us.
Rahab’s circumstances put her in an ideal situation to save her family and help the Lord’s work, but her choices and faith were absolutely key as well.
Sometimes our circumstances make it difficult to believe that we could ever be like Christ. Sometimes what we’ve been through or are currently going through make us think that we can’t serve. Sometimes our circumstances are the very things that put is in a position to be like Christ.
I testify that like Rahab, we are all given opportunities to be like our Savior. I also testify that like Rahab, following the Lord and His prophet will ultimately save us. It doesn’t matter where we started; we can make choices that will put us in line with the Lord’s people. He can save us, and He can utilize us if we’re willing to leave our old lives behind.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Joshua 1–8; 23–24 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Joshua 1–8; 23–24 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
Why They Marched Around Jericho 7 Timesby Autumn Dickson
The Fall of Jericho is epic for many reasons. There are a lot of details that we could talk about that would teach us about the Savior, but let’s just cover a few.
Jericho was a large city that was meant for the Israelites. The Lord was helping them gain their land one bit at a time. When Jericho saw the Israelites coming, they closed their gates and settled in for a siege. The Lord commanded the Israelites to circle the city every day for six days. Then on the last day, they were to do this.
Joshua 6:15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times: only on that day they compassed the city seven times.
I can’t speak for the whole of the commandment (walking once a day for six days); I would need to study it further. However, I want to talk about the last day. The Israelites were to walk around the city seven times, trumpets would blow, and the people were to start yelling. They did so, and the walls fell. The Israelites flooded in and took the city. No one was spared except for Rahab and her house because she had helped the Israelites.
It is significant that the Israelites had to walk around Jericho seven times. Seven was a symbol of the covenant, and it was also symbolic of fullness or being complete. Jericho was the promised land; the Israelites needed completeness.
In the New Testament, the Lord commands His people to be perfect. Perfect was a translation from the word “teleios,” which has an alternate translation. It also means “end” or “complete.” The Savior might also be commanding His people to reach their full spiritual maturity in comparison to going constantly without error.
I find it beautiful that the Israelites needed to symbolically be “complete” in order to enter the promised land. I also find it beautiful that their completeness didn’t make the walls come down. They needed to keep the commandment to go around the city seven times, but that’s not what brought them into the promised land. Here is another important verse.
Joshua 6:16 And it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the Lord hath given you the city.
The walls hadn’t fallen down yet when Joshua said this to the people, and yet, Joshua is speaking as though it already happened. “The Lord has given you this city, so shout!” Joshua knew the promises of the Lord were good for the money. He had no doubt that the city was their’s, and it reflected in the way he spoke to the Israelites.
So what do we learn from this?
The Lord was the one who brought them into the promised land, and He did so after they had become complete.
The Lord is the one who brings us into heaven, and He does so “after” we are complete.
I use quotation marks because “after” is a bit relative. There are many aspects of heaven that we already get to enjoy: family relationships, peace, freedom from past sins, and many more. In some ways, the Lord has already allowed me into heaven. I know that those blessings are a direct result of His atonement, and yet, He still wants me to walk towards completion. It is only when we have become complete, that we can truly enjoy heaven.
For example, in my imperfection, I am still working on fully appreciating the most important things in order to bring more heaven into my life. Because of my insistence on completing tasks, I often prioritize my to-do lists over my relationship with my kids. It is very difficult for me to set aside these tasks that I make monumentally important in my life, and my ability to feel heaven suffers. I inadvertently start to view my kids as obstacles rather than the treasures that they are, and my happiness lessens because of it. I get irritable and don’t treat them as good as they deserve, or I simply don’t go out and be with them.
Becoming complete isn’t about never losing my temper again, though that’s a nice side effect. Becoming complete is about spiritually maturing. It means taking a step back often enough that I change. I change to value my kids the way that Heavenly Father values me, and as I do that, I find more happiness than I could ever find within my completed tasks. It means that I become the kind of person who no longer feels a need to yell; it’s much better than trying the perfectionist route.
As I walk towards completeness, I gain more and more access to the promised land. This is not because I’m taking a hammer to the walls. I just work towards spiritual maturity, and the Savior is the one who actually delivers the promised land. He is the only one who can offer the promised land. We can’t get it ourselves; it has to be given to us. And yet, the Lord still asks us to walk towards completeness. He does this because it’s no use being in the promised land if we’re all keeping ourselves from being happy through our own values and choices.
The Lord asks us to keep His commandments and change towards completeness, but keeping His commandments doesn’t earn heaven. It enables us to appreciate the heaven that He is delivering to us.
The Old Testament is cool. The scriptures are cool. The Lord knows exactly what He’s doing as He tries to teach us about the reality of the Plan of Salvation. The more I study the scriptures, the more I see that He knows what He’s doing.
I testify that the Lord knows us. I testify that He is the One who delivers heaven through His sacrifice. He gives it to us. It’s a gift. He simultaneously pushes us and gives us commandments because He knows our growth is essential for our happiness. We can’t enjoy His gift unless we become like Him. I’m grateful for His sacrifice, His commandments, and His support every step of this process. I’m grateful He loves me enough to work this hard for my joy and benefit.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Joshua 1–8; 23–24 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
The Promised Land You Can’t Enter Yetby Autumn Dickson
In the chapters this week, Moses is led to the top of a mountain where he is shown the promised land.
Deuteronomy 34: 1, 4
1 And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the Lord shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan…
4 And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.
Interestingly enough, despite the fact that the Lord led him there to show him the promised land, Moses wasn’t allowed to go into the promised land because of prior disobedience. He had led the Israelites out of Egypt and across the wilderness. It had not been easy. At one point, Moses had even asked the Lord to kill him rather than deal with the Israelites anymore. Moses suffered plenty of hardship, and he learned many great and important lessons.
But despite this, Moses was still not allowed to step foot in the promised land. The Lord held true to Moses’ consequences for disobedience. According to modern revelation, Moses was translated and taken up to the Lord before the Israelites entered the homeland that was meant for them.
Details are always key. One of the details this week is the fact that Moses was taken up into a mountain where he could overlook the promised land that he couldn’t enter. Mountains in scripture are often compared to temples. Holy things often take place on the tops of mountains, and the Lord gives knowledge and power to some of His children in the tops of mountains. Hold that thought.
I wonder how he felt looking over the lands that were meant to be the inheritance of the Israelites. Did it hurt him that he would not be joining them or had he come to terms with the consequences that had been laid out for his disobedience? Did it hurt to see what had been meant to be his inheritance? Did it hurt to see the promises of the Lord that he would not be receiving?
Whether it hurt or not, I can assure you that it no longer hurts Moses. He was translated, and he ended up in a different promised land than he had pictured or seen on the top of that mountain. It was a better promised land. Yes, Moses is just fine.
I have found a surprising pattern in my life. I have multiple friends who dislike the temple, not because they don’t agree with what happens there, but because they can’t see the promises of the Lord being fulfilled for them. I have friends who have faced infidelity or family members who don’t want to participate in ordinances in the the temple. Going to the temple and hearing the promises that were meant to be theirs doesn’t feel particularly good. It is painful to hear about it and desire it deeply and not have current access to it.
I fully recognize that I have not been in their shoes, nor do I understand what it’s like to feel barred from those promises. Even as I share my testimony of these things, I fully own that I dont understand what it’s like to have to come to terms with feelings like that.
But sometimes objectivity is precisely what is needed. Strong emotions can be so overwhelming that it’s difficult to see the end from the beginning.
So let me testify of the end.
Moses did not enter into that promised land here. He could see it. He was so close, but it was something that wasn’t available to him.
I promise you that he’s okay. More than that, I promise that he is far more than okay. The Lord has taken care of Moses beautifully.
There are two specific promises I want to testify of if you are facing the same problem as Moses or my friends. If you feel that there is no happy ending in sight, these are the promises I want you to hold to.
Promise one. There is a promised land available for you even if it feels like mortality is barring you from in it one form or another. Mortality is not strong enough to keep you from your Savior’s ability to give you a joyful existence. He is mighty to save. He can take care of you. You are not actually barred from those promises.
And in all honesty, you don’t even have to wait to step foot in the promised land.
Moses’ disobedience was what kept him from the promised land, and even his own disobedience didn’t ultimately keep him from eternal joy. If you feel innocently barred, then Satan is lying to you. Christ can offer peace and comfort right now. You can go to the temple and listen to the promises and cling to them. Find comfort in them. You don’t have to know the how in order for those promises to take affect in your life. Those promises ARE for you even if you don’t know exactly how they will look.
And if you don’t feel strong enough to cling to those promises, He has the power to bring peace even when it’s illogical. You can go to the temple and call upon the blessings He promised you there. You can tell Him, “I’m here. I came like You asked. Can you help me feel peace?” And then allow Him to offer peace. Allow Him to comfort you.
Unfortunately, sometimes promises of joy feel empty without our loved ones who refuse their own promises.
Which brings me to promise two. The Lord can take care of those around us, just as He can take care of you.
Elder Orson F. Whitney, an apostle, taught this:
The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return.
I don’t believe the sealing power only applies to children. There is a reason we all get sealed together; I believe this likewise applies to spouses who have chosen to stray. The Lord has a plan for everyone who ever lived upon the earth to be sealed together. That sealing power is so strong.
And in the meantime, He will sorrow with you. He knows what it’s like to watch loved ones stray. He cannot force them to come back, but He knows how to succor you in your pain. He knows exactly how you feel, probably even stronger because His love is deeper. Take comfort in the fact that He has found eternal joy and hope. You can too.
Looking at the promised land doesn’t have to feel painful. I testify that if Moses had seen what was coming for him, any sting from being barred from the promised land would have been soothed. It would have had no power because Moses knew what the Lord had in store for him. We can be like Moses. If you could see the end, it would take away much of the sting for you as well.
I testify that as we consciously strive to strengthen our testimonies of His promises, we find the balm He promised us now, not just in the next life. I testify that the Savior can deliver on His promises of eternal joy. I testify that the ending is beautiful. I testify that He knows how to reach our loved ones, and we can trust Him with them.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Deuteronomy 6–8; 15; 18; 29–30; 34 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Deuteronomy 6–8; 15; 18; 29–30; 34 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
Why Moses Never Entered the Promised Landby Autumn Dickson
Moses was not allowed to go into the promised land with the rest of the Israelites. He wandered in the desert with them for 40 years, saw the promised land from a mountaintop, and returned to God before he could step foot into that land.
Deuteronomy 34:4 And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.
The event that caused Moses to be barred from the promised land came at a time when the Israelites needed water. At one point in their sojourn, Moses was commanded to smite a rock in order to provide water for the Israelites, and it worked. At another time, Moses was commanded to speak to the rock in order to provide water. Instead, Moses hit it again. Because of this, the Lord told Moses that he would not step foot in the promised land.
And the Lord was true to His word. Moses never did enter the promised land that he had led the Israelites to. Despite the miracles and work and lessons that Moses had in his life as he led the Israelites out of Egypt and through the wilderness, Moses didn’t get to help them take those last steps into the promised land.
Seems a bit harsh for those of us who are also not exactly obedient. Everything that Moses contributed was not enough to earn him entrance into the promised land.
Despite its seeming cruelty, this consequence handed down by the Lord is not harsh. It’s true to life and important to understand. There are two portions that we need to understand in relation to Moses being barred from the promised land.
1) When we are not exactly obedient, it can bring lifelong consequences.
It was such a small thing. Moses hit the rock instead of speaking to it. He was supposed to hit the rock the first time. Was it really such a big deal that he hit it a second time? I wonder how Moses came to accept this punishment handed down by the Lord. Perhaps Moses accepted his punishment meekly and perfectly, but I’m going to show you a couple of potential responses from Moses that might reflect how we sometimes receive our own consequences.
“It was such a small thing. Why am I being punished so severely? I’ve done so much good. Isn’t that enough for the Lord?”
“I have to live with this the rest of my life. Every step I take towards the promised land is a reminder that I can’t ever go in. It’s too much to bear.”
“Why am I even walking towards the promised land if I can’t go in? Why can’t someone else lead them? What’s the point of me wandering for forty years if I can’t ever step foot in there?”
Sometimes the consequences of our disobedience seem too much to bear, but the fact remains that the Lord warned us. He doesn’t control us, and honestly, we would likely rail against Him if He tried. People rail against Him even when He merely tells them to stay away from certain behaviors and actions. He doesn’t want to control us, and we don’t want Him to control us, not really. So He warns us, and then He leaves us to decide whether we want to risk it.
No amount of service to the Lord is going to erase a DUI that hurt you, another passenger, or someone in the other car. Even if you’re doing everything right, pausing to look at pornography has the power to destroy your marriage or your happiness in marriage. Breaking the Law of Chastity just once can carry disease or bring a baby into the world who deserves two parents. None of these are things that you can’t overcome, and yet, these consequences follow you even when you continue walking towards the promised land. All of these little commandments handed to us by the Lord are meant to protect us because they carry potential consequences that will follow us for life.
This isn’t meant to shame; it’s meant to warn. You can choose what you want, and perhaps you’ll be one of the lucky ones. But don’t rail against the Lord if you end up with consequences that you have to carry with you until you die. He tried to warn you. He tried to help you set up a life that would be healthy and full of joy. He gave commandments for a reason.
Now here is my second point, and it is every bit as important as the first point.
2) Moses went to heaven even though he didn’t go to the promised land.
The Lord forbade Moses from entering the promised land, and that consequence followed him throughout his journeys in the wilderness.
BUT.
According to modern revelation, Moses was translated, so I’m not really worried about him. Maybe it hurt while he was alive. Maybe he carried that disappointment throughout his journeys. Maybe it hurt even as he stood on that mountaintop and the Lord showed him where the people were going without him.
But it’s not hurting anymore.
Moses is just fine. He carried those consequences; that’s an important part of life. Even despite our best efforts, most of us will carry consequences for life. We will have things we wish we had never done. We will have things we terribly regret that come back to haunt us occasionally.
But it’s worth continuing our walk towards the promised land even while carrying those consequences that are teaching us powerful lessons.
Because even if we don’t get to walk into the promised land here, there is one waiting for us on the other side. That’s the beauty of the atonement of Jesus Christ. The consequences are important for lessons, but lessons don’t have to be carried forever. Christ paid for it. We get to leave them behind and receive the fullness of the Lord if we keep walking towards the promised land.
I testify that the Lord tries to warn us and prevent us from carrying around things that hurt. I testify that even when we do it anyway, those consequences are gifts that teach us to rise to another level. I testify that we don’t have to carry those consequences forever, that Christ paid for them and we still get to go to the promised land even if it’s not the promised land we originally had in mind. I testify that Christ has something better in mind than we had for ourselves.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Deuteronomy 6–8; 15; 18; 29–30; 34 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
How to Complain to the Lordby Autumn Dickson
In Numbers 11, we read about the Israelites getting sick of their miracle, namely the manna in the wilderness which fed them. They remembered all the good food they used to eat in Egypt, and they were mad about eating the same thing for every meal.
Numbers 11:10 Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families, every man in the door of his tent: and the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased.
Moses gets so sick of the Israelites complaining that he asks the Lord to kill him rather than having to deal with them anymore (same, Moses, same). The Lord responds by sending too much meat until they get sick of it.
I want to share my own story, and then I’ll bring it back to the Israelites.
My daughter was baptized in December. It was beautiful. A lot of my family was in town for the wedding and so they got to be there which was magical for me; it also actually complicated things.
The week before the baptism and wedding, the stomach flu went through our house. I rejoiced that we got over it in time for my family to come into town because I don’t get to see my family that often, and I adore being around my family. Unfortunately, the day before the baptism, one of my babies started throwing up again.
I was actually rather devastated. I hadn’t realized how much excitement I had placed on being with my family and having everyone with us for this huge step in my daughter’s life until it was potentially getting taken away from me. I pleaded with the Lord for it to be a fluke, that she would just throw up once and go a full 24 hours without throwing up again before the baptism. Unfortunately, this miracle was not to be. She threw up again the morning of the baptism.
I texted the family and warned them all that I was still going to my daughter’s baptism and that the baby would be there because I had no one else to watch her. I told them I understood if anyone was too afraid to come because everyone was traveling for Christmas (some on international flights), and there were some pregnant women and other little children. We had some immunocompromised family members. There were many reasons to stay away.
And then I knelt down. I told the Lord that I accepted what He chose to give and withhold, and I worked really hard to feel that acceptance and not just offer lip service. Heaven knows lip service wasn’t going to make me feel any better.
And you know what? He blessed me for it. He opened my eyes to see the fact that I was blessed for having a family that I wanted to be around. Not everyone has that. He helped me see that I have an eternity of Christmases to be with family and celebrate. And most importantly, He helped me see that my daughter’s baptism wasn’t just about that single day. It was about the fact that she was binding herself to her Savior forever. In fact, because of her baptism, I would be able to be with her and the rest of my family for eternity. It was definitely a moment to celebrate. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it, it would be one of the greatest blessings of her life.
Now, my family all came anyway, as did my husband’s family who live closer to us. It was perfect and chock full of the spirit and a surprising amount of fun.
BUT. If my family had chosen to stay away that day, I would have understood. There were plenty of reasons to bail. I would have been terribly disappointed and sad, but it would have likewise been tempered by the Savior’s soft reminders.
I’ve gotten frustrated with the Lord often enough in my life that I’ve realized it’s fruitless. There have been times when I’ve been filled with anger or sadness or betrayal and turned to the Lord in my immense overwhelm; He has responded by giving me a clearer perspective and teaching me that I can trust Him.
So after a million and one experiences with the Lord and His wisdom, I was able to approach Him with a lot more faith this time. Rather than getting angry with the Lord for not preventing the problem, I approached Him with meekness. As with all things in the Lord, I was the one who was blessed.
We don’t approach the Lord with meekness to placate His ego. We don’t approach the Lord with meekness to try and get Him to change His mind. We approach Him with meekness because it blesses US. It allows Him to show us the reality of our situation.
The reality of our situation is this: even in the midst of fast and direct trials like Egypt or in the long and arduous and uncomfortable trials of a journey through the wilderness, we have already won! We actually have every reason to be grateful and when we commit to meekness, we have the Lord to help us remember that.
Important sidenote: I have learned that meekness can coexist with many different emotions. We often picture a humble, quiet servant who doesn’t talk back or ever complain, but I don’t think that’s the only way to be meek.
Even in the midst of anger or frustration or exasperation or devastation or annoyance, we can simultaneously say, “I know Thee, Lord. I know I am in Thy hands, and I know that Thou art doing what’s best for me.” You don’t have to turn down your emotions in order to successfully approach the Lord. Just simultaneously bring your knowledge that the Lord is watching out for you. Better yet, take those big emotions to the Lord and ask Him to help you see more clearly so that it’s not difficult to be meek.
When I approached Him in prayer about seeing my family while they were in town, I was bawling. I’ve definitely approached Him and carried my anger with me. We don’t have to seem all pious and restrained. We can simply cling to our testimony that the Lord loves us and wants what’s best for us.
The truth is, the Lord is often going to do what He’s going to do anyway. If the Israelites had simply approached Moses (or approached the Lord, directly) and asked for some dietary variety, maybe the Lord would have sent the right amount of quail rather than sending a difficult lesson alongside it. However, the blessing of meekness is that regardless of what the Lord chose to send, the Israelites could have been happy.
We came here to struggle. He can’t take that away without simultaneously robbing us of the purpose of the Plan of Salvation (growth), and meekness softens that struggle enough that we can see it more clearly. It enables us to see around it and rejoice anyway.
I testify that the Lord has your best interest at heart. I testify that He loves you. I testify that meekness over complaining is a gift that blesses us. It honors Him with the deference He deserves, but even our meekness before Him gives back to us. I testify that trials are gifts, and that the Lord provides.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Numbers 11–14; 20–24; 27 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Numbers 11–14; 20–24; 27 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
The Spy Report That Cost 40 Yearsby Autumn Dickson
The Israelites are wandering in the wilderness before they’re led to the promised land. They’re having experiences with God and learning difficult lessons. They’re being provided for even if it’s not everything they had in mind. They have had experiences of faith as well as experiences where they betrayed the witnesses they had received. Let’s talk about one of the times they were rebellious and unfaithful.
In Numbers 13, Moses sends twelve spies (one from each tribe) into Canaan. Depending on where you read in the bible (see Deuteronomy 1), the timelines differ slightly. One suggests the people wanted to spy; one suggests the Lord recommended it. Either way, the church seems to emphasize the Lord’s approval of the mission.
The spies come back with the following report.
Numbers 13:27
27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.
They then warned of the city’s defenses. Caleb encouraged the people to have faith, but ten of the other spies continued on with their report.
Numbers 13:31-33
31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
It’s important to understand that Canaan was the promised land. It is eventually (mostly) conquered by the Israelites and divided out amongst the tribes. The Lord had led them through this entire experience from slavery to the edge of the land of promise, only for them to believe they wouldn’t be able to take the land.
So what does this teach us?
Your promised land is available. I’m not simply talking about the mansion being built for you on the other side. I’m talking about all the most important aspects of the promised land. Peace, contentment, joy, healthy relationships, all of these things are available to you. These are all crucial parts of our salvation and eternity. Sure, eternity also includes all of our needs being met and perfect bodies, but some of the most important portions of the promised land are available to us right now.
So what kept the Israelites from inheriting the promised land sooner?
A lack of faith.
What keeps us from inheriting the portions of promised land that are available to us on this side of the veil?
A lack of faith.
That’s it. That’s the first step on this journey towards your promised land. The Israelites didn’t need military might or impeccable strategy. They needed faith. You don’t need all of the things you think you need. You just need to trust the Lord.
It’s enough for you to see the land flowing with milk and honey and say, “The Lord meant for me to have that.” Sometimes it’s hard to feel that way when you see what you’re up against; namely, all of your own flaws and mistakes and imperfections. The Israelites certainly didn’t feel capable. However, you’re not conquering the land for yourself; you’re showing up for the Lord to conquer it for you.
So how do we do better than the Israelites so it doesn’t take us forty years to figure out how to be in the promised land?
Well if our problem is a lack of faith, maybe we should look at increasing faith. Here is one recommendation from Bednar on how to do that.
The enabling power of the Atonement is accessed by faith in Jesus Christ. And that faith is strengthened as we remember and acknowledge the hand of the Lord in our lives.
Remembering and acknowledging the Lord → Faith → Enabling power of the atonement of Jesus Christ steps in and gets us where we need to go
Would the Israelites have felt differently if all the spies had come back and started with a list of the ways the Lord had provided for them from the time they were in slavery? If they had started off with the miraculous infant survival of Moses to the steps right outside the promised land, it would have been a long list. There were many times that the Israelites didn’t even lift a finger for their own freedom and survival; the Lord took it completely on Himself. And that’s just the list of the society as a whole. How many personal miracles did the Israelites experience from family to family?
Would it have changed how the Israelites approached this experience? I’m not sure, but I know it’s changed how I approach my own life.
I think that’s partially why my prayers have been so powerful in my life, specifically the gratitude. When I’m facing a situation of uncertainty or tragedy, I pray. There are so many wonderful ways to pray and draw closer to the Lord, but one of the most powerful ways I’ve found is to start with true gratitude (even when it’s mixed with sorrow or fear or anger). When I’m struggling, I don’t list nice things that happened throughout the day. I consciously think of similar situations in the past where the Lord has shown up for me.
By the end of the prayer, I often find myself in some version of the promised land, even if the obstacle wasn’t removed.
I testify that the Lord has saved you many times before this, and He will continue to save you in the future. He will continue to teach you the lessons He needs to teach you until you’re ready to step into that promised land He has offered each of us despite mortal circumstances. I testify that if we take the time to record these miracles and tender mercies, it makes our faith powerful.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Numbers 11–14; 20–24; 27 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Repenting of Unintentional Sinby Autumn Dickson
In my last post, we talked about Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. As a quick review in case you missed the last post, this day was a solemn event with an undercurrent of joy. The main ritual of the day included two identical male goats. One goat would be sacrificed with its blood spread on the Holy of Holies and its fat burned on the altar. The priest would lay his hands on the second goat, pronounce the intentional and unintentional sins of Israel upon it, and then send the goat out into the wilderness. The first goat represented the payment of Israel’s sins. The second goat represented the guilt being taken away from them.
The detail that I want to explore from this ritual is when the priest symbolically transferred the sins of Israel onto the second goat. There are parallels to Christ in all of these steps and details, but that’s the one I want to talk about today. Here’s the verse that teaches us about this.
Leviticus 16:21-22
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
Implication one from this detail: It is important to repent of unintentional sin. It is good for us. It makes us happier.
I think of when my oldest daughter finally lashes out at my son when he’s being purposefully obnoxious. My son often tortures his sisters repeatedly, not hurting them or saying directly mean things, but pushing their buttons until they explode on him. My daughter will hold out as long as she can until she finally explodes in a violent reaction.
The violent reaction is more jarring than the relentless teasing, but whose heart is actually sinning (Yes, I recognize that both my kids are young and one isn’t even accountable yet. This is about the principle, not the specific details)? My son is the one truly trying to make his sister batty; that’s his entire purpose. My daughter never set out to bug or hurt him; she simply has the emotional control of an eight year old.
And yet, she still needs to repent. She doesn’t need to repent because she’s evil and horrible and cursed. She needs to repent because it’s going to make her happier. Repenting isn’t just about atoning for what you’ve done; it’s about changing so you’re protected, close to Christ, and happier. In this specific example, my long-term goal for her repentance is to get to the point where her brother doesn’t affect her. She just goes on in her life, unbothered by people who are purposefully trying to make her life harder. That’s part of happiness, and therefore, repenting is a gift.
Obviously, I need to help my son change too, but my principle here is about repenting of unintentional sins, not intentional ones.
I used an example of violence, and I specifically used an example where she made a mistake because she’s flawed like the rest of us. It’s easy to see how violence needs to be repented of. However, these same principles apply when we’re trying to do what’s right but not worshiping how the Savior would have us worship.
We talked about this recently with the golden calf incident. Maybe Israel wasn’t trying to worship a different deity. Perhaps they had just created an idol in hopes of worshiping the God who had just delivered them. Perhaps their hearts were trying to do what’s right but were misguided.
Even if their hearts were in a good place, repentance of unintentional sin is important. Heavenly Father gives commandments to help us be good people, but He also gives us commandments to protect us from becoming bad. Seems like a silly nuance but let me elaborate. Israel could have very quickly devolved into worshiping the calf rather than the Lord even if their intention had been to worship the Lord in the beginning. They needed to repent because the Lord wanted to protect them.
So even if the Israelites had unintentionally sinned (and I emphasize if since we don’t know precisely where their hearts were), they still needed to repent! They still needed to repent of unintentional sins so they could remain close to the Lord where they would be happy.
So quick recap so we can understand where we’re going: The detail we’re covering is that the priest symbolically transferred the unintentional and intentional sins of Israel up on the goat that would be released into the wilderness.
Implication two from this detail: We’re trying to change our sinful nature, not just listing off individual sins and saying sorry. Ultimate repentance is about changing to be like God, not racking up individual points that tip the scales and put us in the Celestial Kingdom.
When I write my posts, I often use AI to help me get my details straight. I don’t use it to actually write my content in case anyone was wondering, but I do use it to make sure I’m understanding timelines and facts. For example, I asked it to give me a play-by-play of the ritual so I wouldn’t accidentally ruin one of the details.
I turned to AI as I was writing this early in the morning and asked, “Did the Israelites write down their sins and give it to the priest to transfer over to the goat?” It was only after hitting “enter,” that I realized how ridiculous that question was. I blamed the early morning and brain fog.
Anyway, AI responded by saying that no one gave the priest a long list of the sins they committed over the past year. First of all, that’s terribly impractical. It’s impractical (and unhealthy) to keep a list of all your sins, and it’s impractical to list each sin of each individual for the entire society for the entire year. Second of all, a majority of them were illiterate. Like I said, I blame the early morning for my ridiculous question, but I’m actually grateful that I asked it because it led me to a beautiful implication.
Because of my question, I more consciously realized that the Israelites weren’t listing individual sins. It’s not about repenting of individual sins and trying to garner points that put us in the Celestial Kingdom. It’s about changing our nature to goodness. The priest didn’t transfer each individual sin onto the goat for it to run out into the wilderness; the priest merely acknowledged the sinful nature for the year. Perhaps this seems cheap; it’s so easy to go to Heavenly Father and be like, “I sinned a lot last year. Forgive me please.” However, religious rituals are only as cheap as you make them.
This ritual wasn’t about reliving every mistake and rebellion. This ritual wasn’t about rehashing everything you did wrong. This ritual was about recognizing that you can’t make it to heaven on your own. It’s about fully understanding how lost you are without Christ and rejoicing as you watch that goat be taken away. It’s about wanting to change into a new creature, one who is worthy and joyful, a person who can live in heaven and contribute to the atmosphere there and appreciate the atmosphere there.
I testify that the Lord was sacrificed for our sins. I testify that He gave us an opportunity to remember that each week with the sacrament. Like with Yom Kippur, we have an opportunity to repent of unintentional and intentional sins so that we can be happier. We have an opportunity to sit with our reality as mortals who live in a fallen world who rely wholly on the merits of Christ and to rejoice that He is willing to carry us.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Exodus 35–40; Leviticus 1; 4; 16; 19 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Exodus 35–40; Leviticus 1; 4; 16; 19 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
Still Holding On To Guilt?by Autumn Dickson
This week we’re learning about the sacrifices and rituals of the Israelites in the wilderness. They had a temple that would go with them as they travelled, and there was immense symbolism all throughout this temple. Much of this symbolism was meant to draw the attention of the Israelites towards the atonement of Jesus Christ. It was called a sacrifice, but it was actually a blessing.
One of the detailed rituals that we get to read about occurs on Yom Kippur, or Day of Atonement. The central ritual on this day involved two identical male goats, both had to be perfectly healthy. Here are some of the details of that ritual.
Leviticus 16:7-8
7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
So the priest would cast lots to see which goat would take which role. The first goat would be killed, and its blood would be collected in a basin. The high priest would take that blood into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle it upward once and downward seven times. The fat would be burned, and the rest of the goat would be taken outside the camp and burned.
This symbolized the payment of Israel’s sins.
The second goat was the scapegoat. The high priest would lay both hands on the goat and confess all of the intentional and unintentional sins of Israel upon the head of the goat. Essentially, the priest was symbolically transferring the guilt to the goat. A designated man would lead the goat into the remote wilderness and release it.
This symbolized the guilt being removed from the Israelites.
I love that they are separate processes. There are so many layers of symbolism, but one of the layers is something I talk about often:
Christ already paid for the sins; what do we do with this knowledge?
Think about the power of that second goat when it was taken as it was meant to be taken. Imagine being an Israelite and watching these rituals take place. You watch the ritual with the understanding that the Son of God would be sacrificed to pay for your sins, and then you watch another ritual in which your guilt runs off into the wilderness.
I think one of the issues that we have in modern times is believing that the atonement of Jesus Christ occurred but holding on to our own sins anyway. It would be like having an understanding that the Son of God was sacrificed, watching the scapegoat be taken away, and still going home to reflect and beat yourself up over your own sins. The sacrifice of the first goat doesn’t matter if you refuse to let go of the second goat. The fact that the second goat is now out in the wilderness didn’t matter. You have to internalize both parts to receive joy.
The atonement of Jesus Christ was incredible in and of itself. The act of love was immense and singular. Everything hinged on this sacrifice performed by Christ. But Christ didn’t perform the sacrifice just to perform the sacrifice. The atonement of Jesus Christ enabled the Father to remain perfect with His promises, but it was meant for even more than that incredible purpose. It was meant to make us joyful. The atonement of Jesus Christ remains an independent fact of reality, but what we do with that knowledge determines whether it fills the fullness of its purpose in our lives.
If Yom Kippur had only included the first goat, the Israelites could have learned about Christ and His atonement. They could have rejoiced that He paid for their sins, and they could have garnered hope from this sacrifice. But I love that it included the second goat, the scapegoat, because it highlights our need to utilize the atonement of Jesus Christ in our lives.
It’s not enough that He performed it; we have to bring that knowledge into our bones so that it changes us in a way that we are joyful. We have to send our guilt away from us. We have to put the weight down. It’s a conscious, voluntary choice.
I think many of us hope the guilt will simply be taken away from us, or at least that’s what I used to think. I believed that if I was truly forgiven, I just wouldn’t feel guilty anymore. The Lord would remove it for me. Interestingly enough, that’s not how it usually works. The Lord is too wise to vanish our guilt away from us.
The process of repentance wouldn’t be nearly as effective in this way. If the Lord simply took away the guilt because it was paid for, we would learn nothing and we certainly wouldn’t attach that redemption to the Son of God. We would just wake up in the morning and not feel guilty anymore. We might not even register the fact that the guilt was gone or we could unconsciously start to believe, “I can do what I want, and I don’t feel bad about it. Maybe it’s not even bad.” There were many times that I wanted the Lord to take the guilt away. I didn’t want to carry it with me and I asked the Lord to take it away, but He was wise enough to wait for me to trust Him enough to set it down on my own.
He waited for me to consciously say, “Christ promised that He took care of this. He promised that He’s strong enough to save me. I’m going to voluntarily step onto that trust and send my guilt away.” This is the most powerful way to repent. It pushes us to recognize the source of our renewed cleanliness as well as the fact that what we did was wrong. Having consequences (including guilt) magically dissipate is unhealthy for our desire to do better.
So the Lord paid for it, and then He waits for us to learn to trust Him so that we send the guilt away of our own accord.
That’s not to say Christ isn’t present for every step of this process. He paid for the sins, and He didn’t abandon me when I asked Him to take the guilt away. He just helped in a different way than making the guilt dissipate. The Israelites didn’t have to individually lead their own scapegoat into the wilderness. There was still a representative who did that for them. The key here is that it needed to mean something to them. They had to trust that their representative would take care of it, and it would truly be gone.
I’m grateful for a Savior who paid for my sins. I’m grateful that He was patient as I learned to trust Him rather than removing the very difficulties that helped me recognize my reality and love Him for it. I’m grateful that I’ve learned to set my sins and mistakes and embarrassments down; the Savior truly is mighty to save. That knowledge gives me hope in every situation I remember Him in.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Exodus 35–40; Leviticus 1; 4; 16; 19 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
The Idols We Don’t Call Idolsby Autumn Dickson
The Israelites were delivered by incredible miracles. The plagues were immense in and of themselves, but the parting of the Red sea was next level. The Lord had freed the Israelites through marvelous power, just as He promised.
A short time later, the people find themselves in the wilderness. Moses is lingering up on the mountain away from everyone, and the Israelites have gotten antsy. They convince Aaron to make them an idol to worship. Aaron tells them to bring their earrings, he melts them down, and makes a golden calf.
Exodus 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
I grew up thinking these people were ridiculous. You just saw the sea part, and you forgot that fast? How could you be so blind? Why would you follow after another deity?
As I got a bit older, I remembered that they had just been slaves. Despite the miracles, I assume they were still very young in the doctrine of Christ. How much were they taught in the midst of everything else Moses was trying to take care of in freeing them?
Maybe I’m late to the party, but as I read the verses this time, I started to wonder if they really followed after another god at all. There was an Egyptian god that was represented by a cow, but ancient Near Eastern studies also explain a connection between bulls and calves and mounts and thrones for deity. Maybe they were just trying to build a physical representation of their God to carry with them.
In the verse we read, we even see that Aaron tells Israel, “This is the god who brought you out of Egypt.”
Perhaps they weren’t worshipping a different god at all. Perhaps their worship was merely corrupted. Maybe that’s why Aaron didn’t put a stop to it. Maybe he thought it was fine because he thought it was one way to worship the true God. Maybe he thought it was great that they were sacrificing their gold and trying to worship the God who had delivered them.
Obviously we don’t know. There aren’t enough details. However, there are principles we can learn about the gospel from studying it from either angle. Today, I’m going to speak as if this angle (corrupted worship over following after a different god) is the true angle, simply so we can explore it more effectively. However, before I begin, I completely concede that we don’t know for sure whether this is the truth of the account. Fortunately, whether I have the story’s details correct isn’t completely relevant. What’s important is that the principles I want to talk about are correct.
So that’s what we’re going to talk about. Maybe the Israelites were hoping for a symbol of Christ, not a separate idol to worship. Plot twist. When we don’t worship how the Savior prescribes (like building a golden calf), we run into danger of turning that symbol into an idol. I guess we’re talking about corrupted worship and worshiping idols.
Now, following another god is crazy after everything the Israelites experienced; worshiping in a corrupted manner is more understandable. However! Despite it being more understandable, it is still dangerous and needs to be corrected and prevented regardless of whether their hearts were in the right place. Sometimes the world looks at sin and gives a pass when your heart is in the right place. We can be understanding of a good heart and still make the correction; it is loving to make the correction.
When I was around 10 years old, I remember my mom walking into my room when I was saying my nightly prayers. I had a picture of Christ sitting in front of me while I prayed because I wanted it to help me remember Him. It made my mother a little bit uncomfortable (at least that’s how I remember it when I was 10), and she told me it wasn’t a great idea. The practice stopped that night.
Some would call this silly. Why not let a child put a picture in front of them to help them focus on Christ? I understand the sentiment. Having something in front of you to focus your thoughts and help you be reverent so you can focus on Christ can be a good thing.
But there’s another side to that coin too. It could be fine. I could have kept the picture of Christ and never run into dangerous ground. I don’t think I would have worshiped the picture, but let’s talk about a couple of perspectives I might have adopted had the practice continued.
I could have gotten to the point where I didn’t feel like I could pray without the picture there. I could have gotten ultra-protective of the picture. I could have wanted to carry the picture with me to make me feel safe even though I was perfectly safe without it. I could have attributed more power to the picture than the picture held. I could have given it power over me even though it had no power innately.
Even if I didn’t consider the picture my “god,” it still could have affected my life. And in perfect honesty, that’s how most idols work these days. People don’t call their priority their god; they don’t consider themselves worshiping idols. They just give all their time and energy and resources to something, hoping it will bring them deeper happiness than it is capable of giving.
We are worshiping incorrectly when we attribute power to things that don’t have power. We are worshiping incorrectly when we give things power over our lives and place all of our hopes for happiness on those things. Even if we don’t call them “gods,” we’re still worshiping wrong and hurting ourselves.
People do stuff like this all the time. Superstition is rampant in our world. It’s easy to start giving things power when they hold no power. Maybe I would have never been so silly as to give the picture any power, but I’m not totally sure. Let’s look at another example.
I got plenty superstitious as I played tennis through high school. I went through the same routine between each point, worried that if I changed it, I might lose. Plot twist 2. I lost a lot of the time anyway. And yet there I was, making sure I always did the short handshake with my partner in between points. I made sure I bounced the ball three times before serving, and then I would start over if I messed something up. I literally remember messing up my rhythm in between points and feeling cursed. I was convinced I had ruined the point before the point even began. Needless to say, I basically gave those points away.
The Israelites have just left Egypt behind where they were surrounded and ruled by people who worshipped things like the golden calf. It was dangerous to their spiritual health. Even if it was meant to represent Christ, it would have been very easy (as we see throughout the rest of the Old Testament) for them to turn it into their god instead. For example, when they run into problems, did they feel a need to go and talk to the calf or did they pray to God? If something happened and the calf was damaged, would they have cursed themselves by assuming they were cursed for hurting the golden calf?
I gave away points in tennis because I attributed more power to my routine than it actually held. What would the Israelites have given away because internally, they were giving more power to the golden calf than it actually held?
We worship how the Savior asks us to worship. That’s when we are at our most spiritually powerful. That’s when we are going to be led in the right direction concerning His character and decisions regarding us. That’s when we’re going to be able to get closer to the truth, and therefore, closer to happiness.
I testify that the Lord has revealed His own character and the way that He wants us to worship. I testify that He did this because He wants to protect us and keep us close to the truth of things. I testify that as we follow what He has given, we see reality more clearly and find deeper joy.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Exodus 19–20; 24; 31–34 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Exodus 19–20; 24; 31–34 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.
Why God Let the Israelites Worship the Golden Calfby Autumn Dickson
The infamous golden calf incident; that is one of the stories we read about this week. Moses is gone a long time speaking with the Lord. The people grow impatient and tell Aaron to build them a god. He took their earrings (the ones the Lord told them they could take out of Egypt), melted them down, and formed them into the calf.
Here is one of the details I noted this week that I didn’t recognize before.
Exodus 32:7 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
I have a feeling that the Lord knew when and why the people were making the golden calf. While He worked with Moses, He knew far ahead of time that they were going to make an idol for themselves. What I’m trying to imply is the fact that He could have purposefully sent Moses down earlier to prevent the entire debacle. It never needed to happen…or did it? I suppose that depends on how you define “need.”
The word “need” has more nuance than we think sometimes. I need the Savior in order to live with my Heavenly Father again; that is a defined, definite, unaltering need without any leeway. I also use that word in this way: I needed my parents to teach me and love me into a testimony of the Savior. Perhaps I could have found the Savior without them, but so much of what I have was given to me by my parents. I was given so much from them that I feel comfortable using the word “need.” There is a spectrum of the word “need.”
We need the Savior, and the Savior is also wise enough to understand that we need supports to help us find Him.
Did the Israelites need to go through this incident of worshipping a golden calf after being freed from Egypt? Perhaps they didn’t need it to the extent that they needed a Savior, but I’m comfortable with utilizing that word to describe their situation. They needed to have this experience outwardly so that they could be taught in a powerful way. They needed this experience so they could flesh it out of their hearts.
So the Lord could have prevented the sin altogether by simply sending Moses down. I’m sure the Lord would have had plenty of time to teach Moses at other opportunities, and they would have been able to surpass this debacle altogether.
But is that what Israel needed?
There are some principles here that we can apply to our own lives.
The first principle is the idea that the Lord is more concerned with us learning powerful lessons than being perfect.
I have noticed a trend among parents that they would do absolutely anything to prevent harm from coming to their child. The sentiment is great. Of course we don’t want our children to get hurt. However, sometimes the most powerful thing for our children is for them to face real consequences rather than constant protection.
Last summer, my son would often run off and jump on his dirt bike without a helmet or shoes. Despite the fact that I got onto him again and again and again and again, I couldn’t perfectly keep him protected. Even when I sent him out with shoes and a helmet, he would often leave them behind throughout the day and do what he wanted.
I could have taken the dirt bike away completely, and I did for periods of time. But it wasn’t working. He wasn’t learning.
At the same time, I felt inspired to pray that he would make mistakes and learn powerful lessons without killing himself or getting seriously injured. To be honest, I didn’t make the connection between my prayer and his bad safety habits ahead of time. This is why I know it was an inspired prayer.
One day I sent Warner outside to play with his sister before school. I told him explicitly to stay in the yard because I didn’t want to have to run off and find him and have him be late for school. Unfortunately, the dirt bikes are kept in a shed in the backyard. He jumped on one and put his sister on the back, and they left the yard and rode off.
Thirty seconds later, they were hit by a car. The car was moving very slowly, and she threw on her brakes and essentially tapped them over.
No broken bones. I don’t even think there was any real blood. There were some skinned knees and bruises, but they were totally fine.
Warner was also petrified. The cops came and checked everything out to make sure they were okay. I don’t know if he thought he was going to jail. I don’t know if he was feeling the gravity of what could have happened (as much as a five year old can feel). I do know that he wore his shoes and helmet willingly the rest of the summer. I still had to remind him occasionally, but he didn’t fight me on it like he had before.
The lesson he learned from living the consequences was far more powerful than any words I could have shared, and he started to voluntarily use his agency more wisely than he had previously. That’s the true goal. It’s not about perfection or complete and total safety; it’s about us learning how to use our agency wisely and on purpose so that we can live happy lives.
I’m grateful for the lesson my son learned that day. I’m grateful that the lesson wasn’t so severe as to permanently injure him or his sister.
Israel learned a hard lesson when Moses came back down from the mountain. They learned it very clearly. Would they have learned it in the same way if Moses had simply told them the Ten Commandments? The Lord could have prevented the entire problem, but He was wise enough to know that allowing the incident and imperfection to teach wisdom.
I’m grateful for the atonement of Jesus Christ which means that we can make these mistakes in a controlled environment where nothing has to permanently injure our spirit. Even when we make the mistake of creating idols out of the very things the Lord has given us, He doesn’t cast us aside. He purposefully allows us to make those mistakes so we can learn those powerful lessons, and then He pays for those mistakes. He is selfless in its truest sense. He just wants us to be happy, and I’m so grateful He paid for me to have these experiences.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Exodus 19–20; 24; 31–34 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Parted Waters, Messy Leadership, and Miraclesby Autumn Dickson
The story of Moses freeing the Israelites through the power of God is an incredible parable for the atonement of Jesus Christ. It’s probably the most important lesson we can pull from that story. However, it’s not the only story we can learn from it. There are other principles at work too. Let’s talk about one of them.
Within the story, we find Moses exhorting the people to have faith in God and His ability to deliver. We’ve come a long way from Moses being worried about talking to Pharaoh. After exhorting the people to believe and trust, he turns to the Lord. The Lord tells him to move forward, and there would be a miracle. Moses listens.
Exodus 14:21-22
21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
I want to zoom in on some of the people who were experiencing these events. I have no idea how the individual Israelites were truly reacting outwardly and in their hearts, but let’s talk about relatable hypotheticals.
I want you to imagine an Israelite who was particularly grumpy about being saved; let’s call him Joshua. Despite the fact that Joshua was saved, he was still a little peeved over the fact that there were so many problems along the way. Surely, the whole process of saving Israel could have been a lot smoother. Moses wasn’t very good at convincing Pharaoh to let the people go, and they ended up with a lot of extra work. He had to put blood on his doors which just seems unnecessary; why couldn’t God just save them if He was really so powerful? And then, of course, Joshua was one of the first to call Moses out when they noticed that the Egyptians were chasing after them to kill them in the wilderness.
What was Moses thinking bringing them out here? Sure, their lives weren’t fantastic, but at least they were alive. Why did Moses feel the need to go ruin it and why did everyone follow after him? If you’re going to save someone, you should do it right and actually save them. Not just do it halfway.
Joshua is legitimately worried about himself and his family and this supposed prophet who has led them into the wilderness to be slaughtered. Despite the real danger behind them, Moses has the gall to tell them to just have faith. Who does that? Moses is the reason they’re in danger, and his response is for them to trust him? Who does he think he is?
But then something changes. Moses starts walking towards the water, and miracle of miracles, the water parts for the Israelites to walk through.
Maybe there is something here. Maybe Moses has God behind him. So Joshua follows.
Unfortunately, this process isn’t necessarily smoother than the experiences with the plagues. The terrain left behind after the parted waters can be treacherous. Trying to get families safely through it is downright dangerous. It can be steep and rocky. It’s hard to tread through the sand. Couldn’t Moses have summoned a boat instead? Surely that would have been easier than parting the entire sea.
Not to mention, how do we know this miracle is going to hold? Joshua is pretty skeptical about this whole thing. Does he have the power to hold this long enough or are they all just going to end up drowning anyway? Conveniently for Moses, they don’t have a choice but to follow him anyway.
Now, I want you to imagine for a moment that Joshua slips and slides down the face of a rock. He becomes injured, and he is fed up. He is so over this. How can Moses be so reckless with the lives of people he apparently loves and wants to rescue?
Joshua is done. He’s turning back. He’s done putting his life at risk for this mortal man who is supposed to be saving them.
Seems a bit ridiculous, don’t you think?
And yet, don’t we see this all the time? The church hasn’t been perfect. The programs aren’t perfect. Leaders aren’t perfect. In fact, some people who were called into positions were downright evil and dangerous. Sometimes people have gotten hurt along the way because of those imperfections. Sometimes there has been true fear involved.
These are all true and legitimate statements.
But it’s also true that the Lord sent plagues and enabled the Israelites to walk out of Egypt. It’s also true that the Red Sea was parted.
The path was messy. There was difficulty and fear and devastation. There were also miracles beyond our wildest dreams and covenants with a Lord who has a land for our inheritance. There is a life beyond slavery. It’s not necessarily going to be an easy life, but it’s a life worth living. It’s worth growing and owning your decisions and having the freedom to build something for yourself. It’s worth the difficulty to get a front row seat for the miracles. It is worth leaving slavery for.
It is worth it to follow the prophet. Don’t miss the miracles of the priesthood structure and church and The Book of Mormon and the youth programs and welfare programs and the missionary programs. The church is doing miraculous things and changing lives. It’s giving people an opportunity to rise above previous circumstances. The prophet is being led by the Savior even if you think things should be done differently.
Maybe you don’t like the whole list of plagues you had to go through before the death of the firstborn. Maybe you don’t like the blood on the door.
Maybe the Lord is trying to teach you about His atonement.
Maybe you don’t like the difficult path you’ve had to walk within the church.
Maybe the Lord is trying to teach you about His atonement.
The story of the exodus from Egypt is a powerful parable for the atonement of Jesus Christ. It’s also an incredible example of why it’s important to follow the prophet even if things don’t go perfectly smoothly or even if you think that you could have done things better. The Lord has called a prophet, and He knows what He’s doing.
So you can stay in slavery or you can join the Lord in this journey where even the treacherous parts can contribute to a glorious you.
I testify that the Lord loves His children. I testify that He led Moses even when things weren’t going smoothly. I testify that following the prophet enabled the Israelites to be freed through the power of the Savior. I testify that the Lord is leading His church through a living prophet today. Perhaps that prophet hasn’t been led perfectly, but it would be ridiculous to miss out on the miracles because of the mistakes.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Exodus 14–18 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Allen Hansen was featured in episode 2. This is the full interview.
Check out Allen’s other work: https://independent.academia.edu/HansenAllen
Sarah Allen is a senior researcher with FAIR, and the 2022 recipient of the John Taylor: Defender of the Faith Award. By profession, she works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She is a co-moderator of the LDS subreddit on Reddit and the author of a multi-part series rebutting the CES Letter. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.
The post Me, My Shelf, & I – Episode 7 – Seer Stones w/ Allen Hansen (Full Interview) appeared first on FAIR.
How to Find Peaceby Autumn Dickson
There is a verse in the bible that is probably one of the most quoted and appreciated verses of all time. Christ shared it the night of the Passover amidst instituting the sacrament, teaching and prophesying, and washing the feet of His disciples. He spoke peace to His disciples just a little bit before He went to the garden and suffered.
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
Think of the context in which this saying was given to the disciples. Christ knew what was coming. He knew that the coming night would not be peaceful, nor the hours that followed it (at least not in the usual sense of the word). He knew that “peace” as defined by the world would very soon be snatched away from His disciples. But still, He promised to leave them with peace.
What kind of peace was He trying to give them? What does it look like and how do we receive it in our darkest moments?
To have faith
The kind of peace offered by our Savior is not a quiet morning. It is not perfect children or tons of money to do what we need and want. It is not a promise of health. It certainly wasn’t what He was offering His disciples in the moment He made the promise, and it’s not what He’s offering us either. A huge point of coming to earth was turmoil and opposition so offering an escape from that would diminish the ability of the Plan of Salvation to exalt us.
So how does He give peace?
Receiving peace requires faith in Him. Such a simple sentence, but I believe there’s a whole lot to unpack there. For Easter, we’re talking about the peace that comes with faith. But we’re going to have to talk a lot about faith to understand the kind of faith we need in order to receive peace.
We often talk about how faith is an action word, and it absolutely is. Faith in God drives us to keep the commandments which oftentimes leads us away from circumstances that may bring more turmoil, and that’s awesome. In the same breath, not all turmoil comes from choices we’ve made, and sometimes we’re also going to be making mistakes So what does faith look like in the circumstances that are beyond our control or in the situations where the mistake has been made?
Let’s first look at how the experiences of the disciples might have changed if they had felt faith.
The disciples during the time of crucifixion
Let it be known that this is not a critique of the disciples and how they responded with the events around Christ being taken and killed. For some reason, the Holy Ghost was not operating in the same way during Christ’s mortal ministry (see Bible Dictionary, “Holy Ghost”), and we know how the Holy Ghost plays a key role in many of these kinds of circumstances. This is not a critique, it’s a way to observe the past (since hindsight is 2020) and know how to apply it to our current and future circumstances.
So the disciples are sitting with Christ at the Passover dinner. He teaches many things that were likely hard to be understood without the Holy Ghost. He tells them to not let their hearts become troubled. He has told them more than once that He is going to die, but then again, Christ also spoke about being born again. How literal are we talking here?
Christ is taken, tortured, and crucified. As they lay Him in the tomb, what are they thinking? They lovingly care for His body, but are they also a little angry? Are they in shock? Do they feel abandoned? Are they frustrated that He took them away from their lives and then left them to fend for themselves? The disciples are left to mourn their beloved leader, and they are also left to mourn the hopes and dreams they had placed upon Him. They are left to fear the future, and fear they do. Christ rises again, and it takes a while, but eventually they all come to see and believe and feel peace.
Now imagine if they had been able to have faith in Christ’s words.
Jesus is taken, tortured, and crucified. As they watch this come to pass, they are agonized over watching it, but they know what this is for. Even if they don’t fully grasp the fact that Christ needs to experience this suffering to complete the atonement, they know that He promised it would all work out. They lovingly take care of His body. There are still tears and disbelief, but the source is an overwhelming awe at what He sacrificed for them. There are whispers of gratitude instead of whispers of, “Why?” They are still saying, “I can’t believe this happened,” but it’s only because they can’t believe that He suffered in that manner for them; it’s only because they can’t believe they are truly free from Satan’s grasp.
And then there is a waiting period of three days. They know He’s coming back; He promised He would. No matter what they do, their minds are always drawn back to pondering what happened. And they wait.
With faith, they experienced the same events, but the events felt completely different. There were still tears, still agony. There was a lot of waiting, but the waiting had anticipation over fear.
When Christ teaches Thomas that, “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed,” He’s not talking about raining down arbitrary blessings upon those who choose to believe in something they can’t see. He’s talking about the fact that Thomas could have saved himself a whole lot of pain if he had been able to find faith. He would have been blessed to pass over all of the agony of the past few days by knowing that it was all part of the plan and Christ would return.
So this is all fine and dandy when you feel faith. Forcing faith doesn’t bring peace; it’s when you feel faith. So how do we “feel” faith so that we can find peace?
Faith is an action word
Faith is an action word. It is an action word in the sense that we prepare for tomorrow by keeping the commandments today, but it’s also an action word in the sense that we are in control of our own thoughts.
Alma 34:31 Yea, I would that ye would come forth and harden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the day of your salvation; and therefore, if ye will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.
I have been struck by this verse a number of times because of the line, “immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.” Immediately. If we can soften our hearts and repent, we will immediately experience the great plan of redemption.
What does it mean to experience the great plan of redemption? It can mean a lot of things, but the one I want to focus on today is the aspect of peace. Experiencing the great plan of redemption means experiencing the kind of peace that Christ promised.
So if we can repent and soften our hearts, we will experience the peace associated with the great plan of redemption. Let’s talk about repentance and softening our hearts separately.
Of course we will experience peace when we repent. Repentance is so much more than saying sorry for breaking a commandment. In my mind, repentance is any step towards becoming like Christ. This means we change into people who are calm, steady, joyful, and authentic. It means allowing ourselves to be healed; Christ didn’t need healing in the same manner, but if we want to be like Him, we need it. So yeah, repentance is going to bring peace.
But repenting and living the commandments won’t bring peace unless it’s combined with that soft heart, and having a soft heart is a conscious choice that we have to make.
Don’t harden your heart any longer. Don’t disbelieve that He adores you. Don’t disbelieve that He will make everything up to you. When something comes in and breaks your peace, actively fight it with a mantra that He loves you and will take care of absolutely everything. Note that I said, “mantra.” Maybe the idea that He loves you is not yet a knowledge, but if you want to find that knowledge, you might have to start with a mantra. When Satan comes in, you repeat to yourself how Christ loves you and will take care of it. Eventually that mantra will give way to hope, then faith, then growth of faith, then knowledge. And then bam, you feel peace. It simply comes.
I can personally testify of this. I lived the gospel my whole life with small glimpses of salvation and redemption and peace. But when my heart finally softened and believed, I started experiencing the feeling of salvation immediately and consistently. I started experiencing peace immediately and consistently.
I still have my moments. I still know what it is to feel hopeless, discouraged, weary, explosive. But I have been finding my way back to that peace more quickly or through thicker darkness.
The eternities after this earth life will not be perfect in the sense that the world thinks of as “perfect.” God still experiences sorrow. He still has to watch difficult things and make difficult decisions. But that is precisely why Christ offers a different kind of peace. If He offered us peace as defined by the world, we would find ourselves unprepared for the next life. We need the kind of peace He offers in order to find a peace that lasts an eternity.
I’m grateful for a Savior who sacrificed, and I’m grateful for this time of year to ponder His sacrifice. I know that He loves us endlessly and has the power to support us endlessly. When you find that knowledge and experience it again and again and again, you will find the peace you’re looking for.
Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Easter – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.
Nephi’s prophecies of the Book of Mormon; “the doctrine of Christ”(2 Nephi 28–33)by Mike Parker
(Mike Parker is a long-time FAIR member who has graciously allowed us to use materials he originally prepared for the Hurricane Utah Adult Religion Class. The scripture passages covered in his lessons don’t conform exactly to the Come, Follow Me reading schedule, so they will be shared here where they fit best. This week’s lesson includes information that goes with the Come, Follow Me reading schedule for the next two weeks. The previous post covers the first two chapters of this week’s reading.)
Class Notes
Additional Reading
- Michael B. Parker, “Nephi’s Later Reflections on the Tree of Life Vision,” Insights: A Window on the Ancient World 22, no. 5 (2002): 2–3. In this—my one and only published scholarly article!—I compare Nephi’s language in 2 Nephi 31:20 with his description of the tree of life in 1 Nephi 8:30. In his final testimony, Nephi appears to have purposely alluded to his father’s earlier vision.
Mike Parker is a business and marketing analyst with over twenty years’ experience in the financial services and cellular telephone industries. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Management Information Systems from Dixie State University (now Utah Tech University) of St George, Utah. He also has eight years’ experience in corporate training and currently teaches an adult religion class in southern Utah. Mike and his wife, Denise, have three children.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Nephi 28–33 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.
This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2022 conference.
Kerry Muhlestein, Keys to Understanding Isaiah
Kerry has several books available from the FAIR Bookstore.
Kerry received his B.S. from BYU in Psychology with a Hebrew minor. He received an M.A. in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from BYU and his Ph.D. from UCLA in Egyptology, where in his final year he was named the UCLA Affiliates Graduate Student of the Year. His first full time appointment was a joint position in Religion and History at BYU-Hawaii. He is the director of the BYU Egypt Excavation Project. He has been teaching about Isaiah for almost three decades, and has been teaching classes specifically on Isaiah for several years, and has written a verse-by-verse commentary on Isaiah. He and his wife, Julianne, are the parents of six children, and together they have lived in Jerusalem while Kerry has taught there on multiple occasions.
The post FAIR Conference Podcast #82 – Kerry Muhlestein, “Keys to Understanding Isaiah” appeared first on FAIR.
Nephi’s quotations & commentary on the prophecies of Isaiah(2 Nephi 11–27)by Mike Parker
(Mike Parker is a long-time FAIR member who has graciously allowed us to use materials he originally prepared for the Hurricane Utah Adult Religion Class. The scripture passages covered in his lessons don’t conform exactly to the Come, Follow Me reading schedule, so they will be shared here where they fit best. This week’s lesson includes information that goes with the Come, Follow Me reading schedule for the next three weeks.)
Class Notes
Handout
Additional Reading
- Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. A side-by-side comparison of the King James and Book of Mormon texts of Isaiah.
Two book-length treatments of the Isaiah material in the Book of Mormon I recommend:
-
- Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch, eds., Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998).
- Donald W. Parry, Harmonizing Isaiah: Combining Ancient Sources (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2001).
- Since 1981, the Church’s footnote for 2 Nephi 12:16 has indicated a connection between the text of the Book of Mormon and the Greek Septuagint. BYU professors Dana M. Pike and David Rolph Seely examine different interpretive possibilities in “‘Upon all the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish’: Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 2 (2005): 12–25.
Mike Parker is a business and marketing analyst with over twenty years’ experience in the financial services and cellular telephone industries. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Management Information Systems from Dixie State University (now Utah Tech University) of St George, Utah. He also has eight years’ experience in corporate training and currently teaches an adult religion class in southern Utah. Mike and his wife, Denise, have three children.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 2 Nephi 11–27 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: The Book of Revelationby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Oh my goodness, we have made it to Week 50. And we’re almost done with this project. The whole goal this year has been to give you a peek into how your Evangelical friends and family see things differently – and how we can approach conversation a little bit differently with them and perhaps have more success sharing the goodness of our faith with them. And it’s been an amazing year for me – I’ve clarified some of my own thinking on this topic and hopefully helped some of you too. I’ve received so many kind and thoughtful notes from some of you that I never could have met any other way, so I’m incredibly grateful for this project.
However, and I’ve alluded to this before, trying to same format with the Book of Mormon just doesn’t make sense. It’s worked this year because we’re doing the New Testament, and maybe we’ll do it again when Old Testament year comes around, but for now we’ve got 3 episodes left in this series. Today the topic is on the Book of Revelation, next week it’s about Christmas, and what I’d like to do the week after that, our final week, is to do quick question-and-answer for anything you would like to know that we haven’t covered yet, that you were hoping to have addressed, or that you’re still wondering about. You can either put questions in the comments below, or email me at jroach@fairlatterdaysaints.org. I’d like to fit in as many questions as possible so hit me up if you’ve got something.
And, just a tiny bit more business before we start, I’ve teased you already about what will happen next, and it’s 2 things. First, there will be a new concept taking over this weekly format that relates closely to the Book of Mormon, and it has to do with helping your loved ones who are in a faith crisis. I will not be hosting that one, but I know who is and I’m very excited for you to get to hear a lifetime of wisdom on this topic from them. AND, we have a new show with a new format coming out. The idea is that we’ll do 5-6 episodes on specific topics in scripture or church history analyzing them from multiple perspectives – historical, cultural, textual, psychological, and more. I am one of 3 hosts on that show and it’s been so fun to plan it out with our team. The other two hosts are 1) Sarah Allen – who is basically everyone’s research hero – she wrote that incredibly comprehensive response to the CES Letter that is something like 70 parts. There simply is not a more comprehensive collection of research on that than what Sarah has done…. 2) Zach Wright who is the young scholar who hosts the By Study and By Faith podcast. He’s so bright and so quick, if you don’t know Zach yet I think you will really enjoy his energy and perspective. Yesterday we filmed a couple of trailers for this new show that will come out later this month.
Last thing….this week I got to film episodes with two of our partners – Scripture Central’s show Let’s Get Real with Stephen Jones; and the Saints Unscripted show. Both were on my other research area which is sexual abuse in the church and they were great fun to do. You can check those videos out on their respective channels.
Okay, let’s get started for today. We’re going to talk about the Book of Revelation. The reality is that Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals alike are confused by this book, kind of afraid of it, and often prone to taking it out of context. Why? Well, frankly because it’s a weird book. It’s a vision, it’s a dream, and just like your dreams, sometimes symbols intermix in weird ways and then morph and mix again.
Another way to say the same thing is to say that it’s a book that has been mostly treated as a subjective text – that is, a reading the reader brings meaning to based on their own culture, perspective, time in history, personality, and life details. You know a Roarsch test is – the ink blot pictures a psychologist holds up and asks the client to say what they see – well, many of the treatments of Revelation have been little more than that. It’s a subjective text that the reader brings his or her own meaning to. Think about a scenario where you’re telling a group of friends about a dream you had, and each one offers a slightly different interpretation. Who’s right? Well, who is to say?
But this gets complicated for us, Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals alike, and honestly, for every other group out there. Revelation is a difficult-to-understand book. And we’re not going to dive into explaining it here today – that’s the task for plenty of other shows – but I do want to talk about the different ways we approach a text like this that is just so weird.
And really, the differences here come down to our beliefs about prophecy, covenants, and dispensations. But let me back up and tell you why that’s important. So, the book of Revelation is a very specific type of prophecy called apocalyptic literature. A regular prophecy foretells something in the future – but not necessarily on an epic global scale. For example, in the Old Testament book of Jeremiah, we get a prophecy that Babylon Will Rule Over Judah for 70 Years. Now, that’s a pretty earth-shaking prophecy if you happen to live in that time, especially if you’re living in Judah. But this type of prophecy is very specific to the people living in a certain time and place. Your life, and my life, are not significantly impacted by the face that Babylon ruled over Judah for 70 years. However, what we call apocalyptic literature is about events that will impact all of humanity. There is no way for the events of the Book of Revelation to unfold without it impacting every human being forever. And all of this applies to both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints.
Where we have differences has to do with how our understanding of covenant theology and dispensationalism intersect. In the Evangelical world a person’s beliefs are either formed by the idea that God makes covenants with humanity OR the belief that God deals differently with humanity in different dispensations. But you generally can’t have both. It’s an either/or situation. You can find lots of Evangelicals, especially of the Calvinistic persuasion, who very much believe in covenants in a similar way to how we do. But those Evangelicals would absolutely cringe at the idea of talking about the different dispensations. And vice-versa, the Evangelicals who think about how God works in the various dispensations are very unlikely to see him also working through Covenants.
But Latter-day Saints don’t have this problem. We easily talk about how God deals with groups and individuals through covenant, and we also see how God works differently in different dispensations. It wasn’t until after I joined the church that I even put that together. Like, wait, they’re integrating both?!? It sort of blew my mind because in the Evangelical world those 2 are water and oil. So how does this impact how we read Revelation?
Well, an Evangelical dispensationalist is very likely to read Revelation literally. They try to see a one-to-one correspondence between the symbols in Revelation and the unfolding events of history. For example, “This symbol in the book of Revelation represents that nation of the Soviet Union, and this one represents the United States…” There is a lot of concern for making sure every person knows the saving message of Jesus before the Book of Revelation unfolds. They really deeply want everyone to hear about Christ. Meanwhile, the Evangelicals who think of their relationship with God as part of a covenant tend to think through Revelation really differently. They believe that certain human events can trigger the end times – primarily meaning here that every human being who is supposed to be saved, has been saved. Evangelicals in this camp – roughly 60% of all Evangelicals – believe that only some humans are able to be saved. The problem is that no one knows which humans are to be saved, and which aren’t. Only God knows if he made you for salvation or damnation. So the end times begin when the final person God has chosen for salvation is saved.
And Latter-day Saints kind of combine these two views. We believe that all are God’s children and he would like all of his children back and this promotes our entire missionary enterprise. This is our thinking about all of humanity as a whole. But at the same time, we believe in covenants and that God will keep his end of the covenant with us as individuals. We would agree with them that “God will save who he will save,” We just happen to believe he wants to save everyone.
In addition, our views about prophecy are different. Evangelicals don’t buy into the idea that God has further light and knowledge to give. So they have no modern teaching about what to do with Revelation, they’re kind of left on their own here. While the leaders in our church have given clarity on how to understand many things from the Bible, including this confusing book.
So, all of this to say, the Book of Revelation is rather confusing to most people, and having a conversation with an Evangelical friend might leave you both more confused than when you began! What to do? Here is my advice….The glorious end of the book is that God puts everything right and a place exists where his people can be with him forever. That part could certainly lead you to a good conversation.
Okay, 2 weeks left. Please let me know if you have questions specific to Evangelicals that I haven’t been able to answer yet, I’d be glad to use them in my wrap up episode in a couple weeks. See you next time.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – The Book of Revelation appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Do You Have the Holy Ghost?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Hi friends, and welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. If you wondered if you missed last week’s episode, it wasn’t you, it was me. And sometimes life is like that. Several of you reached out with kind notes asking if I was okay and I’m grateful for your caring. And here we are, back on track now.
As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
I also wanted to tell you….I got to run up to Salt Lake this last week and participate in a preview of Come Follow Me for next year. There are some structural changes in the manual that will likely make it easier for families as well as new material that was not in the manual last time we went through it 4 years ago. I got to take home a physical copy and honestly, if you have kids I recommend getting a physical copy. The digital copies have access to all of the children’s activities, but you will have to print things out and the physical copy has everything in one place.
So, I’m behind a week and here is how I’m going to solve that problem. Today you’re going to get the content from last week, and I’m going to combine the text for this week and next into my episode for next week – they’re both in Revelation and it’s easy enough to cover in the same talk.
Okay, today we’re going to talk about the Holy Ghost from last week’s readings. One of the questions I’ve received at least a couple of times in the last year goes something like: How can Evangelicals claim to have the Holy Ghost, I thought our church was the only church with authority to give the gift of the Holy Ghost. And it’s a good question, you can see why it would be confusing because Evangelicals absolutely do claim to have the Holy Ghost, though they’re much more likely to refer to him as the Holy Spirit. So, what is that like for them?
We’ve talked about this a bit before on this show regarding the “charismatic” or “pentecostal” side of the Evangelical world, but what about the rest of them? Because here is their dilemma: There is no possibility for new authoritative revelation. So anything they feel from the Spirit does not have the same idea underpinning it that God can reveal new things. In fact, they are warned against believing that God might reveal something new to a person through subjective means. Whatever they hear from the Spirit will be echoed in the Scriptures, and that is now they know it’s true. The problem, of course, is that there are millions of choices a person has to make over the course of their lifetime that the Bible does not address, and can not address specifically. They have to take broad principles from the scriptures, apply them to what they feel the Spirit is saying, and only move forward if they see a match. Some of this is a very good safeguard – they have a good understanding that the Spirit is not going to tell them to do something wicked. If you boil the whole endeavor down to it’s most basic parts the idea you’re left with is that the Spirit can remind them of things that the Bible has already said, He can contextualize things the Bible has already said, but not much more.
And in some ways, dear Latter-day Saint friends, they have it easier. They view the scriptures as a check-and-balance against the subjective experience of hearing the Spirit. It’s a cleaner process, far less messy. There is another way they have it easier, but it doesn’t always work out fo them very well – that is they have no one above themselves telling them what the scriptures or Spirit are actually saying. The vast majority of them are going to make an honest attempt to listen to both scripture and spirit in an open way that allows God to guide them. But we little humans are excellent at self-deception, even when it comes to spiritual things. It’s very easy to mistake one’s own desires for the Spirit. We have this problem too – all humans do – but our risk is mitigated a tiny bit because we have a Prophet who can give a final word on big things. We don’t need – or want – to have a Prophet giving us exact directions on every single thing. But there is some rest available in the fact that we’re not left alone to figure it all out by ourselves. The difference here for Evangelicals is that they do accept pastors and others to teach them, but those teachers are employed by the will of the listener. If the Evangelical person does not want to listen to a particular teacher or pastor, they don’t. And they feel no compulsion to see that person in authority. While Latter-day Saints are much more likely to see the goodness of having someone with authority being able to teach us.
So, do Evangelicals have the Holy Spirit? I will speak for me, not the church, not FAIR, just myself. Long before I knew very much about our church at all, I know that I had the influence of the Holy Ghost in my life -guiding me, teaching me, leading me. At the most basic definition, that is the gift of the Holy Ghost. So, what’s different now that I’ve joined this church, been baptized and confirmed? Well, honestly, it’s not a lot different in terms of feeling the Spirit and allowing him to lead me. The difference is the presence of covenants.
In the Evangelical church someone can hear the Spirit, and as long as it confirms basically what is in scripture, then it’s considered a good thing. For me, now as a Latter-day Saint, the Spirit’s role is to provide a broader kind of guidance that allows me to do the things I’ve already been asked to do, or promised to do. It’s not about confirming the scriptures – it’s about how do I live out the covenants I’ve made. Now, there are Evangelicals who believe in covenant theology, but the role o the Spirit is still kind of stuck just being able to confirm what scripture says. And I’m sure other people’s experience is different than mine, I can only tell you my experience.
Okay, that’s about all I’ve got to say on that. Next week we’ll do Revelation – which is always weird, but that will be fun. See you then.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1–3 John; Jude appeared first on FAIR.
Okay, guys, the topic this week is on failed prophecies from the latter-day prophets, but only one of these four quotes he gives is actually a prophecy, and it didn’t fail.
The author, Thomas Faulk, also uses an incorrect word as the title, so I corrected it. I won’t correct his usage going forward in the portions I quote from him, but I will be using the correct word myself. So, just to clear up any confusion this flipping between spellings may cause for those who don’t know the difference, “prophecy” and “prophesy” are two completely different words. A “prophecy” is a prediction from an oracle of God that has already been given, such as those given by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. To “prophesy” is to give that prediction in the present tense. It’s an action, something somebody is currently doing. There’s only one letter’s difference between them, but they have different meanings and different pronunciations. I’m not trying to beat up on him for the error, because Heaven knows I’ve made my fair share of typos in this series. But in this case, I think the distinction is important. Also, I really don’t want to confuse anybody by constantly flipping back and forth between the two words.
This one gets into the weeds a bit, particularly on the first quote. There’s also a lot of misunderstanding on what a prophecy is, and what prophets are, from how it looks to me. I may take next week to discuss the role of prophets and our expectations about them, because a lot of people seem to misunderstand what a prophet actually is. They expect every word out of their mouths to be correct in every situation, and that just isn’t the case. I think a discussion about the nature of prophets and prophecy would be pretty beneficial, so right now, at least, I’m leaning in that direction.
Anyway, Faulk introduces this section like this:
While reading through History of the Church, Journal of Discourses, books by past prophets and historical Mormon periodicals, I would occasionally come across prophesies that didn’t quite make sense.
I know I hammer on the reliability issues with things like the Journal of Discourses and History of the Church, but it really is important to understand what these collections are and how they were created.
The History of the Church was collected from mostly second- and thirdhand account that were then rewritten into Joseph Smith’s voice, as if he was the one saying them. This was started under the direction and oversight of Joseph himself, though not finished until well after his death, and it is a solid, reliable source overall. It was a common scribal practice of the day, and they weren’t doing anything without his permission and approval. There are problems with some of the content, and it’s not perfect. But overall, it’s a decent source. There are many things in it that Joseph did not personally say, but if you know that going into it and you know how and where to source the original documents being paraphrased, this history collection is a good starting point. It’s just not guaranteed to actually be Joseph’s words.
The Journal of Discourses is a bit different. Again, there is a lot of wonderful, true, beautiful doctrine contained inside. There is also a lot in it that isn’t accurate or true. The off-the-cuff sermons were transcribed word-for-word, then edited and altered according to the reporters’ wishes as they were prepared for publication. Sometimes, it was just a few sentences here and there that were reworded, removed, or added, but sometimes, it was lengthy passages. None of the sermons we still have the original transcripts for match 100% with what was published, and many of them have “significant” departures, to use the word of the woman who re-transcribed and compared all of them. Again, this was a common practice of the day, but the original speakers were often not given the chance to approve them before publication, and they did not always approve of the changes after reading the finished product, when it was too late to object. It’s a decent resource, but unless you have the original transcript to compare it to—and we don’t have many—you can’t assume that what you’re reading is actually the words of Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, or any of the other speakers. What you’re reading is often the words of the reporters instead.
Different time periods had different recording standards, and issues like these are common in historical documents. These people were using the common techniques from their day, and they didn’t do anything wrong according to what they were taught. But for us today, trying to look back on the past and cobble together an accurate understanding, it does create problems. Historians are trained on how to use sources like this and evaluate them for truthfulness and integrity. But the vast majority of us are not trained historians. I’m certainly not, so I had to learn all of this stuff as I went along.
I’m not saying these sources are wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. I think there’s real value in reading them. But when you do, understand going into it that you may not be reading actual words by actual prophets. You may be reading the inserted thoughts of someone you don’t know anything about, or you may be missing multiples paragraphs of context that would make it make more sense. It’s one of those instances when “caveat emptor” is sound advice.
So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at these quotes.
- Joseph Smith
- Reflecting on a revelation given to him in Sec. 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
“There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes… I was once praying earnestly upon this subject, and a voice said unto me, “My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man.” I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written—the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old. Then read the 14th chapter of Revelation, 6th and 7th verses—”And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come.” And Hosea, 6th chapter, After two days, etc.,—2,520 years; which brings it to 1890.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.5, p.336)
Joseph’s prophecy was mistaken in two ways: he did not live to be 85 years old and Jesus did not return in 1890.
There are a few different things being quoted and summarized, here. The first is D&C 130:14-17, which says:
14I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
17I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.
Right off the bat, before we even look at the other sources, there are a few things worth pointing out. The first is that this is a conditional prophecy: if Joseph lives until he’s 85, he’ll see the face of Christ. Joseph didn’t live until he was 85, so the prophecy is moot. The second is that even Joseph didn’t know exactly what it meant. Did it mean that the Second Coming would happen when or after Joseph was 85, was it referring to a previous appearance he’d already had, or would Joseph die and then see Christ’s face? He didn’t know. The prophecy could have meant several different things, and Joseph wasn’t sure which one it was.
The second thing being quoted is the History of the Church, volume 5, pages 336-337:
Were I going to prophesy, I would say the end [of the world] would not come in 1844, 5, or 6, or in forty years. There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes.
I was once praying earnestly upon this subject, and a voice said unto me, “My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man.” I was left to draw my own conclusions concerning this; and I took the liberty to conclude that if I did live to that time, He would make His appearance. But I do not say whether He will make his appearance or I shall go where He is. I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written—the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old. Then read the 14th chapter of Revelation, 6th and 7th verses—”And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come.” And Hosea, 6th chapter, After two days, etc.,—2,520 years; which brings it to 1890. The coming of the Son of Man never will be—never can be till the judgments spoken of for this hour are poured out: which judgments are commenced. Paul says, “Ye are the children of the light, and not of the darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief in the night.” It is not the design of the Almighty to come upon the earth and crush it and grind it to powder, but he will reveal it to His servants the prophets.
Judah must return, Jerusalem must be rebuilt, and the temple, and water come out from under the temple, and the waters of the Dead Sea be healed. It will take some time to rebuild the walls of the city and the temple, &c. and all this must be done before the Son of Man will make His appearance. There will be wars and rumors of wars, signs in the heavens above and on the earth beneath, the sun turned into darkness and the moon to blood, earthquakes in divers places, the seas heaving beyond their bounds; then will appear one grand sign of the Son of Man in heaven. But what will the world do? They will say it is a planet, a comet, &c. But the Son of Man will come as the sign of the coming of the Son of Man, which will be as the light of the morning cometh out of the east.
Look at what Joseph is actually saying. He’s saying that, if he had to guess, it meant that the Second Coming would not happen before the year 1890, because there was too much still that needed to happen first. He also said that when it was coming, the prophets would be able to warn the valiant members of the Church to prepare for it, even if they didn’t know the exact hour. Well, he was right. The Second Coming didn’t happen before 1890. The signs haven’t all been fulfilled yet.
What did he mean when he said that some of the rising generation wouldn’t taste of death until Christ came? Well, we don’t know for sure. Maybe the Second Coming would have happened much sooner had Joseph actually lived until he was 85. Or maybe we don’t know what Joseph actually meant by “rising generation.” Did he mean the youth who were already alive at the time, or did he mean a coming generation? He didn’t specify. The idiom typically means those who are currently in their youth, but can we say with 100% certainty that’s how Joseph meant it? No. Can we say that this comment wasn’t also conditional on his surviving until he was 85? Nope.
The last thing quoted in Faulk’s comment was Hosea 6:1-3:
1Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
2After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
3Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latterandformer rainunto the earth.
This seems to be about repenting before the Messiah comes. Joseph’s quote appears to be equating the three days mentioned with 1,000 years each, the way the scriptures say. He said that 2,520 years after that prophecy was given would be the year 1890.
I don’t know the significance of it being 2,520 years, unless it’s referring to a prophecy by a Baptist minister named William Miller which some more fringe Christians believe in. Most do not—with good reason—but for a while between 1840-1845, it was quite the national craze in the United States. It was similar to Y2K, for those who remember what that was like. So, it would make sense that is in fact what Joseph was referring to, since it was a common theory of the day.
Discussion of this prophecy opens a can of worms I don’t really want to get into. I don’t want any mention of it by me to be seen as an endorsement either by myself or by FAIR, because it’s some extreme stuff. I’ll give a brief overview of the idea, but I want to be clear that I do not put any stock into this theory and I’m actually kind of surprised to see Joseph Smith alluding to it.
The basic gist is that there is some Biblical numerology that points to the number 2,520 as being indicative of the date of the Second Coming. This math is based on obscure passages from the books of Leviticus and Daniel. It claims that every 2,520 years, there’s a major event in Jewish history, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, etc., and that the final 2,520 year will culminate in the Second Coming of Christ to the Earth.
In Leviticus 26, Jehovah threatens several times to curse the Israelites seven times. Since the prophetic year of the Israelites is 360 days rather than 365 days, 7 x 360 = 2,520.
In Daniel 5, King Belshazzar and his cronies stole the temple wine and got drunk off of it, and praised their false gods at the expense of the God of Israel. Belshazzar then saw the hand of God writing the words “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin” on the temple wall. Daniel interpreted that writing as basically meaning the end of the king’s reign, which happened immediately. The idiom “seeing the writing on the wall” for the moment you realize the inevitable end of something comes from this story. This is also where the phrase “you have been weighed, measured, and found wanting” comes from. That’s a rough translation of the phrase that over time, entered into colloquial speech.
However, the words are also a math equation. “Mene” is from “mina,” which is a weight of measurement equal to 50 shekels. So, “mene, mene” is 100 shekels. Tekel or “teqal” is another word for shekel, so it’s equal to 1 shekel. And “upharsin” means “to divide.” Half of 50 is 25. Therefore, the total amount of this equation is 126 shekels (50+50+1+25). Ezekiel 45:12 tells us that 1 shekel is worth 20 gerahs, so 126 x 20 = 2,520.
These two instances combined together have been taken by some to indicate that in the Bible, the number 2,520 means the end of an era, or sometimes being a portent of doom and destruction. So, in fringe circles, this can be a prophecy of the end of times or the Apocalypse. This is not mainstream today by any means, though in the early 1840s, it was.
This minister, William Miller, used this equation to predict the end of the world in early 1843. People across the country freaked out over the idea. When the Apocalypse didn’t happen, people began using other equations to extend the deadline every few months until the end of 1844. When it still never came, most people largely abandoned the belief and there are not many at all who still hold to the idea today.
What Joseph seemed to be saying in this quote from History of the Church is that not only was Miller’s math wrong, but that Christ would definitely not come in 1843 or 1844, and would actually not come until at least 1890. To me, it’s clear he wasn’t saying he believed this 2,520 prophecy. I think he was actually saying, “No, he’s wrong. Don’t panic because it’s not happening. When it does happen, the prophets will know it and I’ve been told it won’t happen this quickly.”
So, that is not a failed prophecy by any means. Miller’s prophecy is failed, but Joseph’s was fulfilled. The Second Coming did not happen in 1843-44, just like he promised it wouldn’t. And because Joseph died well before he reached the age of 85, the conditions placed on the verses in D&C 130 could not be fulfilled. That prophecy was rendered void the moment Joseph was murdered.
Faulk continues:
- Prominent early saint, Elder Oliver B. Huntington, lived with Joseph Smith in Kirtland, OH and served four missions for the Church. He wrote an article for The Young Woman’s Journal, the official magazine for the Young Ladies Mutual Improvement Association of the Church, recounting a teaching by Joseph Smith.
Oliver B. Huntington is the brother of Dimick and Zina Huntington, two other prominent early Latter-day Saints. He’s also an interesting character in his own right, and his autobiography is kind of a cool read.
“Nearly all the discoveries of men in the last half century have… contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a prophet. As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they live to a greater age than we do – that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.” (Joseph Smith – The Young Woman’s Journal, vol. 03, no. 6, March 1892. http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/YWJ/id/11651)
This is not a prophecy, and there’s no way to attribute it to Joseph Smith. Huntington first wrote this down in his journal in 1881, and his source was not Joseph. It was Philo Dibble. So, not only was it first recorded 44 years after it was supposedly said, but he didn’t even hear it from the actual source. This article that Faulk cited is a thirdhand record that was given 55 years after the comment was supposedly originally made, and 11 years after Huntington first recorded mention of it in his journal. We have no idea whether Joseph actually said it or not.
If he did, it’s still not a prophecy. A prophecy, as we already discussed, is a prediction of a future event. This is just a statement of the possible present.
The article quoted goes on to mention that Huntington’s patriarchal blessing, which he says was given by Joseph Smith, Sr., said that one day he might serve a mission on the moon. The FAIR article cited above, however, quotes part of the blessing:
“[T]hou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient.”
We don’t know if that means literally that they were incorrectly talking about inhabitants of our moon or whether they were referring to an unnamed celestial body such as the spirit prison or the place where God dwells, or whether it was a metaphor of some kind, or what.
And according to Dan Vogel, who arrives at poor conclusions in my opinion but who is a solid researcher nonetheless, that blessing was given by Huntington’s father, not Joseph’s.
So, there’s at least one discrepancy in his recollections, which is to be expected half a century later. It’s entirely possible that Philo Dibble had discrepancies in his recollections too, when he passed them on to Oliver Huntington.
It was a fairly common belief at the time that the moon was inhabited. Hyrum Smith apparently believed the moon was inhabited, and Brigham Young apparently believed the sun was. So, it’s entirely possible that Joseph said it, and it’s entirely possible that he didn’t. Maybe he was talking about the inhabitants of the Celestial Kingdom or the city of Enoch. We don’t know enough about whatever prompted this memory of Dibble’s to say whether this was speculation on Joseph’s part, an actual vision that Dibble mistook for being the moon when it was really something else, or a false memory of Dibble’s that was distorted by time.
Either way, though, there is a very big difference between speculation and prophecy.
- Brigham Young
- “So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets’ and so will this earth when it is celestialized.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.13, p.271)
This one is just silly. The usual caveats about the Journal of Discourses aside, “Do you think it’s inhabited? I rather think it is,” is not prophecy. That is pure speculation. There’s no debating that. Brigham was giving an opinion, which he was allowed to do. He was not declaring a fact or announcing a new revelation or making a future prediction under the mantle of prophethood. We all have opinions, and some of those opinions are objectively wrong. That happens to all of us occasionally.
This is the quote in context:
I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon, a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us. We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed “the man in the moon,” and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of this planet. God gives light to our eyes. Did you ever think who gave you the power of seeing? who organized these little globules in our heads, and formed the nerves running to the brain, and gave us the power of distinguishing a circle from a square, an upright from a level, large from small, white from black, brown from gray, and so on? Did you acquire this faculty by your own power? Did any of you impart this power to me or I to you? Not at all. Then where did we get it from? From a superior Being. When I think of these few little things with regard to the organization of the earth and the people of the earth, how curious and how singular it is! And yet how harmonious and beautiful are Nature’s laws! And the work of God goes forward, and who can hinder it, or who can stay His hand now that He has commenced His kingdom?
He’s pretty clearly saying that God created everything for a purpose and that it didn’t happen by chance. Those who refuse to see God’s hand in the universe and the way everything works together are blind to reality. But he never declared it was a fact that people lived on the sun or the moon. He just said he “rather thinks” so.
Personally, I “rather think” that Thomas Faulk is a dishonest actor stretching words far beyond their definitions in an attempt to discredit the prophets of God. But again, that’s just opinion, not a declaration of fact or a future prediction given under the mantle of prophethood.
- Joseph Fielding Smith
- “We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol.3, p.203)
On July 20, 1969 U.S. Astronauts are the first men to walk on the moon.
Yep, he said that at a stake conference in Hawaii, although it’s not in Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3. That’s because volume 3 was published in 1956, not 1954, and the statement in question was given in 1961.
Again, though, sloppy sourcing aside, this was clearly opinion, not prophecy. He believed it would diminish faith if men were to ever reach the moon.
There are two other things worth noting about this opinion. First, it was given in 1961, as I said. Joseph Fielding Smith did not become the President of the Church until 1970, nine years later. He was an apostle in 1961, and was called as a prophet, seer, and revelator, but he was not the leader of the Church. He was not authorized to give binding prophecies on behalf of the Church unless it was in agreement with the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve.
Second, when he was later asked about this after the moon landing, he reportedly said, “Well, I was wrong, wasn’t I?”
It is important to note that the report of his response came 40 years after it was supposedly given, and was a personal reminiscence of someone who was there. This reply is something we can’t definitively source, so take it with a grain of salt. He may well not have ever even said it. Just like with some of the other statements coming decades later as secondhand recollections, we do need to be cautious with accepting it as fact when we can’t confirm it. But, if true, it shows that he didn’t consider it a prophecy any more than I do.
So, of these four supposedly failed prophecies by prophets of the Church, only one was actually a prophecy, and it wasn’t failed. If taken to literally mean that the Second Coming would take place in 1890 if Joseph lived until that time, it was a conditional prophecy whose conditions were not met and was therefore not binding. If taken to mean that the Second Coming would not occur until after 1890, well, that’s a fulfilled prophecy because it hasn’t happened yet and we’re well beyond 1890. The other three quotes were opinion, and opinion, even when given by an apostle or prophet, is not binding on the members of the Church.
I know this post wandered off into some conspiracy theory content, and I know it got kind of weird. But I do think the context of the tangent was necessary to explain what Joseph was trying to say with that first quote. Otherwise, it’s easy to misunderstand the point the same way that Faulk did.
There are a lot of things that Heavenly Father and the Savior leave for us to work out on our own, after giving us the basics. This can naturally lead to speculation when we’re trying to fill in the gaps. Prophets and apostles are not immune to that tendency. In recent decades, our leaders have abandoned open speculation over the pulpit precisely because people were mistaking opinion for prophecy or settled fact. They’ve also taken great pains to clarify repeatedly what constitutes official doctrine and what does not.
Our critics constantly use that speculation by prior Church leaders as evidence that our church is not true. Please do not fall into the same trap that our critics do and mistake their opinion for revelation. We have to remember that they’re fallen human beings just like we are, and sometimes, they make mistakes. If we don’t allow them the grace to make those mistakes, it can do real harm to our testimonies when those mistakes happen. But the Atonement of Christ is bigger than that. It applies to prophets just as much as to the rest of us. Don’t hold these men to impossible standards they can’t possibly live up to. That isn’t fair to them, and it isn’t fair to you.
Sarah Allen is relatively new in her affiliation with FAIR. By profession, she works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.
The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 25: Prophecies appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Priesthood of all Believersby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about priesthood of all believers. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
It is Thanksgiving week here in the US, so happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate. We got snow on the mountains here in Utah County, so there is plenty to be thankful for in these parts. I hope it’s a week of gratitude for you too, no matter where you live.
Okay, today we’re going to talk about one of the most misunderstood verses in the New Testament when it comes to conversation between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints: The priesthood of all believers. We’ll start with 1 Peter 2:5:
You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
Now, no Latter-day Saint that I know of would disagree with that verse or verses like it. There is no quibble as to if this is a good verse translated properly or not. The question becomes what does it mean by “priesthood”? And as with most things, digging down a little into history and language helps us clear up the confusion.
Let’s start with history. So, rewind all the way back to before the Protestant Reformation. In 1517 Martin Luther has had it with the corrupt practices of the Catholic church and nails his 95 thesis to the door of the Wittenburg Chapel. Luther had 95 complaints and social media hadn’t been invented yet, so nailing something to the door of the church was what he had available to him. A lot of that document has to do with the concept of purgatory and the paying of indulgences. Indulgences were purchased for money by living people in essence to shave off some of the time a dead person would have to serve in purgatory. Sometimes they’ve been wrongly thought of as purchasing a free pass to commit some sin, and there may have been some of that happening, but what Luther was really upset about was the idea that a living person could impact the experience of a dead person- without that person having to accept the work. Luther wasn’t even primarily mad at the idea that a living person could do some proxy work for dead people – he was mad that indulgences discouraged the purchaser from doing works of mercy in a way that would cause growth in their own soul. His logic was: How could people who were not pious give any assistance toward the piety of dead people? It would be as if we were baptizing people for the dead but there were no requirements on the righteous living of the person doing the work. Luther saw this issue really clearly. By the end of the 95 Thesis Luther makes it clear that he’s not trying to do away with proxy work altogether, he just wants to have it be done in such a way that requires righteousness from living people.
And what Luther was trying to do, he states this very clearly, is to begin a conversation among the religious scholars of the day. But by 1520 (just 3 years later) the whole thing spins a bit out of control for him as the conversation morphs into, “what is the role of the priest in forgiveness – are they actually the ones deciding if you get forgiven? Or are they the ones who pronounce forgiveness upon you but that forgiveness is granted from Christ, not the priest.” And that’s where we’ll pick up the thread.
So things are not going well for our boy Martin, at least in terms of debate among his academic peers. He wanted to be having this as an academic conversation, and he got some of that, but the people are starting to understand at least a bit of what he’s talking about when they see the implications for them. And Luther himself sees this to. In 1520 he puts out a document that has a very unfortunate name if you’re standing on this side of history. “The Christian Nobility of the German Nation.” But this is the document where he really lays out his growing ideas on the priesthood of all believers. And what he’s trying to do is react against the pre-Reformation idea that humans are divided into 2 categories – the secular and the sacred. So before this, if you lived in some little German town, there would be the regular people living their lives, mostly just trying to feed themselves and their families. These were the secular people. Even if they were followers of Christ, they were considered secular. The sacred people were the priests and those who had taken holy orders to live in monastic communities. And how it played out was that the secular people who believed in Christ didn’t have much access to materials that would help them learn the scripture or grow on their own – so they kind of gave up and let the sacred people take on that burden. It was sort of the attitude of, “I’m just a regular person, I don’t need to spend my day praying because those monks up in the monastery on the hill are spending their days doing that on my behalf.” And you can see where Luther gets upset at this – he’s not mad about the “proxy-ness” of it, he’s mad that the secular people side-step their own responsibility to grow and outsource most spiritual tasks to the priests, monks, and nuns. In the monasteries, the system was set up so that they prayed at fixed points throughout the day, including the middle of the night. And this system of prayer became more and more elaborate, requiring more and more time. The regular folks just trying to live their lives and feed their families couldn’t live under a schedule like that, so instead of modifying it for their own use in ways that were workable, they mostly just let the monks and nuns take care of the prayers for them. And Luther is upset at this because it leaves the regular people spiritually immature. And he wants to correct this situation, so he writes about it in “Nobility of the German Nation.”
And so one of Luther’s goals becomes the emptying of the monasteries. He wants everyone – secular people and sacred people – to know how to do the work of prayer and Christian living. The term “liturgy” has its origins here – liturgy means, “the work of the people.” And you can see how Luther is using this term in particular – he wants the regular people to do spiritual work too. But in order to do that, he has to help them break out of the system they have going that separates secular and sacred. So he spends a lot of time and energy teaching that the regular people also have a priesthood to which they belong, the priesthood of all believers, and there are responsibilities in that priesthood.
So far, Latter-day Saint friends, I don’t think there is much for you to disagree with. What Luther was doing is very reasonable in lots of ways. But let’s flip contexts out of Luther’s German world, and into our English-speaking world. And you’ll easily see how the problems develop.
Very often when translating from Biblical Greek to English we have more English words to choose from. But in some instances it works the other way around – Greek has more words for something while English only has 1. Probably the best example you’re familiar with is the various words for “love” in Greek describe important nuances between different forms of love. But in English, we use the same word for, “I love pizza” and “I love my child.” It’s the same situation with “priesthood.” We have 1 word, priesthood, while the New Testament has 2 words: One that means “sacred person” and the other that means “one with elderhood.”
So when Luther says, “you are the priesthood of all believers” he means, “You are not just secular people who have nothing to do with the spirituality of those monks and nuns….you too are sacred people, even just living your normal lives of taking care of your families.” He never intended to say that there aren’t 2 different kinds of priesthoods. The one we are talking about right now, the priesthood of all believers, is a universal priesthood that everyone who claims the name of Christ has – the priesthood that asks us to do the spiritual work for ourselves and those over whom we have responsibility such as children. The other form of the word meaning, “the one who has eldership,” is not canceled because of this universal priesthood responsibility that the average believer also has.
So, what about our Evangelical friends? What do they make of all of this? Well, as we’ve talked about here a number of times Evangelicals value 2 things above all else – independence and devotion to Christ. When I say “independence” what I mean is they do not want to be told what to believe by anyone who claims authority. To them, the very claim of authority is problematic. They want an absolute level playing field where no person has authority over any other. They want to do what is right in their own eyes – you get the appeal, I’m sure. But they also value devotion to Christ and the concern here is that they do not want anyone “standing between” them and Christ. Not monks and nuns up on a hill, not priests that help with confession and repentance, not even the body to which they are a church member. If they don’t like what is being taught they see no obligation to stay – they move on to another church. In practice what this means is that they each have to be their own Prophet. They don’t get – or want – guidance that comes with authority. They are the authorities.
They also see Christ as being not just the “great High Priest” but also the only current priest of any type. And to be honest, we’re not too far apart from each other on this one – we would also say that the priesthood belongs to God. It is his power on the Earth. But Evangelicals worry that any claim to priesthood is an attempt to take the power away from God and give it to man.
And this is part of the arc of development for them as people embedded into a particular time and place. The Evangelical movement grew up right alongside of the modern, hyper-modern, and post-modern era. The natural conclusion of this arc is that the concept of authority itself is invalid. Think of how people conceptualize books. It used to be that the author had a meaning in mind, she would write her thoughts, and people who wanted to understand what she’s on about would read the book. The author got the final say, as it were. But in the postmodern turn it is the reader who brings meaning to the book. The reader decides what it means, even if that meaning is wildly different from what the author intended. The reader gets the final word. There is an important philosophical concept that started back in the 1960’s that says, “the author is dead”….and by natural progression, the very concept of authority dies with him. Author-authority. We see this play out in our national debates – what is an authority anyway? Is a guy at home with an internet connection just as much of an authority as a guy with a PhD? Large parts of our current culture answer that question as: Yes. Authority has died. And this is the culture the Evangelical movement has grown up alongside. Any authority that comes with priesthood is bad, it’s nonexistent to them. Only the common authority anyone has over their own lives matters, the idea of, “you can say what you want as long as its true for you.” But, “history predicts the future” and these things are cyclical – at some point things change. If you look at last week’s Deseret News you will find an article titled: Want to fix education? Bring back authority.” (You also will find a piece in DN last week with my name on it – its a summary of the presentation I gave at the FAIR conference back in August if you’re curious.) But “Bring back authority” is essentially getting at this same thing – we’ve swung too far away from the idea that anyone, teacher/priest/researcher/anyone can have authority at all. And maybe these things correct themselves over time.
This got to be a long episode, but I hope it helps you think though why your Evangelical friends get so worked up about the “priesthood of all believers” concept.
Okay, we’ve got 5 episodes left. Next week we’re talking about the Holy Ghost and asking what does it mean when an Evangelical also experiences the Holy Ghost. I think you’ll be plenty fascinated with that one. See you then.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 and 2 Peter appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Perfection?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about perfection. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
We are on Week 46. This year of Come Follow Me is rapidly coming to a close which means that talking about how Evangelicals view things in the Bible doesn’t really make sense next year because we’ll be doing Book of Mormon year. And I know several of you have wondered what will happen next year. Fear not. Things will change for next year, this particular podcast needs to pivot a bit, but I will still be around. FAIR is working on a show in addition to this one where there will be fewer episodes, but higher quality. I have been working with 2 of the best researchers FAIR has and we’re putting something together I think you’re going to like. So you will still get to see me – Congratulations and I’m sorry. I don’t know exactly what to say about that. But it will be good and I will have much more to share with you after Thanksgiving.
We have arrived at week 46 and we’re in James. 2 of the biggest verses in James that we could have talked about are James 1:5, “If any of you lacks wisdom let him ask God…” and James 2:14 and following talking about works. We’ve actually covered both of these topics pretty well in this series, so we’re going to back up a little and talk about James 1:2-4. This is in the ESV:
2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
There is some history here that will help put Evangelicals in the right context. And, as we’ve seen before many times here, even when an Evangelical church presents itself as a “community church” with no denominational tie, there is usually a tie somewhere in the background – and that might be a formal denomination that just isn’t put front and center (Lifeway Research says that over 60% of the cosmetically named churches, things like Vision Church, are Southern Baptist churches that simply do not name the SBC anywhere on their website or materials and they present themselves as if they are no ties with a larger group at all.) Or it can just show up in the education of the pastoral staff – if they all went to Dallas Theological, then you know something about where they’re coming from.
So, the particular part of the Evangelical world a church comes from matters here. Churches that are informed by the Lutheran, Reformed or Calvinistic traditions are very unlikely to ever talk about the idea of becoming, “perfect as your father in Heaven is perfect.” It’s not a category for them, and their theology reveals why. Their position is sometimes called, “hyper-sovereignty” which is trying to get at the idea that God is so perfect, so complete, so good that it’s insulting to him for any human to have the audacity to say that they could be perfect as he is perfect. So, for them verses about perfection are part aspirational – they believe God is perfect and we should try for perfection even though we will never achieve it. But they’re also part of their system that says all humans are depraved and hated by God – only the power of Jesus Christ can heal the rift between us and God. So verses like this function as a sign to point out not only how good God is, but how bad we are. You know how Paul sometimes says that the law exists to point out our sin – these folks would likely say that these verses about perfection exist to point out how imperfect we actually are. In their way of thinking perfection is impossible, even thinking we could ever do it is hubris. Their interpretation is that God is so good he is perfect, and we are so bad that we could never obtain perfection. It doesn’t feel as grim in real time for them as it sounds to you. It sounds awful, I know, but they think of it more like: The stronger of a believer you are, the more willing you are to affirm God’s goodness and your own depravity. It’s a way for them to say that they are so committed to God that they’re willing to accept their own terribleness, and its a point of pride when they’re able to do so. All of this that I’ve just described is true for Evangelical churches that are influenced by Reformed theology, probably about 60% of current Evangelical churches. But there is another side.
It started in the 1700’s with John and Charles Wesley, the brothers who begin the Methodist Church. Just for timeline, John dies about 15 years before Joseph Smith is born. The Wesleys are part of the 1st Great Awakening, and Joseph Smith is part of the 2nd Great Awakening. And what the Wesleys do is pull from the group in early Christianity known as the Church Fathers who lived in the couple hundred years after Christ. And there is plenty in their writings about the idea of perfection. But, things get weird around the 4th Century and that thinking about perfection turns into a very deep asceticism and monasticism – so life either in a cloistered monastery or life lived in public society but living with deliberate poverty and frankly, near starvation. Now, Christian history had to go that way – the fall of Rome happens right around this time and the governmental structure that had been holding Europe together disappears. And we get the dark ages. By this time Christian monastic communities were already well established in such a way that they could continue to exist. So, its not an entirely bad thing, but the Wesleys look at that and think its awful – that Christian life is intended to be lived out publicly in a way that nonbelievers can see and understand. Not cloistered away or taking vows of extreme poverty. So the Wesleys want to rewind time and go back to what the early Chruch Fathers were talking about with perfectionism. Over time, Methodists have moved away from the idea quite a bit, but it gets picked up by a group of churches known as the Holiness Movement. The Free Methodist Church (different from their much larger sibling the United Methodists), The Church of the Nazarene, the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), The Salvation Army, and the Wesleyan Methodist Church (the smallest of the Methodist groups.) And an awful lot of current Evangelical churches are influenced by this arc in all kinds of ways. But it gets weird.
You can trace the influence of the Wesley brothers into modern Evangelicalism in about 100 different ways. But the idea that we might become like God is not one of them. Mostly what they do is take advantage of the wiggle room that exists in the Greek word used here for perfection. There is a legitimate nuance in that word that is something closer to “mature.” So you get translations like the NIV that say, “Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” The ESV still gives us, “that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” The ESV is considered a little bit more scholarly than the NIV, but the NIV has been around for decades longer and has had more influence on Evangelicals. So when they read a verse like this they hear, “be mature” and it doesn’t trigger the same response that, “be perfect” does. So some of them don’t even know, “perfect” is a possible translation here.
So what do we do with all of this?
Well, first, I can’t help myself…the mental health therapist in me needs to tell you that this conversation has nothing to do with perfectionism or the idea that today you must do all things perfectly in order to be loved or accepted by God or others. Part of the joy of having family and friends is that those are the people who can see your imperfections and love you anyway. So we’re not talking about some kind of scrupulosity or perfectionism. And to be fair, you do see a slightly lower incidence of these issues in an Evangelical population than you do in a Latter-day Saint population.
But as far as how to talk with Evangelicals about this, let me offer you my experience when I was an Evangelical. I didn’t know a lot about Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I had picked up some things along the way, not as any kind of serious study, just part of being alive in the 20th century in America. And I can say from that perspective that there is some overlap for people outside our church on the concepts of “perfection” and “worthiness.” Before I knew better, I would have heard the phrase, “a worthy Latter-day Saint” as “a perfect Latter-day Saint.” I knew that didn’t make sense, but I also knew the reputation of people in the church as being good people, excellent mothers, and excellent people to have around in a crisis. So, my first thought is that if a conversation about the concept of perfection came up, you might want to make sure your friend is able to differentiate between the two concepts.
Here is my second thought. There is a quote from President Nelson long before he was the president of the church. Back in 1995 he said, “We all need to remember: men are that they might have joy—not guilt trips!” And I love that because guilt is…kind of contagious. If you feel guilty about what you have and have not done, and you’re talking about the ideas of perfection, or even worthiness with an Evangelical friend, they will intuitively feel that guilt in you. The role of guilt in spiritual or personal development must be to point out something that has gone wrong – thus prompting us to make a change to address the issue. That’s the only reason you get the emotion of guilt. It doesn’t add to your holiness, it doesn’t add to the love you receive from God. It’s a big arrow pointing to a situation or event – not to make you feel worse about yourself, but for you to do some problem-solving around how to change. We humans don’t like to change, and sometimes barely know how to change, but that is the role of guilt – to point to where change needs to happen. In that sense its an empowering and problem-solving emotion. But what we do a lot of times is turn guilt to shame – instead of, “I did a bad thing” it becomes, “I am a bad thing.” That’s not growth or development, that’s self-pity. As much as you can, for your sake and the sake of those with whom you talk about gospel issues, let the feelings you have about your own lack of perfection be the things that makes you progress forward – not stay stuck on how awful you are for getting something wrong. So much overlap between this and mental health, forgive me for my soapbox.
Okay, next week is Priesthood of all Belivers. Come back and we’ll have some fun.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – James appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Ordain Every Man in the Church?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about why in the world ALL men in the church can be ordained as a priest, not just a few. As you know, we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
You will also notice I am not in my regular spot. I’m in the airport waiting on a delayed flight. I planned on recording when I got home, and that is not going to happen. But I got to have a fantastic girl’s weekend with friends that I know from growing up in Modesto, CA. So, this video is going to be shorter, and well, it’s an airport. So, yeah. Here we go.
The word, “priesthood” is a very loaded word. At least when we’re trying to talk about how different groups use that word, and the situation between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals is one area where it gets hard in about 8 different directions. But, luckily, we’re spending 2 weeks in Hebrews, and then some time in 1 Peter, so I’ve got 3 episodes worth of material to try and unpack this. Today we are only going to focus on the aspect that we come across in Hebrews 5 which is this:
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”; 6 as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
So the question that comes up here might not even be obvious to you as a Latter-day Saint if you haven’t spent much time in other Christian churches. For this episode, we’re going to talk about “priest” as a category, not necessarily a job title. Most Evangelical churches are not going to use the word, “priest” except in the context of, “priesthood of all believers” and we will get to that specific issue once we hit 1 Peter. However, today we’re just going to stay tightly focused on the issue of why most men are ordained to the priesthood in our church. It’s a rather unique thing. I actually can’t think of another denomination where that happens – where every eligible man is ordained. If you know of one, hit me up in the comments.
In Evangelical churches the word priest morphs into “pastor” and all the variations on that word. But we’re in the same category, sort of. But we need a little history lesson first.
For most of the history of Christianity churches were led by pastors, and those pastors were overseen by a bishop – maybe they didn’t call him bishop, but that’s the category of the role. So it goes, congregation, pastor, bishop, and then someone over him, and up some more. And initially, Evangelical churches were organized this way too, at least in th e1950’s and well into the 1960’s. By the late 70’s, and certainly by the 1980’s this structure had significantly disappeared. The nature of Evangelical churches lends itself very much toward independent churches that are not overseen by a bishop. This is not scientific evidence, but I messaged a handful of my Evangelical friends who all attend church regularly and asked if any of their churches had this set up, and not one did. It’s mostly gone away. So what they have now is congregation, pastor, and maybe he has some kind of advisory board, but there is no one above him. And so the language started to change in the 80’s and into the 90’s. They started to say things like, “Every member a minister” and the idea was that the senior pastor was now the overseer of all the members of the chuch, who are actually the ministers. It’s no longer a bishop overseeing a number of churches in the same city, but a pastor overseeing non-ordained people who mostly do the work of the church.
This set up should sound somewhat familiar to you. An Evangelical would look at how our local wards are set up and wonder why someone is being called the Bishop (I mean, if they know the word at all) because he’s only over 1 congregation and traditionally bishops were over multiple churches. But if you go up one level in structure we have Stake Presidents who essentially are in the same category that would traditionally be called Bishop – he oversees multiple congregations. And it’s not immediately intuitive to Evangelicals that we have formalized a structure that they arrived at because of the changing landscape of how churches work. So, back to our question, why is every eligible man and boy ordained? But the only structural difference there is that we have formalized what they keep informal. They actually do see each member (men and women, for the most part) as ministers – they just grab the title “priesthood of all believers” to sort of cover them in that role.
This is one of those fascinating situations where, at first glance, we are in very different structures…..but as it turns out, no, not really. Now, questions about priesthood certainly don’t stop at understanding who is ordained and why. We’ll get to the rest in parts 2 and 3.
But I do hope this clears up a bit of the language difference between us. We use a formal ordination process for “ordinary” men – and they use an informal process that accomplishes the same thing.
This is a short episode, but I’m in the airport. So. Come back next week and we’ll take up the next bit on priesthood.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Hebrews 1–6 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: The Husband of One Wifeby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about polygamy. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
We are on Week 43 of this 52-week project. I’ve teased you a little about what will happen next year. I’m still not ready to spill the beans, but we had a planning meeting for it yesterday and I’m really encouraged.
Our jumping-off point is 1 Timothy 3:2:
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…
Before we start, let me set some expectations. This is not an apologetic for polygamy. This is not to pretend there are not hard issues with polygamy. If you yourself, Latter-day Saint friend, are struggling over the history of polygamy there are so many resources to help you. Let me just briefly touch on 3 of them. 1) The work of Brian Hales on this topic is the the very best source for learning the history here. His site JosephSmithsPolygamy.org should be your first stop if you’re wanting to see the most in-depth display of original documents as it relates to Joseph’s polygamy specifically. Brian and his then-wife Laura Harris Hales (now passed) created the site. Laura was amazing and kind. I gave my first formal talk for FAIR in 2020 and Laura was the speaker right before me. We had never met but she just sort of told me, “You and I are going to be friends because you need to know the things I can tell you.” Maybe not that blunt, but in essence, that’s what it was. Laura’s talk that year was on Helen Mar Kimball’s later-in-life reflections on polygamy. Helen was sealed to Joseph when she was 14, which gets really complicated for us today. But Helen’s own words, written after a lifetime of living polygamy, are the essence of what it means to embrace faith in the midst of something really messy. And if I had not already been completely swept off my feet over this church, I would have become so right then and there. My very favorite genre of speaking or writing is from the standpoint of, “You can maintain faith even if things are messy, even if you have doubts, even if you have questions. Those things in no way disqualify you from having a strong faith.” So, resource 1 is: check out Brian’s site (Brian is very much alive and well – just this last week he released a paper on Joseph Smith’s education called, “Joseph Smith’s Education and Intellect as Described in Documentary Sources.” Our friends at the Interpreter Foundation have it up on their website. It’s 8,000 words and over 120 footnotes. Brian’s site and Laura’s talk on HMK at the 2020 FAIR conference. 2) Second resource you should know about is the 2023 talk at FAIR by Don Bradley. Don is a proper historian and did the deep research for Brian and Laura’s work. And he has continued on in that work. Don’s talk at FAIR a couple months ago brings new information into play that changes the timeline of Joseph’s polygamy – which snaps several previously problematic ideas into place. It is well worth your time. 3) Finally Brittany Chapman Nash’s book, “Let’s Talk About Polygamy.” Brittany worked in the church history department for a long time, she was on the YW General Advisotry Board. She makes the topic very accessible and this is a very easy read. I think it’s less than 150 pages, in plain language, and it’s a great resource if you are struggling here. Ok, those are 3 great resources if you’re struggling in general with the topic as a Latter-day Saint. But what we are going to do today is different. We, as always, are going to talk about this topic as it comes up for Evangelicals.
So, before I was interested in the church, I knew some rough details about polygamy – mostly from movies or tv shows. I couldn’t have sketched out an overview of why it started or when. I just knew it was a thing, and supposedly wasn’t a thing anymore. But even that small amount of knowledge is more than a good percentage of Evangelicals have. As evidenced by this reality….Since joining the church I’ve received a handful of messages from friends about various tv shows that go something like this: “Hey, I’m watching such-and-such tv show about your church. There’s a lot going on there – you okay?” And they mean that with the kindest of intentions, they really do. They just don’t realize they’re watching a show about the members of a different group who practice polygamy, not our church. And I would say most Evangelicals have an understanding that is somewhere between what I knew and the knowledge that my friends displayed in their messages. So when they think about polygamy you need to know that their imaginations are populated by what they see on television and not by actual historical realities.
But even if you can explain all of that to them, and I think many (most?) Latter-day Saints could, you still have a problem…They interpret this verse in 1 Timothy to mean that all expressions of polygamy are bad for all places and all times. They get real squeamish explaining the polygamy of almost every prophet in the Old Testament and will usually say something like, “Yeah, they might have done that, but God didn’t like it or allow it – they just did it.” You can point out that 30% of the countries in the world still allow it today. They just…it’s usually been a hard no for them. But even that is changing.
In 2003 Gallop does a survey and finds 7% of adult Americans thought polygamy was morally acceptable – by 2020, 20% of adult Americans said it’s morally acceptable. And 35% of adults who consider themselves politically liberal say it is morally acceptable. This is sort of the spot where I walked in. I wouldn’t describe myself as particularly liberal, but I lived in a very liberal West Coast city for 25 years and that exposes you to a wide variety of people and lifestyles where the automatic response of most people is, “love is love.” So when I was investigating the church, that’s the cultural soup I was living in, so when the issue of polygamy came up my response was something like: Love who you want to love, why should I care? When the conversation came up with 2 women friends that are members of the church I was surprised. So surprised. I asked how they thought about the history of polygamy or the issue in general and they kind of fell all over themselves trying to tell me how bad they thought it was. They wanted to put lots and lots of distance between today and the 1800’s. I was confused. My liberal culture had taught me: You don’t get to have an opinion on how other people structure their marriages. Now, I get what they were doing – I was an investigator and they were trying not to freak me out – and I see the goodness in that. But I was far less worried about the issue than they were. As time went on, and I learned more, there were parts of the topic that I struggled with harder than others – I struggled with Joseph’s polyandry and if you struggle with that one too you must watch Don’s talk that I referenced earlier. But my initial reaction to the topic of polygamy was kind of, “So?” And I really haven’t moved too far from that. I understand the problems, I understand that the theological framework that supported polygamy is still found in places in our church. I listened to 100 episodes of a popular podcast talking about polygamy. And perhaps I’m not the typical example here, but what I’ve observed is that people inside the church are more touchy about this topic than people outside of it. So, all of that to say, you might be surprised that this conversation could go an entirely different way than you imagine. You, Latter-day Saint, might have far more complicated feelings about this than someone outside of our faith. You’re allowed to have complicated feelings here, and there is plenty of help for that, but Evangelicals don’t necessarily walk in with the same baggage.
And here is the other direction I want to go. I think sometimes we Latter-day Saints look at Protestants widely, and Evangelicals specifically as being a people who don’t have to grapple with history as hard as we do in our church. Since we’re talking about polygamy we’ll use that as the example. There are 2 reasons for this.
1) Evangelicals are perfectly aware of polygamy in the Old Testament. But, that was a very, very long time ago. Meanwhile, in our church, there are people alive today whose grandparents practiced polygamy. So stories about polygamy (and all of its challenges) are not just random stories about stuff that happened 3,000 years ago. Evangelicals have the luxury of not thinking about this topic very much because 3,000 years is a long time. And, to be honest, in general, they’re fairly unaware of the events that have happened in the interim. For example, Martin Luther, the great reformer and father of Protestantism, said, “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” But even that was 500 years ago, so it just doesn’t feel as relevant for them.
2) Evangelicalism is very young as a faith community. Younger than ours. They really didn’t start gaining steam until post-WW2. And what was the cultural zeitgeist in post-WW2 America? Everything is modern and new. Everything is about the future. New is better than old. So they’ve culturally been able to tell their origin story that way. Think of the biggest Evangelical church in your town, I can almost guarantee you that their origin story is something like, “Well, Pastor So-and-So just wanted to study the Bible with some friends so they started a Bible study group in his living room. And pretty soon it grew into a church, and now here we are.” Well, that’s a pretty tidy history. But you understand that it’s an edited history. “Jesus did some stuff, died and rose again, then fast-forward 2000 years and we started this church.” And that’s the end of the history lesson. Because its culturally allowed (even expected) for the story to be told that way, they mostly just accept it, and no one asks harder questions based on history. They actually really do have it easier here than we do. But this is sort of the pay off on this topic and what I want you to hear….
Faith in messy. History is messy. People are messy. There was a time in our church’s history when a more sanitized version of history was being told – that happened for a lot of reasons, and it seems we’ve mostly moved past that mentality. And now we grapple with this stuff. And yes, some people leave over these issues. But have you met the people who know the depths of these issues and don’t leave? Don’t abandon their faith? People who can struggle through these issues, faith intact? If you’re watching this, I suspect there is at least some of that in you too. And you have no idea what a gift that is. A person who goes to a church whose origin story is Pastor Bill and his living-room Bible study, well they don’t develop the same skill in the same way. They don’t have to because the messier details are obscured from sight. My very favorite people in the world are people who model this for me – they want to know all the details of everything, and they still choose faith.
My point here is not even to prep you on how to talk about polygamy with outsiders. I don’t think that’s even a very interesting conversation, and a pretty large number of them won’t even care. But there’s a pretty easy pivot from that conversation to how one keeps faith alive while also acknowledging the messy. This is one of the gifts of our faith that you might not see, but in my opinion, helping other people build their faith by modeling how to wade through complex issues is one of the holiest things you can do in this world. I hope and aspire to be able to do that for other people, and I know you do too.
Okay, well, there you go. And seriously, if you are hurting or struggling over this issue please check out the resources I listed at the top of the show. Sometimes I’ve seen this cynical attitude from critics of the church that says, “Well, if you knew everything I knew, you’d leave too.” Which is just ridiculously untrue. And the folks in the sources I mentioned can really show you what its like to know all the details and still maintain faith.
Next week, “the priesthood of all believers” is up. That will be a great conversation. See you then.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon appeared first on FAIR.
by Craig Lindquist
The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.
Have you ever felt that the proverbial “windows of heaven” are too often fastened tightly shut for you? You would not be alone, as most of us have. Assuming that they are not shut because of serious misdeeds, what do we do when we need the revelation that flows through those windows but cannot get it? There is no easy answer. Even after much prayer, fasting, studying the scriptures, or conversations with priesthood leaders, answers can still be hard to find. Nevertheless, in our own struggle we can gain much understanding and appreciation for others who also search for answers from above.
CONTINUED HERE
The post Asking Big Questions: How Do I Deal with Questions I Don’t Have the Answers To? appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: What Apostasy?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about The Great Apostasy. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Our jumping-off point is 2 Thes 2:1-4. This is in the English Standard Version:
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
If you’ve ever had a conversation with someone unfamiliar with The Great Apostasy you are probably familiar with the look on their face that says something like, “I have no idea what you are talking about.” And I imagine that is rather confusing to you, Latter-day Saint friends. The signs of it seems so obvious to us it’s barely something that needs proving. You might as well ask someone to prove that air exists. But it’s different for Evangelicals. So, what are the issues?
Well, first, they don’t deny that apostasy with a lower-case “a” has happened many times in history. You can see it in the Bible and in every generation since. However, they will always couch it in terms of being individual apostasy, not collective. This forces the conversation into an awkward corner because the natural response might be something like, “Oh no, it wasn’t just one person, it was the whole thing.” And now you’ve got a problem. Because it wasn’t the whole thing. You’ve just conflated 2 different ideas about apostasy. Let me explain.
What does, “complete apostasy” mean? And what doesn’t it mean? Well, it can’t mean that there were no people who loved God, had the desire to serve him, and patterned their lives after Jesus Christ. We know from history that this is not true. So Evangelicals have a rough little piece of logic to work through here – and sometimes we make it harder on them by over-playing our hand. The Evangelical who knows even the basics of history can point out plenty of people who are examples of faithful believers throughout the ages. So, even being able to point out 1 counterexample seems to discredit the claim.
But the claim of The Great Apostasy is not that no one loved and followed God to the best of their ability. It’s that the priesthood power was taken from the Earth. Those are 2 very different things. The Great Apostasy is an institutional situation, not an individual one.
All that to say, when you’re in a conversation with an Evangelical about the apostasy try to stay out of the trap of “the apostasy means no one loved Jesus Christ at all during that time.”
Second issue. Evangelicals absolutely believe in a great apostasy. But, like many times, they’re not talking about the same thing we are. They would define the great apostasy as something that will happen at some future point in time. GK Beal, an Evangelical Biblical scholar says it this way, “The point Paul appears to be making is that the visible church community, within which true saints exist, will become so apostate that it will be dominantly filled with people who profess to be Christian but really are not. The church will continue to profess to be Christian but most in it will actually not be true believers.” Dr. B. J. Oropeza, an Evangelical at Azusa Pacific University has written 3 volumes, 800 pages, on apostasy. And every single one of those pages deals with the apostasy of the individual. Not the removal of priesthood power.
So, we’re on the same page that there is such a thing as a great apostasy. They just think it is a future event while we believe it is a past event. But this nuance brings up an interesting layer. Some of the pushback Evangelicals give on the concept of an apostasy (as we define it) is that God wouldn’t do that to us humans – why would he send Jesus and then let the whole thing fall apart? Well, interestingly enough they are perfectly okay with believing that is a possibility – a future possibility, but a possibility nevertheless. The only difference between their thinking on this and ours is that we think it happened quickly after the Apostles were gone, and they think it won’t happen for a long time to come.
In this 2 Thes passage, we also get Paul warning the reader to not let anyone deceive you. Which is a very good and helpful thing for him to be saying – but it also sets up the Evangelical way of thinking – that apostasy an individual matter. The person who becomes apostate has been tricked or fooled out of proper belief. And it is their responsibility alone to right their ship. Apostasy happens to individuals and must be fixed by individuals. The closest they can probably get to apostasy being the removal of priesthood power is looking at the Catholic church in the middle ages – if they know much about history they can probably point to that time period and say that the whole project seems to be off the rails. But Evangelicals and Catholics have an uneasy relationship. A very typical response here would be something like, “Well, those were Catholics.” The implied message is, “they aren’t real Christians like us.”
So what do you do with all of this? They see apostasy as an individual matter. And while we certainly can also see it in individuals, when we use the term The Great Apostacy, what we mean has to do with priesthood power, not individual behavior. And while they agree that a great apostasy is going to happen in the future, they don’t think its happened yet. Are we just at a stalemate? No, I don’t think so.
It gets tricky because they tend to see the concept of priesthood as a burden, not a gift. They think it is an unnecessary barrier between an individual and God. All they know are “false priests who oppress.” So one path you could go down is talking about how having the priesthood restored actually helps you get closer to God, not further away. I have experienced this in my own life, I’m sure you have too.
But another way to talk about this is to think about apostasy as they do. Accept their definition for a moment – that apostasy only has to do with the individual holding incorrect beliefs and has nothing to do with the lack of priesthood power. That it only happens to individuals and not all humans together. How does someone come to understand that they hold an incorrect belief? Your Evangelical friends hold incorrect beliefs – I did when I was an Evangelical. But, most good people who hold wrong beliefs really have no idea that they’re wrong. They’re not trying to be wrong, and they have nothing else to go on that might help them see that some things are off here. Some very simple questions about epistemology would come in handy here – how do they know what they know? How do they know they’re not wrong?
If you know and love Evangelicals you probably already know where this goes – they point to the Bible as the source of what they believe. And I trust them when they say that. But here is the thing….the Bible doesn’t lay flat. What does that mean? It means that some passages are given more emphasis and importance than others. And this is true in a way that makes people “blind” to certain passages. They can quote and believe the ones they like, and ignore lots of other verses that add more information. The solution here? You are not going to like it….You need to know your Bible better than you do. I know. I teach Gospel Doctrine and it’s only October and I can already hear the sighs of relief that people have about getting to do Book of Mormon year next year. -And I’m excited too – but as a people, we don’t know the Bible very well, so conversations with folks who are basing literally everything off the Bible are difficult because they can outwit you. I know you’re antsy to get to the BoM but I implore you, if you have a missionary heart toward Evangelicals at all please don’t run out of energy on the New Testament yet. We’ve still got 10 weeks left of the New Testament and one of the best things you might be able to do for the Evangelials you care about, is learn the Bible better.
Alright, that is that. Next week we get the wonderful phrase, “husband of one wife” and all the worries Evangelicals have about the history of polygamy in our faith. See you then.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 and 2 Thessalonians appeared first on FAIR.
FAIR has a service where questions can be submitted and they are answered by volunteers. If you have a question, you can submit it at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact. We will occasionally publish answers here for questions that are commonly asked, or are on topics that are receiving a lot of attention.
Question:In the time since General Conference, we have had several questions about the resurrection – whether our bodies will be resurrected in their perfect form, and what the difference would be between a Celestial versus a Terrestrial or Telestial resurrected body.
Answer from FAIR Volunteer David Smith:Resurrected BodiesIn his October 2023 general conference message, President Nelson reminded us: “Your choices today will determine three things: where you will live throughout all eternity, the kind of body with which you will be resurrected, and those with whom you will live forever.” President Nelson reemphasized scriptural teachings about resurrected bodies, as explained in a Church manual:
The scriptures are clear that all of God’s children will be resurrected (see 1 Corinthians 15:22; Alma 11:42; 40:4). The eternal kingdom inherited by a resurrected person, as well as the nature of a person’s resurrected body, however, will be determined by his or her faithfulness and obedience to God’s laws (see 1 Corinthians 15:40–42; D&C 76:96–98; 88:22–24, 28–31). Those who will inherit the celestial kingdom will have bodies that are celestial, “whose glory is that of the sun” (D&C 76:70). Those in the terrestrial kingdom will have bodies that differ from those in the celestial kingdom, “even as [the glory] of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament” (D&C 76:71; see also D&C 76:78). Telestial bodies will have a lesser glory, “as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament” (D&C 76:81). (“Chapter 28: Doctrine and Covenants 76:50–119,” in Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual [2018])
Restored to a Perfect FrameWe know from ancient and modern prophets that in the resurrection we shall receive our bodies as they were except in a perfected, flawless state. Here are just a couple of relevant quotes: “The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, . . . and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body.” (Alma 11:43–44) * “Every fundamental part of every body will be restored to its proper place again in the resurrection, no matter what may become of the body in death. If it be burned by fire, eaten by sharks, no matter what. Every fundamental part of it will be restored to its own proper place.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Chapter 3: The Plan of Salvation,” in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith) Procreation Only Among Exalted Beings*We also learn through modern revelation that the opportunity to have children after the resurrection is a privilege available only to those who have an exalted body (see Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4; 132:16–19). The Prophet Joseph Smith taught:
Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation; by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood; they will cease to increase when they die, that is, that they will not have any children after the resurrection; but those who are married by the power and authority of the Priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory. (“History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843],” page 1551, entry for 16 May 1843, josephsmithpapers.org )
Echoing these teachings, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated:
So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation. (“The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” reprinted in Ensign, April 2002)
Differences in Resurrected BodiesAlthough we do not have much clear revelation what the difference is between Celestial/exalted bodies and other resurrected bodies, we do know that one difference is the ability (or lack thereof) to have children. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:
Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Doctrines of Salvation 2:287–288)
In light of the doctrines quoted above, I interpret this statement by President Smith to mean not that these resurrected bodies will have been changed so that they no longer have any gender but rather that they will not be able to do fundamentally what men and women can do through a difference in gender (i.e., procreate).The post FAIR Questions: What did President Nelson mean by “the kind of body with which you will be resurrected” in his General Conference talk? appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Is this a Gnostic Church?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Gnosticism. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
We are just going to jump right in with this week’s verse Col 2:8-9:
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.
Okay, normally I don’t exegete passages for you, that’s not what we’re doing here, but I do feel like a little guidance is helpful here in order for you to understand where we’re going. Paul’s statement here in Col 2 is kind of weird if you don’t understand what’s happening in the background. He makes this statement that you shouldn’t be deceived by human philosophy and traditions. Okay. And then if you don’t know what he’s doing it seems as if he makes a strange left turn by adding in the reminder that Christ had a body. No one would blame you if you read that passage and wondered if the pages got stuck together or something. It’s odd on the face of it.
But what Paul is doing here is addressing Gnosticism. What is Gnosticism, why should you care, and what does it have to do with Evangelicals?
Gnosticism is a philosophy that covers many things, and we only have time to talk about 1 part of it. The Gnostics believed that it really only matters that you get the correct knowledge in your head. Thinking correctly and having knowledge is not just the most important thing, it’s everything – to the degree that the world which exists outside of the invisible things going on in your head just don’t matter. The only things that really matter are things you can think about – things you do with your actual physical body have nothing to do with it, they certainly don’t need to be regulated, and something that’s just pointless to worry about. If thinking in your head is everything….then the things that happen outside of your head are nothing. There was a very specific version of this in Paul’s day that he’s fighting against – and that idea was that Jesus either didn’t have a body, or maybe he only appeared to have a body. In this view, Jesus had obtained enough knowledge that he was able to be body-less because of his advanced knowledge. And someone with that much knowledge shouldn’t even be bothered with a body – it distracts from the really important thing, knowledge in your mind. So when Paul says, “Hey, don’t get distracted by this philosophy, Jesus actually had a body,” he is responding to this issue.
So, what does this have to do with our conversation about Evangelicals? As you know, Evangelicals reject the idea that anyone can choose to accept ordinances done on their behalf after the person has died because of their view that the afterlife is a binary between Heaven and Hell. But that’s only the first part of why they get confused about proxy ordinances. Gnosticism is the other reason why.
To Evangelicals having a body is not considered a gift, it’s not something they even think about all that much. They tend toward a kind of dualism that says belief is more important than behavior. What you think in your head is more important than what you actually do with your body. Now, to be fair, most people don’t study philosophy, and probably couldn’t tell you much about Gnosticism, but you can see the impact it has on their faith in the way they don’t value doing good works in the same way that we would in our church, or they don’t think baptism is important – it’s a nice thing, but accepting baptism is not really required for entrance into Heaven. They’re happily less restrictive on clothing, language, substances, and more because as long as you’re believing the correct things, it doesn’t really matter all that much if your physical body is allowed to do other things. So even though most of them won’t know the word “gnostic” they live in a system greatly influenced by it. The theologically trained folks know what it is – and they understand that Gnosticism is a bad thing. In that world, it is a legitimate and devastating blow to call someone out for being “too gnostic.” So it’s not like the leaders and theologically educated folks are embracing the idea that your body dosn’t even matter, but to preach about that doesn’t really go very far in that world. What you wear doesn’t matter, what you say or where you go doesn’t matter, what you do doesn’t matter – as long as you say the right things.
Okay, why should you care about any of this….It is a fair question for those outside our faith to ask why proxy work is how it has to be. If they can set aside the idea that there are no chances after death to believe (which is hard for them to set aside) they still get stuck on exactly why it requires a person who still has a physical body to get baptized, for example, on their behalf. Couldn’t God just accept their confession of faith after death? Why involve the people who are alive today and have bodies? This truly makes no sense to them. They might bring up the thief on the cross to whom Jesus spoke and said, “today you will be with me in paradise.” No baptism, no proxy work for that guy was required in what Jesus said. Though to be fair, Jesus was a bit busy at the moment when this conversation was taking place.
So, if you’re having a conversation about proxy work with an Evangelical this concept of Gnosticism is in the background, even if either one of you know it. So, what do you do?
Well, one interesting way to address this is to wonder with them: Why was it important that Jesus had a body through which he suffered greatly? Couldn’t God have just decided to forgive the sins of anyone who would come to the correct cognitive beliefs about their sin? They will probably tell you that God could have done that – but he didn’t. Why was it important to Paul that Jesus had a real body when he did his proxy work for us?
The other piece that comes up here is something I want to be really careful and kind with. There is a piece of Gnosticism – and especially the kind that is at the heart of modern-day evangelicalism – that says not only is knowledge important, but MY version of knowledge is the most important. For example, the key to salvation in the Evangelical world is that each person makes a “personal profession of faith in Christ.” And that is good. We believe that too – no one can decide about Christ for you, you have to decide for yourself. But from there, the Evangelical faces some different challenges. If MY personal salvation is based on MY own thinking – then everything can be. And there’s no one to tell me otherwise. If I don’t like what my pastor teaches, I go find a pastor who teaches what I like. When I get mad at him – or when he’s too old or not cool enough – I can go find another one. No one gets the final word but me. They’re not being self-centered or egotistical about this – its a theological expression for them and they feel the great responsibility of having to decide every single thing in their own head. There is no authority. No prophet. The first time I heard the phrase, “the authority of God was taken from the Earth,” I remember being confused because I had been so indoctrinated in the idea that God really wanted us to figure everything out on our own. In the Evangelical way of thinking that’s not seen God’s authority being taken – but that the very concept of authority doesn’t matter anymore. It’s postmodernism – the author is dead, and with him the concept of authority. You yourself have to be your own authority. Shoot, today in our Western culture we don’t even like the idea of saying that someone who has spent decades studying is an “authority” when I person can spend 5 min on Google and piece together a loud opinion. Evangelicals aren’t just up against this in our culture, they’re up against it as part of their faith system.
If you’re thinking ahead, you can already see how this same dilemma causes them to reject having a Prophet. They DO value prophets – they just value the ones who they can read and not see. The ones who lived so long ago they couldn’t possibly understand life today. Having a living prophet – another way to say that is to say we have a human Prophet who lives in a human body – feels much more dangerous to them than reading dead Prophets who are now disembodied.
That’s a lot of philosophy for today. So I’m not going to go on too much longer. But I hope this has helped you see how these differences play out. And really, if anything, I want you to recognize the goodness of the water you’re swimming in but probably don’t even realize.
Next week, I don’t remember what we’re doing, but in 2 weeks we’re talking about polygamy. So that’ll be fun. See you next time.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Philippians; Colossians appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Do Works Work?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about works. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Today, is Sunday evening, October 1. I hope you had a great conference weekend. I certainly did. And I’ve got a list of talks I need to go back and listen to again. You probably do too! I will not tell you how many Cinnamon Rolls I ate, but you can probably guess.
We are just going to jump right in with this week’s verse Eph 2:8-9:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
So, I remember grappling with this verse when I was an Evangelical, probably age 16 or 17. I grew up in a non-LDS church that tried to walk a fine line between Calvinism (God chooses whom he will save, and your choices don’t matter. Even if you want to be saved, you might not be) and Arminianism (People have free will to choose God or not therefore we should Evangelize around the world. And, for what they were trying to do, they did an okay job at it. “Spend your days like an Arminianist, but spend your nights like a Calvinist” – meaning, work hard to share the gospel but also go to sleep knowing God is going to do what God is going to do. But when we would come to verses like this I was rather confused because my church taught that in order to receive this grace what you were supposed to do was pray, “the sinner’s prayer” which means asking Jesus into your heart. And that was it. Pray the prayer, that’s all you have to do, and God’s grace does the rest. But, in my 16-year-old brain, I couldn’t quite work out why that sinner’s prayer was not considered a “work.” It’s something that the person does. If it was actually true that God’s grace is all that’s needed, then why do we even need to pray the prayer? Evangelicals do have answers for this, but none of them felt very satisfying for me. Eventually, I just moved on from the question.
And, this will not come as a surprise to listeners of this show, I was also taught that Latter-day Saints are trying to work their way to Heaven and if they made one small mess-up, their chances were ruined. Which is part of why I was so intrigued when I read the Book of Moses. If you haven’t heard me say it before, Moses was actually the first Latter-day Scripture I ever read. And there’s a lot contained in that little book – something I understand now way more than before – so when I talk about it I usually say something like, “I really didn’t even know what I was looking at yet.” And that’s true. I didn’t. But there is also this. Literally, by verse 4 I’m confronted with ideas about works. In vs. 4 God tells Moses that his work is vast – and that he is still not done working. He’s got more to say and more to create. Well, hmmm, this is not something that Evangelicals ever taught me. But by Moses 1:6 we see God telling Moses that he has a work to do as well, just as Jesus Christ had a work to do. Huh. If you had asked me even a few weeks earlier to guess what a verse like this would say I probably would have guessed something like God telling Moses: I have a bunch of work for you to do, and if you do it well enough you can earn your way back into my presence. But that’s not what happens in Moses 1. Even by Verse 4 we know that God is calling Moses, “son” – and presumably Moses hasn’t even done anything yet. He is assured of his sonship and then given work to do. I’m not even sure if I articulated any good questions about that at the time. So, right from the beginning, I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around this concept. And I think that most Evangelicals who are baptized into our church have to go through a version of the same puzzle. People who have been members of our faith for their whole lives often get really confused here as well. The questions Evangelicals ask here don’t really make any sense and we all talk right past each other. So, what I want to do today is try to fairly explain why Evangelicals are in the place they are on this, and hopefully some ideas on how to have a better conversation.
About 6 weeks ago the magazine Christianity Today (which has long been considered the Evangelical’s magazine) published an article called, “Mormons Expect More of the Next Generation. Why Don’t We?” And the whole point of that article is basically that Evangelical kids don’t fair as well because they’re given far lower expectations – counterintuitively to some, high expectations (coupled with high levels of support) are good for kids. CT actually publishes articles like this roughly every decade. The most recent one I could find before the article in August was back in 2013. What is fascinating though is that all these articles, every decade or so, praise the works of Latter-day Saint youth – they talk about the goodness of their service and how the missionary program helps in young adult development. They talk about the humanitarian work, and all other good things our church does. But they divorce it from our beliefs. The logic goes something like this…We Evangelicals believe the Latter-day Saints are doing really good works – those works end up being meaningless because they think they’re earning salvation with them – but at least some people are getting some benefit out of them. In these articles, you get statements along the lines of, “Mormon culture is founded on a worldview requiring works in order to gain eternal life.” And, “Trying to earn God’s favor through human effort is not going to help any teenager, whether Mormon or Protestant.” One more, “Christians have a unique core that motivates our service, a core that separates our religion from others, including Mormonism. That core is grace.”
Now, Latter-day Saints, I know you’re minds are full right now of verses from the Book of Mormon, or from modern Prophets, explaining that we do not believe our works save us. But no matter how much you talk about those verses, Evangelicals have not budged on this, as evidenced by the simple example of the decade-after-decade articles from Christianity Today that we are a works-based religion.
Remember when we did the “Different Jesus” episode? Evangelicals have a deep worry that getting Jesus wrong, even a little bit, means that no matter how strong your faith it won’t really matter because you don’t believe in the “correct” Jesus. And that comes into play here. It’s not so much that they don’t believe in doing good. They do, and they can cite the Bible verses which support this. The problem is that because, in their view, we don’t believe in the “correct” Jesus whatever good works we do have to stand on their own as just nice things people are doing. They can’t see our works as an expression of our faith in Christ because they can’t see that we have faith in Christ.
Now, it’s conference weekend, so heavily in my mind was the number of times that speakers mentioned Jesus Christ. I thought I’d keep a tally, but quickly lost my ability to keep up. The text of those talks is not available yet, so I went to last Conference, April 2023, to see how many times Jesus Christ was mentioned. There are over 500 times, and if you take out all the mentions of the name of the church (“Welcome to the annual conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) you still have well over 400 times. Elder Gary Stevenson, in that conference, talks about him the most, 25 mentions in a 14-min talk. He mentions Jesus Christ on average every 30 seconds. And in fact it’s rare to have a speaker not mention Jesus Christ multiple times. You and I all know this. But our Evangelical friends won’t accept those 400 times because to them it doesn’t matter how hard you believe or how big your faith is if it is invested in the wrong thing. And here, “the wrong thing” essentially means that we don’t accept the things written about Jesus by a committee 400 years after he was gone – the basic Trinitarian conceptualization. You don’t believe in the Trinity, the object of your belief is false, therefore your works are not a product of faith – they’re you trying to earn your way to Heaven.
The only way that I really see out of this corner is to speak more specifically about what you believe regarding Jesus Christ with your Evangelical friends. “I believe in Jesus Christ,” is met with, “But you believe in the wrong Jesus.” That’s an expected reflex. But something like, “I believe Jesus Christ is the eternal Savior of the world and no one can return to God except through him,” would certainly get you some agreement and understanding with them.
I’ll say one other thing about getting out of this corner. If you want to have credibility, you have to live up to what you’re saying. You actually have to be the kind of person who embodies the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is why I don’t personally participate in conversations about Christ with people I don’t know online. There is a spot for that – and if you are gifted in the area, God bless you – I think many of our missionaries are gifted this way as they knock on doors of strangers or start discussions with people they don’t know well at all. But I am not one of those people, at least in part because the biggest piece of credibility I have is the fact of who Christ has led me to be. You can’t really communicate that to someone you don’t know well. But occasionally an Evangelical friend will say something like: “I don’t believe a thing your church teaches you, but I can see that it’s working for you because you’re happier than I’ve ever seen you.” Said by a friend who has known me for more than 30 years. How you live your life and what makes you happy really actually matters. And my life is certainly not perfect, and neither am I, but my friend was right, I am happier than I’ve ever been, despite some real challenges. And if you’re like most Latter-day Saints I’ve met, you’re that way too. You conduct your life in a way that is what Jesus described as letting them, “see your good works and glorify your father who is in Heaven.” Who you are, and how you live your life – the good works that you do – actually gives you more traction with people who know you in getting them to want to listen to you about Jesus.
Okay, that’s about it for today. Next week we’re going to talk about something called Gnosticism which Paul fought hard against – and why proxy work is a perfect antidote to Gnosticism. See you then.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Ephesians appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Another Gospelby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the phrase, “another gospel”. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
A couple of reminders for you. This last weekend FAIR hosted an online only conference called Defending the Book of Mormon. Those talks will be released on the FAIR Youtube channel in the upcoming weeks. Brent Schmidt’s talk about grace is still exploding in my head. And Stephen Smoot’s talk – not on the Book of Abraham where he is an expert – but on the difference between translation and revelation was also fantastic. And yes, you see me a bit in there too – I didn’t present anything, but got to introduce speakers and ask questions. Which, really meant I got to have all the fun of a conference without the pain of writing a paper to present. You also get to see Zach Wright and Sarah Allen doing the same thing. And…oh goodness….at one point we end up with more time than we’d planned for. A couple speakers were efficient with their time and we needed to fill some space. So you get to hear me interview Sarah – she’s the author of that 70-part response to the CES letter – and we had a great chat. Though I think it was something like, “Hey, you girls are interesting, and we’ve got some time to fill – can you just go talk and we’ll film you?” In other words, you can probably fast-forward through that section. But it was fun. Last bit of news….at FAIR we do have some fun projects cooking up for next year. Not ready to let details out yet, but lets just say that I will be busy. More to come later.
Okay, we’re going to talk about that phrase, “another gospel” and our jumping off point is Gal 1:8:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
And this verse comes up a lot for Evangelicals when thinking about what our church teaches. So I want to dive in here and try to understand why they say that – and then take a look at how Evangelicals actually define, “the gospel” and see how much agreement there actually is between the two groups.
What IS the gospel, according to Evangelicals?
So, “the gospel” literally means, “the good news” and no one is disputing that. Both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints are on the same page here. But we do differ in some areas.
I think I could come up with a pretty good answer on my own, but I wanted to see what is currently being taught in their own words so I surveyed some of the most popular sites for Evangelicals and here is the criteria they’re talking about…
The gospel is…”Imputed righteousness. What do we receive because we are counted righteous in Christ? The answer is fellowship with Jesus. (This will) remove obstacles to the only lasting, all-satisfying source of joy: Jesus Christ.”
Latter-day Saint friends I suppose some of you are thinking, “Umm, what’s wrong with that?” We’ll unpack.
Let’s start with the first one which talks about “imputed righteousness.” And here is your can of worms. What is “imputed righteousness.” It is, “Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus credited to the Christian, enabling the Christian to be justified.” This is a term that comes from Martin Luther and was a corrective to some of the Catholic practices at the time including buying indulgences with money. An “indulgence” kind of sounds like it is a free-pass to do some elicit activity without getting in trouble, but what it really means is that the person’s “sentence” in purgatory will be reduced by a certain number of years. Luther was right to fight against this practice. He’s trying to say that people don’t need to spend money to get a softer sentence in purgatory – Jesus pays the price. And I know, in theory, when you put it that way, we don’t disagree. But the idea is part of a bigger package of ideas that include believing that God is angry at all of his children and will absolutely torture them for eternity unless during their lifetime they profess faith in Christ. Luther’s phrase here, imputed righteousness, solves one problem (indulgences) but opened up another – and 500 years later, Protestants are still grappling with what it means to accept salvation that they can’t earn. This doctrine is called Sola Fide, “By faith alone” Lately – meaning the last 120 years – its turned more into “Jesus did it all – so you don’t have to do anything.” But it hasn’t always been this way.
If we go back even further to Augustine – who isn’t always trying very hard to keep the apostasy at bay – but he gets it right here. He uses the term, “Infused righteousness” which for him means, “God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person.” The implication here is that after one receives this righteousness it becomes part of them and they go on to strive to live a life of holiness. But you can see how Luther’s change – which made sense at the time when you compare it to the practices of the Catholic church – has been used to claim that Jesus’ righteousness does everything for us and we don’t have to do anything. Here it is expressed by one Evangelical pastor, “Your salvation is a free gift. You can not do anything to earn it. You can’t even ask for it because asking would be you doing part of the work. If God is going to save you, he’s going to save you. It has nothing to do with you. It is God’s work. You are the object of that work. But that’s all you are.” Augustine was closer to the truth on this one than Luther – and I’m not really a fan of Augustine. But he’s right here.
John Wesley, founder of the Methodists, tries to offer a correction here to the change Luther made by coining the term, “imparted righteousness” as a way to say that salvation is through Christ alone, but it must, “empower the process of sanctification,” which Wesley also called Christian perfection. By “perfection” here he means something similar to what we mean when we say that we will become “like God.” And it’s no wonder that Joseph Smith said that the Methodists are closer to truth than some other groups.
So, what is the gospel to Evangelicals? They would all affirm that its good news. That it comes through Christ alone. But they radically disagree on what comes next. Do we have to do anything after receiving salvation or not? The room is deeply divided on this. Why did I tell you all this?
Why do Evangelicals think we have “another gospel”?
I think you can see at this point that the versions of the gospel offered by Luther and Wesley (2 men who still influence Evangelicals to a great degree) are radically different, or at least have been taken in radically different directions. And yet, these 2 versions of the gospel do not trip the Evangelical worry about “a different gospel.” But they couldn’t be more different. They in fact opposite. The only thing they have in common is that Jesus Christ paid for salvation. In one version of the gospel you, the individual, are not required to do anything at all – and if you try you are insulting God by saying that Jesus is not enough. And in the other, Christ paves the way for salvation, but you, the individual, must change and grow in holiness as time goes on in order to reach perfection. It’s weird right. Totally different views. But Evangelicals will sometimes easily say that we Latter-day Saints have a “different gospel.” If you ask for specifics you’re more likely to get quotes from past leaders that are not part of the standard works and that are taken out of context. Or perhaps were not even recorded correctly in the first place – see the last FAIR conference and the talk by LaJean Carruth for an incredibly detailed account of how and why this is true.
Why else do they think this? Because, frankly, anti-mormon propaganda has been effective. That was true in Joseph Smith’s day. There is a book – if you don’t know about this book you should – written by 3 BYU professors and came out this year called, “Marrianne Meets the Mormons.” And it’s about the church in France in the first part of the 20th century. During this time there are less than 500 members of the church in all of France. Statistically, they’re not a significant group in that culture by any means. But, the amount of literature, art, and music that uses “Mormons” as the bad guys is huge. There’s 42 Million people in France at this time – 500 of them are members of the church – but anytime a movie or book needs a bad guy, he’s very likely to be a Mormon. It’s very similar to the same stereotyping that we see today – turn on any number of television shows from the last year and you already know this.
What now?
So, what do we do with this? Within the Evangelical community, you can have 2 radically different versions of what the gospel is and no one cares. But when you want to talk about the gospel how Latter-day Saints do, which includes a belief in the saving power of Jesus Christ, and agree with both Augustine and Wesley that sanctification matters after salvation – all of a sudden that’s just too different.
You have a number of options here. You can fight with them, though I dont recommend it. You can simply bear your testimony knowing that they can’t really refute what you believe, and that’s a good move. But on this chanel we’re really focused on how you talk about these things with the people you love – friends and family – and sometimes bearing your testimony can feel like you’re shutting down the conversation, not opening it up. At least when it’s with people you’re close to. Our leaders – Prophets, Apostles, your local leaders – have given us plenty of spiritual advice on how to manage these situations. I won’t repeat all of that you – you know it already and should listen to them. But I will offer you a piece of psychological advice.
People love to feel understood. I love it. You love it. One quote says, “Being heard feels so close to being loved that for the average person, they are almost indistinguishable.” So try to hear them before you try to get them to hear you. What does the gospel mean to them? Does admitting that there are different versions of the gospel even among Protestants make them feel anxious? Why? What’s that about for them? And similar questions will help them teach you about what they need in order to have this conversation. Maybe that’s just therapist psychobable. But if you want them to understand why you see the gospel the way you do – you’re probably going to have to put in the work and understand why they’re resistant to it. If they’re throwing a bunch of complaints that sound like they got them off some website, they probably did. Try to help them identify what their actual concerns are. And listen to them to understand them. That is the most effective way to get them to listen to you, at least from a psychological perspective.
All right, next week we’re to do what is essentially part 2 of this week’s episode and talk about how Paul sees “works” in the book of Ephesians. See you then.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Galatians appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Why do you believe in Levels of Heaven?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the 3 kingdoms of Heaven. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Quick announcement for you first: This coming weekend, Friday Sept 22 – Saturday Sept 23 is an online only conference put on by FAIR and the focus is evidence for the Book of Mormon. I am not presenting at this conference but I do get to help out a bit with introductions and questions which I am thrilled to death over because it means I get to hang out with some very smart people all day long. The Friday evening presentation is none other than Richard Bushman. On Saturday there are a number of speakers including Stephen Smoot – he’s the most up-to-date scholar on issues surrounding the Book of Abraham; a presentation by my 2 favorite Spencers – Spencer Marsh and Spencer Kraus – which I think has been jokingly titled, “Revealing the One True Spencer” but in reality is about 2 Nephi 19:1, which is rather a puzzling verse. Several good talks on archeology challenges and ancient artifacts. I’ll be there live with the speakers, but the conference is online only and you can stream it on the FAIR YouTube channel.
Okay, we’re going to talk about the levels of Heaven. Our jumping-off verse is 2 Corinthians 12:2:
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.
And I’ve noticed that Latter-day Saints sometimes are confused about why Evangelicals don’t accept this idea, it’s in the Bible after all. I want to talk through how and why Evangelicals see this verse in 2 Corinthians the way they do, and then we’ll talk about some intersections with our faith and where you might go in conversation about this topic.
I don’t have research to point to that backs this up, but my sense is that if you asked most Evangelicals what Paul means by “the 3rd Heaven” they wouldn’t even understand the question. It’s considered an obscure verse that they generally don’t spend a lot of time on so the average Evangelical person might not even know it’s in scripture. But, for those who do, they have a very concrete (meaning physical) explanation for it – rather than a spiritual one. Which brings up a bigger question: Why do we – why does anyone – take some verses literally and some spiritually? Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints use both techniques, but at different times and for different reasons. The cynical explanation is that the other group, the group that is opposite of you, does this at their own convenience only to fit their doctrine in. But I think it’s more complex than that. Both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals (as well as every other denominational group or religion out there) are heavily influenced by a set of interpretative rules called hermeneutics. The hermeneutic you use – here the choices are physical or spiritual, but there are lots of others – determines how you will interpret a passage. Let me make an analogy to help you understand.
In English, there is a proper order for adjectives in a sentence. An adjective is a descriptive word and if you string them together in the wrong order your sentence won’t sound right. However, if you ask almost any native English speaker to name that order, they can’t do it. I can’t do it. I had to look the order up for this talk to make sure I got it right – it’s a rule I follow, but don’t even know I’m following it. I just know it sounds right. The order is Quantity, Quality, Size, Age, Shape, Color Proper adjective (often nationality, other place of origin), and Purpose. A classic example of getting this order correct is the sentence, “I love that really big old green antique car.” If you’re a native speaker, this sounds right to your ears while, “I love that antique, green, old, big car,” just doesn’t sound right. You follow this rule without even knowing the rule exists. And hermeneutics are like this. Knowing when to read literally or physically and when to read spiritually is a rule that you follow without even knowing there is a rule. And Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints use different rules. So when they interpret something, it doesn’t sound quite right to our ears – and vice versa.
What are the Evangelical rules for the interpretation of a verse like this one in 2 Cor? They interpret this verse literally by saying that the first heaven refers to the atmospheric where the birds live (and yes, this is how it’s normally phrased.). The second heaven is the area of the stars and planets. The third heaven is the dwelling place of God and Heaven. But why?
So, I think the tendency here is for Latter-day Saints to claim that Evangelicals get it wrong because they don’t have the Spirit and therefore can’t interpret correctly. But that’s not a very satisfying answer and it probably breeds more us-them than is good for anyone. So let me offer a couple different ways to understand what’s happening here.
First, you remember from past episodes that the Evangelical movement is not even 100 years old, and it really came of age alongside the Baby Boomers. It is very much a post-WW2 American invention. The cultural mix at the time was encouraging everyone to move into the modern world with all its conveniences. And they didn’t want to be seen as old fuddy-duddies. If you’re close to my age, our family lines probably play out in a similar fashion. My mother was born in the first wave of the baby boom, but her parents were both born in the 19-teens, and all 4 of her grandparents were born in the 1800’s. The Evangelical movement rose up with these baby boomers whose parents and grandparents seemed to be from an entirely different era. So they wanted an entirely different version of church than what their parents and grandparents had which was now out of fashion for being too fundamentalist and strict. They found what they were looking for in the Evangelical movement. The Evangelicals were a reaction to the fundamentalists who came before them.
But like with all reactionary movements, the very thing they’re reacting against often gets smuggled right in any way, and in this case, we’re talking about the temptation to interpret in an overly literal way. They will say things like, “The Bible is the literal word of God.” At face value, what that sentence means is that God’s message to use is found in this book. But what that gets morphed into is something like: everything in the Bible should be taken literally. This leaves you in a weird place if you read in Luke that Jesus says he gathers us like baby chicks under his wings because the rule of “everything should be taken literally” falls apart unless you want to regard Christ as some kind of giant cosmic chicken. So what has happened with Evangelicals is that their interpretative rule is something like: in order to take scripture seriously you have to take it literally whenever possible – and when it is not possible you must find the spiritual meaning instead. In other words, if it can be literal – it should be taken literally. Evangelicals will get a little squirmy if you try to say this plainly. When they ask, “Do you take the Bible literally?” what they’re really asking is, “Do you think the Bible is actually true?” The word “literal” here is morphing in meaning – it’s okay, words do that within the context of a culture. But it leaves Evangelicals with this sense of the literal meaning has to come first.
So, when they look at our verse about the third Heaven in 2 Corinthians their first impulse is to look for a literal meaning. Remember, these rules are often as invisible to people as the English rules of which order adjectives go in – everyone follows the rule, even though most people don’t know it exists. And, Evangelicals have a second interpretation rule here that reinforces the first: If another verse in the Bible mentions the same thing, it should be used to enhance the meaning of the verse in question. So, Evangelicals interpret the 1st Heaven to be where the atmosphere and the birds are and they back that up with a verse like Deut 28:12, “The Lord will open for you His good storehouse, the heavens, to give rain to your land in its season.” And they see this as a perfectly valid explanation. Paul mentions a 3rd Heaven, implying that there are 1st and 2nd Heavens. Can we interpret this literally? Yes, and we have scriptures that do so, a literal interpretation works and therefore should be used.
Latter-day Saints have our own history of why things have been interpreted the way they have. And we face the same reality that Evangelicals do – many of the rules we use for interpretation are rather invisible to us, we just know what sounds right. My experience has been – and I’m sure some of you have had different experiences and I’d love to read about them in the comments – but my experience has been that the hermeneutics Latter-day Saints most often use is something called an emendatory (amendatory) hermeneutic which just means that we have been given additional information or clarity on what the Bible is talking about through either the Book of Mormon or our modern Prophets. In general, we would look at a verse like this one about the 3rd Heaven and easily be able to quote all kinds of modern revelation that help us know what “the 3rd Heaven” actually means. The challenge for Latter-day Saints comes in 2 directions. Either we’re overly quick to jump to, “this part of the Bible is clearly not translated correctly and I don’t have to do any study or work to try and tease out some meaning.” Or, we over-relate a Biblical passage to modern revelation – sometimes making connections that the Prophet himself (whichever one speaking) did not make. Latter-day Saints can also go a little too heavy on literal interpretation just like Evangelicals can simply because we’re impacted by history here too – the early half of the 20th century was dominated by more literal/fundamentalist thinking in our church too.
Okay, so how do you talk about this concept with your Evangelical friends? I have 2 thoughts.
First, Jesus doens’t use the phrase “levels of Heaven” or “Kingdoms of Heaven” but he does talk about varying degrees of reward in Heaven and makes it clear that certain things we do here on Earth will bring more reward, and certain things less reward. For example: Matthew 5 Jesus says there is a great reward for those who are persecuted. Meaning that the people who did not have to face persecution will not be rewarded in that way. Jesus is offering a compensatory reward for suffering faithfully for his name. In the very next chapter Jesus talks about how some folks really want to draw attention to the fact that they’re giving to the poor – Jesus tells us that these people have their reward in full already and this behavior will not get them further reward in Heaven. Romans 2 Paul tells us God will give to every man based on his deeds. In 1 Cor 3 Paul teaches that our works will be judged – some will burn up, and some will endure – those who produce works that endure will be rewarded. All this to say, pointing out that these passages (and many others) describe different degrees of reward and that might open up the conversation really nicely.
My second thought on how to talk with Evangelicals about this: Read the CS Lewis book, “The Great Divorce.” It’s fiction and a rather easy read. The audio book is only about 3 hours. Lewis was not a member of our faith, and at times actually had some rather snarky things to say about our faith, but in The Great Divorce, he sees the same truth we’re talking about. Here is the basic plot: It’s set in the afterlife and people from the lower kingdoms (here represented by a large, noisy city) are given a chance to go on a bus ride to the higher kingdoms. In the book the higher kingdoms are thought of as being closer to God – the countryside is closer to God than the city – and the great mountain is where God lives but its rather steep and hard to get to. However, God reigns over all 3 kingdoms. You might think that when the people from the lower kingdom get a glimpse of the country side and its fresh air that they might awaken their desire to progress. But they don’t. They complain that the color of the grass is such a vivid green it hurts their eyes and feels “too real” when they put their feet on it. They complain that living in the countryside requires too much of them and they want to get back on the bus and go home where it’s comfortable. The point here is that the people who spent their lives preparing to live closer to God are the ones who are best able to adapt to the higher kingdoms. You can’t climb the great mountain without some training. But in the book, progression is possible if you want it. Most people don’t. Lewis never intended this as a pro-LDS book by any means – and yet he is getting at some of the very things we’re saying about 3 Heavens. I actually read this book long before I investigated the church and it was an important thing for me to have on board in my brain as I learned how to adjust to a different way of thinking about eternity.
I hope this episode helps you think through some ways of how to understand your Evangelical friends and how to talk with them about the beautiful doctrine we have about Heaven in a way that they can actually hear.
Next week we’re talking about the phrase, “another gospel” in Galatians. Looking forward to seeing you then.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 2 Corinthians 8–13 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Obedient in Everything by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about obedience. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 2 Corinthians 1–7 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Baptism for the Dead (Part 2)by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about baptism for the dead. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Since we talk about Come Follow Me stuff on this channel I do want to make you aware of a new resource for next year. Dr. Grant Hardy has a new book, The Annotated Book of Mormon. And it is delicious. It’s much closer to a study Bible, but with the Book of Mormon, than I’ve seen before. It includes the entire text of the BoM but has Hardy’s notes embedded on the same page – at least in the physical book. There is a Kindle edition, but it makes the book much harder to use because you have to click about 4 times to actually see the footnotes and get back to your page. The notes are the whole point of this book. And you can just access those much easier in the physical form. I teach Gospel Doctrine in my ward and picked this up to help me prepare for next year. It’s very good.
One other resources you should know about that is coming up. FAIR is hosting an online-only conference specifically focused on just the Book of Mormon. Richard Bushman will be presenting along with many others. Details are available here.
Okay, We talked about baptism for the dead on a past episode in a more general way, but today we’ll get down to some specifics of why this one bothers Evangelicals so much. We’ll use 1 Cor 15:29-32 as our jumping-off point:
Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? Why are we in danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
So, Evangelicals have an interesting dilemma with this verse about baptism for the dead. Evangelicals generally have a view of the Bible called inerrancy – this means that they see the Bible as being free from error. So, here they have a verse talking about baptism for the dead, they believe the Bible is without error, but they won’t accept the idea of baptism for the dead. But they have to figure out some way to explain this verse. I’m going to lay out the most popular arguments for you as best as I can.
One way they deal with this is to basically say, “Who knows?” One Evangelical leader says it this way, “The phrase ‘baptism for the dead’ is so obscure and perplexing, the meaning so uncertain, and the variety of interpretations so numerous that it seems wise to say it seems impossible to know what the phrase means.” And in one sense, that’s a fair answer – if you don’t know what something means you should say so.
A slightly more sophisticated explanation goes like this: The baptism Paul is using “dead” here in a metaphorical sense. He’s not talking about actual dead people, but rather those who are “dead in sin.” Baptism for the dead is then re-cast as just regular baptism. Another possible option that they put on the table is really a rather odd one, and you have to torture the sentence structure a bit to make it work. But this argument says that “baptism for the dead” actually means “baptism because of the dead.” The idea being that those who had already died had strong testimonies and they were still inspiring currently alive people to get baptized themselves. It doesn’t really work in the structure of the argument, but it’s one of the ways they talk about this. A slight variation on this is that Paul is talking about the martyrs who bravely faced death in the 1st century and were inspiring others to be faithful to Christ.
A slightly less tortured explanation says that the dead who were being baptized for had already decided to trust in Christ, they had just not been baptized yet. So after they die, their friends or family symbolically get baptized for them – but it’s more like a family member finishing a mountain hike on behalf of a loved one who died while trying to complete that hike. Everyone knows that this kind of “on behalf of” isn’t really the person finishing it – it’s just a comforting ritual for the people who are still alive.
The final argument that they use is something like: there is one mention of this practice one time in the Bible so its not enough to build a doctrine on. And they’re partly right, this passage is the only time it is mentioned in the Bible. But the Bible is not the only history we have access to.
1 Cor was written about 55 AD – fast forward to 393 AD (350 years later – longer than the United States has been a country) and it’s still being practiced. No new Bible texts are being written at this time, so we don’t have that, but we do have writings of all kinds from the churches in various locations. We’ll look at one of them: Egypt. We call the Christians there Coptic Christians. The word ‘Coptic’ is derived from the Greek word that means “Egyptian.”
It was Hugh Nibley who put much of this work together initially. He traces through the Coptic writings and shows dozens of Coptic writings talking about baptism for the dead. But eventually other Christians radically distance themselves from the practice. How did this all happen?
In the early Christian world there are lots of competing ideas in various places and their method for deciding who was correct happened through a series of formal councils. Some of these were considered major councils – where there would have been leaders representing all the different areas where faith was being practiced. But some of them were minor councils, and not everyone attended. One such council was called, “The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo,” it was held in 393AD and in that council, they declared, “The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them.” The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon of the Third Council of Carthage. However, the Coptic Christians were not represented at either council, so they didn’t feel particularly bound to the decisions being made there. Nibly complies all kinds of references to baptism for the dead in their church. Eventually, the Coptic Church split away from the Roman Church in 451, just 50 or so years after this event. It’s not the only reason they split off, but it’s in the mix.
All this to say, Evangelicals use a wide variety of arguments to try to make that verse mean something other than what it means. However, if you asked most of them why they think baptism for the dead is wrong you will probably get something like: Baptism isn’t necessary, only faith is necessary. They tend to think that baptism – even of the living – is just a nice symbolic way of expressing that you belong to Christ. Kind of like finishing the hike where a deceased relative died is a nice symbolic way to help them finish their journey. Most of the time they’re not just rejecting baptism for the dead, they’re side-lining all baptism, even for the living. At best, it’s a nice thing, but it’s not required to be a Christian. At worst it’s an insult to Christ because it’s saying that something needs to be added to his work on the cross.
And I think a lot of Latter-day Saints get stuck here because it’s hard to understand why they see it they way they do. I want to suggest one way to talk about why baptism is so important to our faith just straight out of the Bible. We have a lot of great verses about baptism in our other scriptures – but those are scriptures Evangelicals wont accept, so they might not get you very far. But in the Bible we get this great conversation on baptism in 1 Peter 3. Peter makes the argument that baptism is like Noah’s ark. He says, “After being made alive, [that is Christ] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits [understood as people who have died]— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Peter then goes on to say, just a couple verses later in Chapter 4, “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead.” It’s easy for the modern-reader to make hard lines between chapters, but Paul didn’t write in chapters – those were added later. Take Peter’s argument as a whole and we get something like: Christ wanted even the dead to be saved, baptism is how this happens, and for this reason the gospel is preached to the dead. You can’t separate faith and baptism as only belonging to the living here. Your Evangelical friends or family members might not immediately jump up and accept the idea after this, but it does move the conversation into a wider collection of verses in the New Testament – which is something that helps Evangelicals feel like you are taking scripture seriously.
Okay, that’s all I have for you today. Come back next week and we’ll talk some more.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 Corinthians 14–16 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Men and Women by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the interdependence of women and men. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 Corinthians 8–13 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Satan and Jesus are brothers? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about an issue that baffles Evangelicals to their core: Jesus and Satan as brothers.. As you know we’re […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 Corinthians 1–7 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: The Problem of Suffering by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the role of suffering. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Romans 7–16 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Do Evangelicals have “a testimony”? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about testimonies. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 22–28 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: If you believe the Bible, why do you also need the Book of Mormon? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about scripture, what is it, how we read it, […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 16–21 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Who is – and who is not – a Christian? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about what being a Christian means. As you know we’re going through the […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 10–15 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: The Holy Ghost by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the Holy Ghost. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 6–9 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: What IS an Apostle anyway? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about apostles. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 1–5 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Baptism for the Dead by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about baptism for the dead. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21 appeared first on FAIR.
By Emma Hadfield “It is a startling idea to think we are worshiping a God that once was in the situation that we are in ourselves,” Brigham Young stated in June of 1851. In this sermon recorded by Wilford Woodruff, President Young continued, “[He] had to pass through a probation of pain, suffering and the […]
The post Because of His Loving Kindness appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Views on Atonement by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Atonement Theories. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: The Garden or the Cross? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Gethsemane and the crucifixion. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing […]
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Luke 22; John 18 appeared first on FAIR.
“Continue Ye in My Love” JUNE 5–11 FAIR Faithful Resources for Come, Follow Me 2023 June 5–11. John 14–17: “Continue Ye in My Love.” Find answers to difficult questions to help you in your learning and teaching. Here is a collection of reliable resources to supplement your study of John 14–17. FAIR Resources link to relevant questions which have […]
The post John 14–17 – Faithful Resources for Come, Follow Me 2023 Week 24 appeared first on FAIR.
On this episode, Nathan Richardson joins for a discussion about the temple Endowment and Initiatory ordinances. Nathan Richardson is a speech-language pathologist who has published research articles in academic journals. He is also a book designer and has worked for multiple publishing houses, including the BYU Religious Studies Center and BYU Studies, as well as […]
The post Cornerstone: A FAIR Temple Preparation Podcast – Episode 4: The Endowment with Nathan Richardson appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Grace and Worksby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Grace and Works. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Before we get started I want to remind you about the FAIR Conference and tell you about another one of the talks that will be happening. Stephen Smoot is a young scholar who was at Book of Mormon Central for a while and is now working at the BH Roberts Foundation, and his area of specialty is the Book of Abraham. Recently BYU Studies put out a 300-page guide to the Book of Abraham and I think Smoot co-authors every chapter in that publication, or just about. There simply are no serious conversations going on these days about the Book of Abraham that Stephen is not somehow involved in. He’s spoken at FAIR several times and is just incredibly insightful and well-studied. You can come and join us in person in Provo, Utah August 2-4, or you can stream online for free – we just ask that you go to the website and register for access for planning purposes. Stephen is speaking on Wednesday, I am speaking on Friday. The schedule is up on the FAIR website if you want to see who else is speaking.
Today we will (finally) get into one of the topics that has come up probably more than any other in the last 50 years of conversation between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints: Grace vs. Works. Maybe the only thing that comes up more is, “You worship a different Jesus.” But Grace v. Works is right up there. We touched on this a tiny bit back in Episode 6 when we talked about, “What must I do to be saved?’ but today we go in a bit deeper.
The traditional argument goes something like this: Evangelicals say Latter-day Saints are trying to earn salvation through good works – and Latter-day Saints say Evangelicals are practicing a cheap grace where all they do is pray a prayer and never have to become like Jesus. I think, as we go through this, you’re going to see that the questions aren’t even really formed in a helpful way and there’s probably a better way to look at it.
Both the Latter-day Saint listeners and the Evangelical listeners to this episode will probably be surprised to know that one of the most hotly anticipated books coming out this year in the Evangelical press is called, “The Doctrine of Good Works: Reclaiming a Neglected Protestant Teaching.” Baker Academic is putting it out and its 3 authors are all Phd’s with impeccable Evangelical credentials. They are serious scholars who write about serious topics. Unfortunately, the book isn’t out until the end of July. I was able to read about 30 pages of it online and was fascinated by the beginning. “To say that Christianity has a crisis of credibility is an understatement…..people are hardly interested in the truth claims of Christianity unless and until they see that it matters….They will not be inclined to give serious consideration to the truth claims of Christianity until there is something about it that makes them hope that it might be true.” They point out that good Christians are constantly told things like, “If you’ve said a sinner’s prayer, your salvation is guaranteed,” and “Rejoice in the fact that there is nothing you can do to help your salvation along. Only Christ can do that for you.” They go on to set out their case that the thing that gives people hope that it might be true is in fact good works. “God is a working God,” they say, “and we are made in his image.”
All of that to say, there is movement on this topic. A lot of the discussion you can find online about this topic has not moved much past the over-simplified works-grace debate that was happening 50 years ago. The old version of this debate oversimplifies things to a point that kind of doesn’t make much sense. And actually conceptualization of “Grace vs. Works” is sort of misleading as if one side believes we are saved through grace alone, and the other side believes we are saved through works alone. And while there are lots of groups who affirm salvation through grace alone, I don’t know of any group that affirms salvation through works alone. Further, part of the problem here is that Protestants, especially Evangelicals, would have a very different concept of what we are being saved toward.
In the Evangelical world the question of, “Are we saved by faith alone, or does faith require action as well?” is something very different than what Latter-day Saints are asking when they say, “Why wouldn’t faith require action – faith without works is dead.” But we’re talking about 2 different things here. The Evangelical is talking about eternal salvation – and remember, as we talked about in a previous episode, for them salvation is a binary choice. You either go to Heaven (they have 1 conceptualization of Heaven) or you go to eternal torment in Hell. So when they say, “Faith alone is required for salvation,” they are saying, “Only faith in Jesus Christ can save you from eternal damnation.” And when they hear us say, “Faith without works is dead” in the context of talking about salvation what they hear is, “You’re trying to add to the work Jesus already did on the cross, therefor you are saying his work was not enough to get you into Heaven.” This is hard for Evangelicals for 2 reasons, both of them pretty understandable….1) They feel very loyal to Jesus and are sensitive to anyone saying what he did is not enough. But also 2) They have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that we conceptualize eternity so differently than they do.
For Latter-day Saints there is a reality called “outer darkness” but very few people end up there. While for Evangelicals, it depends on who you talk to, but they would believe a pretty good percentage of people end up in Hell. So, you can see why this conversation bugs them so much – for them having the wrong beliefs about Jesus means you’re risking eternal torment. For them, the question is, “Will you even make it to Heaven?” While for us the question is, “Okay, you’re going to spend eternity in one of the areas of Heaven, how do you want to prepare for life there?” And those are 2 really different questions. Latter-day Saints are not trying to win God’s favor, we’re trying to get ready for eternity. So the grace-works question is really a hard conversation sometimes.
If the conversation can most past that initial roadblock, it actually can get kind of interesting because the question becomes, “In what way do Latter-day Saints believe in grace?” and, “In what way do Evangelicals practice good works?” And when it’s put this way you start to see how in which we might learn from each other. Interestingly Terryl Givens has an article about this in the BYU Studies Quarterly magazine (I think it’s from last year, it’s volume 60 titled, “Yet to be Revealed: Open Questions in Latter-day Saint Theology) And he starts out by pointing out that there has been an increase in the material produced by Latter-day Saints talking about Grace – from General Authorities all the way down. And that this has caused some Evangelicals to wonder if Latter-day Saints are making a course correction toward a more Protestant theology. But from Givens’s point of view, and I agree with him, the term “Grace” must be given a, “uniquely Restorationist point of view. He says, “Restoration doctrine asserts that it was this act of setting his (God’s) heart upon man that constituted the majesty and miracle of God’s grace….Deep in the primeval past when God found himself in the midst of numerous spirit intelligences before the earth was formed or the first man or woman organized, grace irrupted into the universe. We might consider grace the name of his relentless, inexhaustible, and ultimately irresistible invitation.”
In this sense, grace is like the invitation to the party. You get to attend! But the point isn’t to just get an invitation, the point is to go to the party and talk and dance and eat. To do the actual things. The invitation is how you get to go and do the things. It’s like our invitation to live this life – God placed us here, and we got invited to this great party, this life on Earth, so what activities will we get to do at the party? In the Evangelical view, grace gives you an invitation to a party – but that party happens in eternity, not as much here. And instead of figuring out what you want to do at the party, you are trying to figure out if you’re going to be allowed to go to th party – or if you’re going to be thrown into a lake of fire. I don’t say that to be glib, but to show that we’re answering very different questions.
As for what it’s like for Evangelicals, with everything I said still being true, there is quite a bit of variety in how they approach the issues of works. In the last 20 or so years the Evangelical groups who seem to care more about works are the ones who are more interested in social issues. For example, they see the “work” of caring for the poor to be an important expression of faith. They would be very careful to distinguish that from a “saving faith” but it is still important to them to live out their faith in such a way that it makes a difference in the lives of the vulnerable. And most Evangelicals would have no problem seeing the goodness of something like that.
Where they start to wring their hands and worry though is when something like the, “American Worldview Inventory” study came out in 2020. This is a study that surveyed 2,000 Americans and found 30% of them called themselves Christians. And of that 30% half also said, “Good works will get you into Heaven.” Now, they worry about this because they think this is what we’re saying, “Good works will get you into Heaven.” Which is of course not at all what we’re saying. We believe just about everybody gets an invitation to the party, and ask, “what are you going to do at the party?”
Another major influence in how Evangelicals think about grace and works comes through the Methodist Church. The Methodist Church was started in the late 1700’s by the Wesley brothers essentially because they were eager to go do some good works. They had been Anglicans and things were a bit stifled for them, so they create “the Method” (Methodists) which is also called their “Rule of Life” and it’s number one rule is to avoid evil, and the number two rule is to do good. So their tradition developed in a way that deeply cared about good works. And they have had a great deal of influence over what Evangelicals become.
The Pew Research Center also tells us that about 75% of Evangelicals believe helping the poor and needy is an important part of their faith. But at the same time, it is a somewhat optional practice, less than 25% of them believe in tithing through their local church, and even those who do are most likely to be in a church where the congregation is just covering its own expenses for staff, property and programming – without much left over for doing good works.
We will get into this topic again, we’re almost out of the gospels in Come Follow Me. We’ve got about another month, and then we get to the letters which give us some deeper levels to talk about. I actually really love that we spend 6 months studying the gospels. That’s as it should be. But it will be fun to get into some other things as well. Thank you for being with me today. Come back next time and we’ll do some more.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – John 14–17 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: The Sacramentby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the sacrament. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Before I get into that let me remind you of the FAIR Conference. I will be speaking on Friday, August 4 at 10:30 Mountian time. I would be delighted to see you there in person, but you can also sign up to stream the event. It’s free to stream, but you do need to sign up at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2023. I will be talking about issues of sexual abuse in church settings.
And, before we get started, I’ve been wanting to address a question that comes up a lot, but I haven’t been able to find the right spot to do it. Maybe I just need to do a Q/A video – hit me with questions in the comments if you’d like to see that, but for now, I want to briefly answer this one because I get it frequently. The question goes something like, “My grown child has left the church and joined an Evangelical church and I want to use all this information to talk with them, but they do not want to talk with me about this topic. My faith is such a huge part of who I am, so it seems like I’m being kicked out of their life. What should I do?” The short answer is: What you should do is respect their wishes. I know that’s not the answer you really want to hear, but it’s the only one that makes sense, and here’s why…No one likes being given boundaries by other people. I don’t like it, you don’t like it. It stings. That’s okay. But a boundary is someone telling you to, “stay in your lane.” The idea of “staying in your lane” directly implies the idea that you have a lane in which to stay. You’re not being kicked out of their life. I know it can feel that way. But try to focus on the relationship you do have with them and work with what you’re given. In this scenario, parent-child, it is a very long game, and it makes sense to do the work to figure this out. Perhaps it doesn’t make sense in other relationships, only you can decide that. But in this scenario, you might just have to dig deep into every bit of emotional maturity you can muster and preserve the relationship. All right, that was me slipping into mental-health education a bit, but I hope that was helpful for you. Moving on.
Today, we are talking about the Sacrament, which Evangelicals know better as communion or the Lord’s Supper or the Lord’s Table, and Catholics know better as the Eucharist or the Holy Mass. My favorite alternative name for it is a term that pops up a few times in history, “The Love Feast”. But they all are referring to roughly the same thing, though obviously with some very different understandings of it. Our text comes from Matthew 26:26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Before about 5 years ago…Latter-day Saint friends, you can laugh at me for this all you want…I did not know that the main worship meeting of the week was called Sacrament Meeting. And I remember when I heard that phrase I thought, “How odd! I wonder what they think “sacrament” means?” Commence laughter, I’m not offended.
In my own defense, I will say that part of this is because I spent about 10 years in the Anglican world where the word “sacrament” can refer to several things: it can be the taking of communion, but things like baptism and marriage are also considered sacraments. I think the LDS word there is more specific, as we would call those ordinances, but we mean the same thing. Anglicans (and Catholics, and others) also have something they call “Sacramentals” which are considered, “sacred signs” (LDS friends, don’t run too far with that word here, they’re using ‘signs’ differently.) But Sacramentals are something like oil that has been blessed to use in healing, or making the sign of the cross, or holy water. These are things that get really misunderstood by outsiders, but they’re functioning very similarly to how some of the ordinances function for us. (There is an episode I want to do on water as symbol – how it’s used in our faith for baptism and in the initiatory, how it’s used as “holy water” in other places. But that’s some deep geek-level stuff and I think I will try to spare you from that. Maybe. We’ll see.)
I’ll start by describing the differences an Evangelical would see in our Sacrament meeting, and include the differences we would see in theirs. And then we’ll go a little deeper and examine on the theological level what is purported to be happening during the sacrament or communion, and we’ll even look at the Catholic side too simply because it’s helpful to illustrate some of the differences in theology.
Evangelical friends, if you were to attend a Latter-day Saint service on a Sunday morning you would probably be surprised to see that what we call “the sacrament” is pretty familiar to you, even if it’s not 100%. The elements are blessed and passed, which would feel very familiar to you. Latter-day Saints are taught to use this time in 2 ways. First, it is considered a renewal of the covenants we have made – I have an episode coming up on covenants so I’ll kick the discussion of what that actually means for us down the road. Some Evangelicals are very familiar with the idea of Covenant theology and none of this would be new to them, others have only the vaguest idea of what that could even mean. The second thing we are taught about this time is it is for focusing on Jesus Christ.
There are 3 things that stand out that are really different though.
1) Most of the time in an Evangelical Church no special priesthood is required to bless the Sacrament. In theory, anyone can do it. In our Latter-day Saint tradition, ordinances require someone who holds the priesthood. It’s hard for me to think of other times in which this would come up, but during the pandemic lockdown everyone was doing church at home, and if you did not have someone in your home who is a priest, then you are instructed to spend that time pondering the sacrifice of Christ but to refrain from taking the elements. That will sound very weird – and very Catholic – to Evangelical ears. But for Latter-day Saints, priesthood really matters, we’ve talked about that on this channel a couple of times already, and I have more planned on that as well.
2) Most Evangelicals use grape juice or real wine for communion. Latter-day Saints use water. In my lifetime more and more Evangelical churches have switched from using grape juice to using wine. It’s sort of considered a little bit edgier of a thing to do, and they like that. But Latter-day Saints have had their own journey through what to use as well. My initial guess at why water was used was something like: Latter-day Saints avoid alcohol, even socially, so maybe this is them just trying to stay really far away from something that looks like alcohol. But, I was surprised to learn later that the Word of Wisdom makes a provision for using wine during Sacrament. Doctrine and Covenant 89 gives us, “Inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.” Latter-day Saints use wine in the Sacrament well into the 19th century. In fact, in 1861 Brigham Young sent 309 Mormon families to settle in southern Utah, where they could produce, among other crops, wine for the sacrament. (That’s in Leonard Arrington’s book Great Basin Kingdom – which is very good and worth a read.) By 1906 the temperance movement is really starting to come into its own and by that point, the Word of Wisdom had been around for 70 years. The Saints had been given a generously slow onramp to living by the Word of Wisdom, so during that on-ramping time, alcohol and tobacco use was not unheard of among the Saints. But by 1902 the on-ramping time was coming to an end, and shortly after that, in 1906 the First Presidency and the 12 begin using water in their Sacrament meeting in the temple, and the rest of the church soon follows suit. So, yeah, we use water.
3) The third difference Evangelicals would notice is that it’s quiet while the elements are passed. Well, it’s not quiet. I’m in this fantastic ward with lots of young families with babies and toddlers. Just because of the area where I live is brand new, high-density housing, which tends to attract younger families just starting out after college. So, if you’re in a ward like mine, it is actually not remotely quiet during Sacrament. Delightfully so. But, what I mean by that is that there is no music playing. In an Evangelical Church, for the most part, during that time their band would be playing music, sometimes contemplative, but frequently loud worship-rock music.
That should give you a good overview of the practical differences in how we practice Sacrament, but let’s take a look at the theological differences.
In the Protestant/Catholic world, there are 3 ways to think about what is happening in communion. The first way is the Catholic version, and if you’ve never heard it before, or if you can think back to the first time you heard it, it sounds weird. But this is an extremely sacred doctrine to them, so we’re going to treat it respectfully. In Catholic theology, at the beginning of the service, the bread and wine are just common elements. There is nothing special about them, they were made in perfectly ordinary ways. They lay on the altar and look like the bread and wine that they are. At a specific point in the serve, often indicated by the ringing of a bell, the priest says the words of consecration, and the elements become the actual body and blood of Christ. They sill look and taste like bread and wine, but they are not. They are the body and blood of Christ. This idea is called transubstantiation and it is an expression of their desire to take the words of Christ literally when he says, “this is my body, broken for you, take and eat.” This practice has a lot of meaning for them and it deserves respect. But it is very different from the typical Evangelical view.
In the typical Evangelical view the communion bread and wine remain bread and wine and only become the body and blood of Christ symbolically. But there are 2 versions of this. These make up numbers 2 and 3 of out list of ways Protestants and Catholics think about the Sacrament. Some Evangelicals would say that the bread and wine are simply there as a memory jogger. Jesus asked us to remember his death, and he asked us to use bread and wine, so we do this and remember him. But there is nothing happening more than memory or recall. There is nothing efficacious in it. It’s not doing anything other than helping them remember. This is probably the more common view, or at least it has been historically, things are shifting here too. The other possible way Evangelicals `view the element is what gets called, “The Real Presence.” Which is sort of a halfway point between communion-as-memory-jogger and Eucharist-as-literal-flesh-and-blood. In this view, they see Christ’s presence in the elements, though the elements themselves remain bread and wine, but Christ indwells the elements in a special way that brings Christ’s presence to the one who eats it worthily.
For Latter-day Saints, none of those categories are even discussed much. Instead, we believe that what is happening in the Sacrament is the renewal of covenants. Before I was baptized into the church, I attended Sacrament Meeting for a long time, months, and I made a decision that I wanted to participate by receiving the bread and water. And as far as I know, no one had any problems with that, but I also understood the theology was clear: I had not yet made covenants, so there was nothing to renew. My participation in eating and drinking was something else – a desire to express my faith and hope that I could become part of that community. But that was my own personal meaning. The actual point of the Sacrament entirely has to do with covenant keeping.
There is so much more to talk about on this topic, I know that doesn’t seem possible, but it’s true. And this is a topic we will come back to again from a different angle a couple of months from now. Thank you for joining me all of this. I’ll be back next week and we’ll continue working our way through the New Testament.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 26; Mark 14; John 13 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: The Raptureby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the rapture. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Before I get into that let me update you on the FAIR conference. Some new details for you…I will be speaking on Friday, August 4 at 10:30 Mountain time. I would be delighted to see you there in person, but you can also sign up to stream the event. It’s free to stream, but you do need to sign up. Initially, my topic was going to be the history of the relationship between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints (spoiler: Lots of ups and downs), and I still hope to give that talk someday, but instead, I’m speaking on an area that I have a huge personal and professional interest in: Sexual Abuse in a Church Context. My plan is to talk through the 5 most common questions that come up on this subject, especially for Latter-day Saints. Some examples are, “Does our church help abusers hide from the law?”….”Is there a higher-than-average number of abuse cases in our churches compared to similar groups?” I’m also working on a huge Q/A page of about 30 questions regarding abuse. I know this is not everyone’s favorite topic, but I have some really interesting original research to present as well as some historical context to add to the whole question.
Okay, moving on. This week’s topic, the rapture, comes up in Matthew 1:23 (JST):
Behold, I speak these things unto you for the elect’s sake; and you also shall hear of wars, and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled, for all I have told you must come to pass; but the end is not yet.
You will notice that the word, “rapture” is not in this verse, but it’s not in the Bible at all, it’s a word Evangelicals use to describe a concept they see in the Bible. And by “rapture” they mean an event at some future point in time where all believers in Christ will be, “taken up into the air” and then will begin a 7-year period called, “The Great Tribulation” which is a time of great sorrow, and after that time, Jesus will return. This is them leaving Earth to go to Heaven without dying. God pulls their physical bodies out of our atmosphere and into Heaven. You won’t find this taught directly in the Bible. You can look for it, it’s not in there – though certain people take verses and apply them to the concept, even though they’re vague and could describe lots of things. And this belief is huge for American Evangelicals. How did this happen? Let’s start with some historical context.
If you go back in time about 250 years and asked the Christians alive at that time what they think of the rapture, they would no idea what you’re talking about. The idea of the rapture is brand new in terms of history. It’s been around for about 200 years, which in historical terms is brand new. In the 1830’s a guy named John Darby was living in London and working as a pastor for the Plymouth Brethren (they would go on to call themselves the Exclusive Brethren, but you’ve probably more likely to have heard the term Plymouth Brethren.) Latter-day Saint friends I know the thing that catches your attention here is the date, “1830’s”. If you listened to LDS historians at all in your life you’ve probably heard someone talk about the extraordinary outpouring of spirituality happening in that decade around the world, and this is an example of that. Darby is an extraordinary man, he’s given a top-rate education for the day, he comes from a family with means, and he’s set up for success really well. He produces translations of the Bible into English, French, Dutch, and German that are still used today. He initially is ordained as a Catholic priest, but he soon quits in a political protest. Right around that time he is thrown off a horse and has a long convalescence where he begins to develop his signature theology: The Rapture.
Darby travels to America several times and somewhere in the 1880’s (there are conflicting dates) he is in Missouri and makes a connection with Cyrus Scofield. Latter-day Saints, this is during the era when John Taylor was president of the church, so the Saints moved on to Utah long ago, but I know Missouri catches your attention too. And there is a “Charles Scofield” in early Utah history during this era, he was a railroad builder. I did a cursory look to see if he is related to Cyrus Scofiled, but couldn’t find proof that he was. At any rate, Darby meets Scofield who essentially takes Darby’s work and popularizes it. Scofield is in the direct line of people who influence the up-and-coming Evangelical movement. So, American Evangelicals get Darby’s theology as filtered through Scofield. And Scofield publishes what becomes the first modern Study Bible. He publishes his notes and commentary about the text right next to the actual text of the Bible. A few versions of this had been done before, but Scofield makes it take off. I mention it here because it’s an interesting slight-of-hand, and it directly impacts how the rapture theology plays out.
What Scofield did when he places his notes and commentary next to the text of the Bible does not seem very revolutionary today. You can go on Amazon and find 30 or more study Bibles, some of them quite good. And a modern reader can easily understand that there is a difference in authority between the scripture text and the comments provided by the book’s authors. It’s not hard for us to intuitively see the difference. But in Scofiled’s day, people were not used to that. If it was contained inside a bound Bible, it WAS the Bible. They took Scofield’s interpretations far more seriously simply because he embedded them right next to the actual Bible text. So when Scofield is writing about the rapture in his notes, the Christians reading his Bible at that time are roughly putting his words equal with scripture. The average Bible reader in this era is not yet sophisticated enough to easily differentiate the two. At this time, around 1909, roughly 8% of the US population ever graduate from high school. The majority of people in that era can read, but they’re not going to be sophisticated enough to see the difference between Scofield’s words, and the words of the Bible. And his Bible was huge. It sold 2 million copies by the end of WW2. This is how Darby’s rapture theology got popular in America.
Fast-forward to the 1970s and a series of films is made that dramatizes this event. There are 4 movies in the series, they’re called the “Thief in the Night” movies. You can watch them on Youtube if you want. Another series is made in the 1990s that you might be more familiar with – they’re based on the Left Behind books, but the idea is the same, they’re a dramatized version of what would happen after the rapture.
I’ll tell you this story. A very dear friend in my first Ward texted me one day and asked, “What is the rapture?” I gave her a brief explanation and she said: My school-age daughter checked out a book from the library called, “Left Behind” because the cover looked cool, but she’s reading it now and we have no idea what they’re talking about. Evangelical friends, you may or may not know this, but Latter-day Saints have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re talking to them about the rapture. It’s not a thing for us. Incidentally, it’s not a thing for most Christians in the world. The idea is rejected by Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholics, and most branches of Protestants. But it’s got firm footing with Evangelicals and over the last 60 years many Evangelical leaders have made predictions of when this event would happen, only to have those dates come and go. The most memorable one to me was in 1988 when a book came out called, “88 Reasons Jesus Will Return in 1988,” and it gave a specific date for the rapture, which obviously didn’t happen. But some people read that book and sold their homes, thinking they would not need them anymore. Or they ran up huge debt thinking they wouldn’t need to pay it back because they’d be raptured. But there were some significant ones in the 70’s too. I remember being about 10 years old and given a giant button to wear at church that said, “You better get right – before you get left”….meaning you should get right with God before the rapture happens because then your chance will be over.
Now, I’m sure my skepticism of the rapture theology is coming through. I certainly don’t think it’s true, and I will admit my bias to you on that. But, I want to acknowledge that this is an important doctrine to Evangelicals. Yes, it sounds crazy to our Latter-day Saint ears, but some of our doctrine and historical events sound crazy to their ears too. So is there anything in this rapture idea where we can find a good inroad for conversation? I’m so glad you asked.
Which brings up another really interesting issue here. We’ll use the rapture issue to illustrate. So, the main verse that gets used for supporting the idea of the rapture is in 1 Thes 4. This is Paul writing to the church there because they’re worried. They believed that Jesus Christ would come back in their lifetimes. But, enough time has passed since Jesus’ resurrection and the time of this letter, that some members in their church have died. They’re feeling confused and worried because Jesus has not actually come back yet. So they’ve written to Paul to help sort them out with the question, “How can some of our friends have died if Jesus was supposed to come back before any of us died?” Paul, in his wordy kind of way, responds like this…
13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.
In context, you can see that Paul is helping them understand that their dead still matter and that Jesus has not abandoned them or forgotten the plan. He also has not turned his back on their own suffering. Paul is encouraging them to endure the suffering they have now, and the potential future suffering of the tribulation. The entire point of this letter is for Paul to tell them – in this beautiful figurative metaphor of being “caught up in the air” with their dead – is for Paul to reassure them that they will be reunited with their dead, and all of them – living and dead – are in the hands of Christ. People who believe in the rapture take the “in the air,” the Greek word here is just the word that means “the Heavens” or more literally, “The clouds of the Heavens” and make it literally mean the space of atmosphere above your head. They’re taking what it figurative and making it very, very literal.
There is an entire area of study called Hermeneutics that is concerned with this. Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation – or how do we get the correct meaning out of a text. One of the rules of hermeneutics says that is you take a figurative word, but apply a literal meaning to it, things are going to go weird. The best example of this is that Jesus gives us the metaphor that he is like a mother hen stretching her wings out to cover her chicks. This is a metaphor – but if we commit a hermeneutical error here, we take the metaphor as literal and start to believe Jesus is a giant cosmic chicken.
Now, Latter-day Saints, before you get too comfortable, we do this too. It’s not just Evangelicals. We take vague metaphors from scripture and turn them into concrete proof of something literal. One of the best examples of this is when we say there is proof for the Book of Mormon found in the Bible. There isn’t. Not that anyone else would accept anyway. Ezekiel 37 is a great example of this. We Latter-day Saints read in there about the sticks of Judah and Joseph and apply them to the Bible and the Book of Mormon. And it’s a lovely application of those verses. I can certainly look at those verses and interpret them that way with a lot of gladness. But it’s not actually what they say. It’s an application, but not a literal meaning. We have to bring outside knowledge/belief into that verse to pull out the meaning we’re getting. For your own use, for your own spiritual edification, that’s a great way to apply a metaphor to something it didn’t originally refer to. In the original chapter of Ezekiel, read in context, the 2 “sticks” are the Nothern and Southern kingdoms. That is the literal meaning of the text. It’s a little more complicated for us because we believe in ongoing revelation outside of the Bible, so we can apply the metaphor with some certainty to the Book of Mormon. This is the difference between exegesis (figuring out the actual meaning of a text by only looking at the text itself) and eisegesis (bringing your own ideas and sort of reading them into the text.) It’s totally correct to say, “we read about the 2 sticks and apply that idea to the Bible and the Book of Mormon”….but its going to far to say, “This verse in Ezekiel is literally about the Book of Mormon.” It might be a subtle difference, but we have to be able to hold both, “here is what the text is actually talking about” and “here is how we’re applying it.”
I say all of this – and we’ve gone way over on time this week – because this is how a lot of misunderstanding happens between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals. Both groups tend to think that our application of a verse is identical to what the verse actually says, and it’s just not. The argument goes back and forth, “this is what it means”…“no, this is what it means”…when a more profitable path is something like: there is a difference between the meaning of a text, and the ways in which it can be reasonably applied, we have very different applications of some verses, let’s get curious about why.
Well, enough of that. Please join me next week where we’ll have more fun stuff to talk about.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Joseph Smith—Matthew 1; Matthew 24–25; Mark 12–13; Luke 21 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Holy Weekby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Holy Week. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Before we get started though I want to remind you about the upcoming FAIR Conference, August 2-4 in Provo at the Experience Event Center. I will be there and would love to say Hi to you. I’ll be speaking one of the days, not sure which. You can register online at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2023 and there are options for viewing online or in person. Let me tell you about one of the talks that will be happening. You may know who Keith Erekson is, but if you don’t he is the director of historical research for the church. He had a really good book come out a couple of years ago called, “Real vs. Rumor” where he gives really helpful instruction about how to think critically about when you hear a “historical” story. I love history – if you’ve listened to this podcast at all you know that I try to give you the history of why certain theologies or practices developed – but I am by no means trained as a historian. So I adore Keith’s work because he helps normal people like me think better. He really blends expertise in history with a desire to help regular people learn from history in a way that is helpful. I can’t tell you how excited I am to hear his talk. So, come to the FAIR conference and geek out with me.
Okay, onward with our work here. Today we’re talking about Palm Sunday and Holy Week. Yes, I know, it’s already past – you’re probably watching this in late May and Palm Sunday was many weeks ago. But I’m brining it up now because 1) It’s contained in our CFM readings this week and 2) It got talked about a lot at General Conference and I’ve heard a number of really interesting conversations and questions come up about it from lifetime Latter-day Saints. So, our text for this week is Matthew 21:8:
And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.
I think the talks in General Conference did a good job of talking about what Holy Week is and why it’s important. So I’m not going to repeat that information. If somehow you missed those talks go back to the recordings of the April 2023 General Conference and check them out. What I want to do here is talk about what Holy Week is like for Evangelicals, why they’re doing what they’re doing, so that you might have a better conversation with them. And honestly, this is a topic where we Latter-day Saints might have our own imaginations expanded by learning about what they’re doing. I don’t think a re-creation of the typical Evangelical practices of Holy Week should just be copied and used in our church – but Holy Week has been important to believers for 2,000 years and it might be time to figure out how to put some of that into our own context, in a way that fits our church culture, and leads Saints closer to Jesus Christ.
Okay, so you know what a Latter-day Saint Holy Week, Palm Sunday, Easter Sunday is normally like. Let me tell you what an Evangelical version of that is like. And with all things Evangelical there is a wide spectrum. But one familiar dynamic you will notice is that more people are interested in coming to church on Easter (and Christmas) so Evangelical churches try to capitalize on this as much as they can.
Version 1 – The “lowest church” version (you’ll remember we talked about what “low church” and “high church” are in a previous episode – “low church” here just basically means very little emphasis placed on ritual, ceremony, or formalness) of this that I can think of is the “Helicopter Egg Drop.” And this is exactly what it sounds like. For about $500 a church can hire out a helicopter for the hour, it goes up, drops anywhere from 3,000 to 20,000 plastic eggs filled with candy in a field – and the kids go crazy hunting for them. This is usually part of the Sunday morning worship, not a side-event on Saturday or something, and it’s a big deal for them. It does draw families out. The kids love it, so their parents love it, and the church hopes this will translate into families being interested in getting involved with them. And it frequently works – churches wouldn’t be doing it if it didn’t. And for some churches, this embodies their entire philosophy toward Holy Week and Easter itself – it’s essentially a “put on your best face and try to draw in new families” event. The churches are perfectly aware that dropping eggs out of a helicopter isn’t exactly the essence of how the Savior might want to be recognized on this day. They’re not confused about that, they’re just trying to make a really easy onramp so that the family who comes to church because they want to see a helicopter drop 20,000 eggs (and I’ll be honest – I kind of want to see that too) might be wooed so that eventually their interest in developing a relationship with Jesus grows. They’re playing a long game, and they do a few events like this a year, and it seems worth it.
I will say this though, there are churches that use this strategy full-time. Every single Sunday is about impressing people in hopes that they will want to become more involved eventually. I’ll give you an example that is both dazzling and horrifying (even many Evangelicals I know can see both sides of this one.) Years ago I worked as a full-time children’s pastor at a church in California. They were lovely people who had a passion for Jesus and wanted to know how to bring other families into their fold so that they could teach them about Jesus too. So I was working for this church and it had become obvious that the buildings they were used for children’s ministries were getting old and looking run down. Instead of just doing a refresh of carpet and paint, they decided – with very good motives – that they wanted to have buildings that looked closer to a children’s museum than a children’s Sunday School building. So, they sent me on a trip across the country to go visit a church that had done this very thing.
My purpose for this trip was to get a tour of the building and come to understand what aspects had been worth the investment, what had not, and what elements our church back in California could be inspired by. They start the tour by showing me the check-in desk for school-age children – this is a common feature for bigger churches – the children are brought to that point, checked into their class, and sometimes the parents are given a vibrating pager (like you get while waiting for a restaurant sometimes) and the kids are off to their classes. But in this church, after the check-in process was complete the worker would go to the wall behind the desk and open up 1 of 4 round hatches. When it was open it revealed a slide. The child would then be invited to slide from the main floor down to the floor where their classroom was. A monitor above the portal showed a video feed from the bottom where the parents could see their child greeted by a worker and taken to class. Then they took me to the infant/toddler area – instead of having some toys and blankets laid out on a floor for the nursery-age children they had constructed a room where 2 of the walls were floor-to-ceiling salt-water aquariums filled with exotic fishes. And it went on and on from there. And I’ll be honest, it was impressive. It was exactly children’s-museum-meets-Sunday-School. If I were an Evangelical parent looking for a place my child would be excited to go to on Sundays – this would be it. But much like the churches that use helicopters to drop thousands of eggs, churches that are doing this have to be crystal clear on why they’re doing it and work hard to get people to the actual goal – becoming disciples of Jesus Christ. And sometimes, this goal seems to take second place to “being impressive.” Because it’s really fun to be impressive. When I was an Evangelical I fell into that trap for a long time. And it’s not an easy one to see your way out of.
Version 2 – back to Holy Week – the next version of what Evangelical churches do for Holy Week is a step up in terms of what you might recognize as looking like a religious observation. The bare-bones version of this is…1) Palm Sunday. Congregations members are given palm branches when they arrive for the Service that Sunday. At some point during the service one of the leaders will talk the congregation through the meaning of the Palm Sunday story and the congregation will wave the palm branches in the air. (Many parents know how to teach their children to make little items with the palms after they’ve been waved – they can be made into woven crosses or even little dolls while the children sit in church.) This service is often accompanied by upbeat music and singing. In many scenarios that will be the extent of it. Most churches will allow the mood to stay upbeat until the end. A minority of churches will end the service talking about that while Jesus receives a warm welcome on this day, things would turn against him in the days to come. But most of them will let the mood remain festive. The next even of Holy Week for a church like this might be either a “Maundy Thursday” or “Good Friday” service. Maundy Thursday is traditionally a feet-washing service. And in the past perhaps everyone in the congregation would have the opportunity to have their feet washed, these days it is far more likely to be a symbolic event that maybe a handful of people experience on behalf of the rest of the congregation. The idea here is that Jesus washed the disciple’s feet and we are to remember that he humbled himself to be the servant of all. This is generally a service attended by adults and maybe older children, though I’ve never heard of younger children being prohibited. The same is true with Good Friday. This is a somber service where congregants remember the crucifixion. It’s often an emotional service with music, low lights, scripture readings, and not many bells and whistles. Sunday morning – Easter – can either be a ramped-up version of their normal service, or perhaps a Sunrise service. People are more likely to dress up – Evangelicals normally do not dress up for church – but there are lots of exceptions to that too. All of this is sort of a middle-of-the-road kind of approach to Holy Week.
Version 3 – this is a church that goes all out. They will do all the things just mentioned plus some additional things. The first difference that you would notice is that the palm branches used on Palm Sunday are collected from the congregation – so no little crosses or dolls are made from them. Seems weird at first, but the reason they do this is that those branches are laid out and dried, then later they are burned. The ashes will become the ashes used in next year’s Ash Wednesday service. Ash Wednesday is the beginning of the season leading up to Easter called Lent. Lent is the 40-day (minus Sundays) period leading up to Easter. The point of Lent is to get your heart ready to celebrate the resurrection. And they will often give up things like sugar to help them stay disciplined and focused during that time. On Ash Wednesday they go to church for a special service where the ashes (made from the Palms) are smeared on their forehead in the shape of a cross. After Palm Sunday they would certainly celebrate Maundy Thursday and Good Friday as well. But they add in a Saturday service that I think you will be fascinated by. It’s called Easter Vigil. It usually takes place on Saturday night. Sometimes this is a simple service, and sometimes it’s a grand production with actors and costumes, lights and music, but here is the point of it…..The service tells this history of humanity beginning in the Garden of Eden. It talks about how and why Adam and Eve left the garden and tells the history of God’s people down to Moses, and then from Moses to Jesus Christ. The point is for them to tell the history of the salvation of God’s people – leading to the resurrection or the doorway to eternity. The highlight of the service is at the end when the congregation is symbolically placed in Heaven celebrating God’s love. I imagine that every adult Latter-day Saint is making connections here to what we’re doing in our temple worship. Some of the same things are going on – we Latter-day Saints have a much more developed theology around what all of that means, and this is a similar practice to what many of you do on a regular basis. So it might be interesting to learn that at least some Evangelicals are doing this once a year – it doesn’t mean the same thing to them that it means to us. But some of the raw materials are there.
I don’t where our traditions around Holy Week will go in the future. We had some great talks and inspiration at General Conference this last time, and we’ll see what that might develop into. I think it’s exciting. Join us next time and we will continue on. See you then!
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 21–23; Mark 11; Luke 19–20; John 12 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Handling Difficult Textsby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about handling difficult scripture texts. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Before we get started though I want to let you know about a very cool event coming up. Every year FAIR hosts the most fantastic 3-day conference that you should think about attending. I will be there, I’d be happy to meet you. I’m speaking on one of the days, though I don’t think the schedule is finalized yet so I don’t know which day. One of the talks I really looking forward to hearing is from Dr. Jenet Erickson. Sister Erickson has been featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, U.S. News and World Report, Slate Magazine, and more. She’s a social science researcher and digs into all areas that affect family life. She will be bringing her expertise to talk about the new For the Strength of Youth. Even if you’re beyond the stage of life where you have young people in your home, Dr. Erickson is absolutely worth listening to as she applies wisdom from social science to theological concepts.
Our scripture this week comes from Matthew 19:9:
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
We’re not actually going to talk about divorce or adultery in this episode – I’m brave but not that brave. What we’re going to do instead is look at the different ways Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints handle the really difficult texts in the scriptures. And like most topics, this one is easier to understand with some historical background.
There has never been a time in history when people of faith have not had to grapple with difficult scriptures. Sometimes there are difficulties come because we don’t understand something about the context or language of a passage, but sometimes they come because the passage is just painful or hard. And all along people have had to figure out what to do with those.
One way of handling it was that sometimes the scribes who would hand-copy the manuscripts would change them intentionally to make the verse easier. Let’s talk about the New Testament as our example. There are lots of changes – or what we call “textual variants” – between various NT manuscripts. In an ideal world we would have original copies of what was actually written by the hand of Paul to compare the manuscripts to. But we don’t. There are no originals. There are only copies of copies. The Book of Mormon and the Bible actually have this in common – no originals to compare them to. Just lots of copies – And those copies vary in quality. There is a branch of study called “Textual Criticism” which isn’t about criticizing what the scriptures have to say, despite the misnomer. Textual criticism is the study of figuring out what the most likely original word was in a text. There are about 5,500 hand-written manuscripts of the New Testament that range in date from about 150 years after Christ to the year 1550 AD. At that point, the printing press was established enough that no one was interested in making hand-written copies anymore. Of those 5,500 manuscripts some are very tiny – about the size of a business card – and just contain 1 verse or a part of one verse. Around the year 350 AD we get the first complete Bible manuscript. It’s called the Codex Sinaitcus and you can go see it – it’s on display at the British Library in London. But before the Sinaitcus we have about a hundred or so fragments, and after it we still get lots of small fragments, but as the centuries go on, better care is taken of newly produced manuscripts, and they last longer, so the newer a manuscripts is, the more likely it is that we have more than just a fragment. Every manuscript is numbered, and some are named – like Codex Sinaitcus. They are also categorized into 5 groups. Category 1 manuscripts are considered the best, but not because they’re the most complete, because they’re the oldest. A Category 5 manuscript might be complete, but if it was created in 1500 it has had the opportunity to have a lot of textual variants.
And, so what? What do we do with this information in our conversation about how to handle difficult texts? If I was fancy, and I knew how to put graphics into these videos, I would show you a copy of Papyrus 28. Papyrus 28 is about 3×2 (considered medium-sized for its category) and is from John 6, the story of the loaves and fishes. It used to be housed at a University in Berkeley, but it was sold to a private collector about 10 years ago. There are 2 really interesting things about 28….1) In that small manuscript there are 5 variations or 5 unique differences between it and other similar manuscripts and 2) it looks like someone took an exacto-knife and cut out 1 word very deliberately. The word that is cut out means, “those who were sitting down.” Somewhere in the history of this papyrus someone probably decided they didn’t like that detail, or they thought it didn’t fit, so they just cut it out. And I suppose that’s one way to solve your issues with difficult texts – just cut the passage out. However, it’s not a very efficient or good way to deal with a difficult text.
Another example of how the scribes deal with difficult passages is to simplify them. Even though the scribes who copy these manuscripts lived across many centuries there are some patterns that appear in their work. One of those patterns is that scribes tended to add words to the text to explain or clarify what they were copying. They were trying to be helpful to the reader in doing this, but for modern purposes what they were doing is giving us a general rule to follow that says, “The shorter reading is probably closer to the original.” If you have 2 manuscripts, and one has extra explanatory words in it, that is probably the manuscript that has been altered. In a similar way, scribes also tended to try and “harmonize” the texts, sort of smooth them out, or make very difficult sayings less difficult. The rule here becomes, “The harder reading is probably closer to the original.” So here we see a slightly more sophisticated version of editing than just cutting the word out of the page – this is deliberate scribal changes because they thought they were doing the right thing.
Modern ways of dealing with difficult passages
So, fast-forward from all of that history to today. How are difficult passages handled today by Evangelicals? There’s 2 answers – the scholars and the people in the pews.
First, there are many very good Evangelical scholars who are offering their very best to help people know what to do with hard passages. The top of the heap, in my opinion, is Dr. Phyllis Trible. Her landmark book is called, “Texts of Terror” and in it she takes the 4 most disturbing passages from the Old Testament – the stories of Tamar, Hagar, the Daughter of Jephtha, and the unnamed woman whose husband is a priest of Isreal, and commits human sacrifice on her. All of these stories are extremely disturbing. And she goes through them one by one and helps the reader understand what is going on beyond all the violence and sadness that are at first so shocking. Her book is a very good example of showing what a very careful and close reading of the text can do as far as figuring out what in the world is happening. But that’s what scholars are doing, not what people in the pews are doing.
And most of the time what people in the pews are doing is…. avoiding the hard passages. In their minds at least, they tend to swap them out for broader 30,000 feet comments that are much easier to listen to. Something like, “Well, I don’t know what Jesus was really saying about divorce here, but I do know he said we’re not supposed to judge, so I’m just going to let God sort ‘em out.” It’s not that Evangelicals don’t have scholars putting out work on these texts, they do, they just prefer more practical answers that let people get on with life. One of the values in the Evangelical church really is an anti-intellectualism which comes across as just trying to get out of the scriptures what they need to live life, and move on. In 1994 an Evangelical scholar, who is also an excellent historian, wrote a book called, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind”….and it turns out that the scandal is that there isn’t much of one. Things have gotten somewhat better for them since, at least at the academic level. In 2004 Christianity Today said that Noll’s book did more to change the trajectory of Evangelicalism than any other that had been published in that decade. But the anti-intellectualism in the pews remains. Several authors and speakers in the Evangelical world have tried to address this, but none of them seem to get much traction.
So, how do Latter-day Saints manage difficult texts?
A good test case for this is Doctrine and Covenants 132. That is a difficult chapter that many people need a moment or two when trying to wrap their minds around it. So how do we see people handling it?
For many people, a path that makes sense can be seen in what Scripture Central is doing (they used to be called Book of Mormon Central.) They are not shying away from the passage or making any excuses about it, they’re trying to help listeners contextualize it in history. They’ve got 15 videos explaining it from various angles that take top-level scholarship and make it accessible to regular people. Some of those are bite-sized little videos, while others are 90 min long. But what all of them are trying to do is help the listener pull the lens back and understand the entire context of a passage.
If you go to the FAIR website – which stands for Faithful Answers Informed Responses – you will see similar work being done, but with a different focus. If you have a specific difficulty or question about a passage, chances are very good that one of the FAIR scholars has already written a lot to address that very question. And not just with scripture passages, but with issues from church history, and current events (they have a new page up on understanding what in the world is going on with the Daybell trial, for example.) And they also have very focused responses like Sarah Allen’s 69-part response to the CES Letter.
And how about Latter-day Saints in the pews?
This is just my experience, but it is my experience, and I’m going to tell you something hard. One of the things Latter-day Saints do when they come across a difficult passage in the Bible is immediately jump to, “Well, clearly this is not translated correctly.” And…it’s lazy. Not because it can never be true – we all share the belief that the Bible has mistranslations. It’s lazy when it’s the first solution you jump to when you come across a difficult passage. There is no list of, “these are the passages translated incorrectly,” though you know from the beginning of this video that the science of figuring out what the New Testament actually originally said is difficult. A better approach is that if you come across a passage you don’t know what to do with, don’t jump immediately to, “mistranslation.” Go to the FAIR website or the Scripture Central website and do some reading about that passage. Both are working hard to make scholarship accessible. If you want to geek out even more go to the BYU Studies page and look up some of the academic work on that passage. Go to the BYU Scripture Citation Index – you can search up the passage and see every time it has been referenced in a General Conference talk all the way back to 1830. My point is that the tools are there for you to use and if you do some of the work to learn how to study better you can get more out of your scripture study. This kind of work isn’t a replacement of the Spirit – without the Spirit you’re never even going to get off the ground – but without taking in some content from people who know more than you, the Spirit only has so much to work with.
On a more positive note, the other way I’ve seen Latter-day Saints manage really difficult passages is with the kind of faithfulness that says: I don’t understand what is happening – Doctrine and Covenants 132 is a great example here – but I’m willing to let it ride for a while and see if I can find a way to think about it that’s helpful. One of the greatest gifts in our church is the idea that ongoing revelation exists – you don’t have to have everything all figured out today. Eternity is long, and your intelligence will have forever to learn and grow.
I hope this was helpful to you. This issue of difficult scriptures has been with people of faith for as long as scriptures have existed and I hope out discussion has helped you think about how you handle difficult passages. Join me next time and we’ll take up a new topic.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 19–20; Mark 10; Luke 18 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Heavenly Motherby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Heavenly Mother. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Before we get started though I want to let you know about a very cool event coming up. Every year FAIR hosts the most fantastic 3-day party. When I say “party” what I mean is getting to listen to and interact with some of the smartest people in our church. They give a talk on what they’ve been working on – and frequently the FAIR conference is the first place their ideas are presented in public. That’s my kind of party. And maybe it’s yours too. This year the FAIR conference is on August 2-4 (Wed – Friday) at the Experience Event Center in Provo, Utah. You can buy tickets to attend in person, or online by going to https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2023. I will be there all 3 days and would so happy to meet you. I am presenting a talk on one of those days, I don’t know which on yet, but will let you know once the schedule is finalized. 2 of the talks I am very much looking forward to are…1) Michaelbrent Collings is an American horror novelist and he’ll be talking about, “Horror: the Genre of Goodness, Godliness, and Hope.” Horror is not my genre at all, but I am completely intrigued by what he will say. 2) Dr. Janiece Johnson – her specialty is religious history – will be speaking on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I’ll try to highlight the talks every couple of weeks here – if you enjoy sitting around listening to me, you probably will enjoy sitting around listening to my friends too. Okay, back to our scriptures…
Our scripture this week comes from Luke 13:34:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
Evangelical Views
So here we have God compared to a mother hen. The traditional Evangelical conversation around this verse goes something like this….Yes, God is compared to a female chicken, a hen, but this verse does not require us to believe God is female any more than it requires us to believe God is a Cosmic Chicken. Fair enough. No one is asserting that God is a giant chicken.
And for a long time, this was the boundary on thinking about God and gender. God is male, and images in the scripture that refer to God as female such as a hen, a woman looking for her lost coin, a woman in labor, a nursing mother, a mother bear, and a mother eagle….these were just poetic images and not to be taken too seriously. But the boundary has certainly changed in even the last 10 years. It used to be that if you wanted to talk about any kind of feminine identity for God you were being scandalous. Only the most liberal of the Evangelicals would be talking about this. But last year Eerdmans published 2 books on the topic. If you are not familiar with the Evangelical publishing world Eerdman’s is willing to push the boundaries, and that’s been true for a long time. They’re not Zondervan or Lifeway which are going to take a very traditional Evangelical line, and to my knowledge have not, and would not, publish something about a feminine identity for God. But Eerdman’s isn’t ignored by Evangelicals either. So it’s a big step forward that this is being talked about.
The traditional Evangelical view is not all that interesting to talk about. God is male. End of story. So I’m not going to spend much time there, but what I do want to talk to you about is the direction the Evangelical world is headed on this topic – even if all of them aren’t there yet. And that direction takes 2 flavors. In order to get at what those flavors are I’m going to summarize 2 different books – and the reception they’ve received. By the end of this section, you should have a good idea of where the line on this topic has moved to. After that, we’ll compare the Latter-day Saint view.
The first one is, “Women and the Gender of God” by Dr. Amy Peeler. She is a professor at Wheaton College, which they like to say is the, “Harvard of the Evangelical world.” It’s probably closer to the, “BYU of the Evangelical world.” That probably gives you the right feel for it. Peeler’s PhD is from Princeton and she’s very well-liked in the Evangelical world. The biggest point her book is trying to make is that while Jesus Christ was male, he was born of a woman. His flesh does not exist without her flesh. She’s modernizing an argument first made by Augustine when he said, “(Jesus) was born of a woman; don’t despair, men; Christ was happy to be a man. Don’t despair, women; Christ was happy to be born of a woman.” And her book has been very well received by Evangelicals. But as Latter-day Saints you might sort of tilt your head at that and think it’s awful long path to just connect 2 points. Why not just say we have a Heavenly Mother? Evangelicals can’t get there. You can see their longing to – Peeler is brilliant and she works hard in this book to help people make connections to the idea that God is not solely male. But it’s an incredible amount of effort to get to a far less radical point than Latter-day Saints make about Heavenly Mother. But Peeler’s book demonstrates the idea that the boundary on this topic has in fact moved, even if it hasn’t moved all that much.
In contrast, there is another book that shows pushing the line too far will still get you a slap on the hand in the Evangelical world. The book, “God Is” by Mallory Wyckoff is fascinating, but ultimately most Evangelicals appear to reject where she goes. To be fair, Wyckoff does not have the same kind of educational background as Peeler does. So the work is automatically going to be quite different, and that’s okay. I dont think that’s what gets her rejected. Here’s what she does in the book…She takes the idea that God is not merely male and expands on it using a kind of panentheism that says: because God resides in us, we are God. So if God resides in a woman, then God is a woman. And that line is just too far for Evangelicals. When you read some of the Evangelical criticisms of her book you see the logic of G.K. Chesterson (one of the patron saints of the Evangelical world) – he once said, while talking about this idea, that if a man leans too heavily on the idea that God is part of him – and not also something quite separate from him – then he ends up worshiping not God, but self.
You can see from these 2 examples that Evangelicals are very much grappling with ideas about God and gender….but you can also see that they’re in a muddle it’s hard to find a way out of.
I’ll point out one other Evangelical take on this issue. If you watched the “Certain Women” episode a couple weeks ago you heard me talk about what women in leadership or ordained ministry is like for Evangelicals. And an interesting little piece of theology pops up here for the Evangleicals who ordain women. In the past, the Evangelical positon on ordained women could be summed up in something CS Lewis said, which is something like: a woman can not be ordained because it would confuse people into thinking that she represents God, and God is not female. And one of the modern-day reasons why some Evangelicals ordain women is so that their members in their congregation can experience what it is like to see the feminine side of divinity. They can’t make the jump to, “there must be a Heavenly Mother,” but they can say something like: All humans are created in God’s image, therefore God must contian within himself both feminine and masculine. So when a woman is ordained so that the congregation can experience a feminine divine through her, they’re trying to get to the idea of a Heavenly Mother, without ever having to get there. Interestingly enough, in oru Latter-day Saint church we do not ordain women, and looking through this lens, it makes sense why we do not need to.
The take-away here is that your Evangelical friends and family might be more interested in this topic than you think.
If you want to know my first take on hearing about Heavenly Mother, I’ve told you my first experience a few weeks ago back in that “Certain Women” episode. And you might find that interesting.
Latter-day Saint view
So, this is tricky territory. Let’s just acknowledge that. My sense is that 30 years ago that very few people were talking openly about this doctrine, and for understandable reasons. And things have shifted for us too over the years.
There is a resource that if you don’t know about, you should. The BYU Scripture Index – it’s an online site scriptures.byu.edu where you can search general conference talks all the way back to 1830, you can also search “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” as well as the “Journal of Discourses” (which can be a tricky reference to wade through – you have to know what you’re looking at in order to not take things wildly out of context) but it’s there and you can search it as well. And you can search for how often certain words or phrases have been used. Pro tip: you might have to do a little research on the historic phrasing of certain words. For example, if you search for “Heavenly Mother” you will only find references going back to the 1970’s, but that’s because before that she was much more likely to be referred to as, “Mother in Heaven.” This doesn’t signal some big theological change as much as it demonstrates how the English language changes over time.
So, anyway, if you use the BYU Index to research Heavenly Mother you find several talks from the last 20 years, a couple in the 1980s and 90s, a couple in the 1970’s, 1 in the 1940’s, and 1 in 1885.
But there have been more things said outside of Conference and the best round-up of those to my knowledge was presented at the BYU Studies symposium in 2011 called, “A Mother There” by David Paulsen and Martin Pulido. It’s a long paper, 28 pages, but it does a great job of tracing the teachings throughout history. We also see Heavenly Mother referenced in the Family Proclamation. And, most notably, Elder Renlund’s talk a couple years ago titled, “Your Divine Nature and Eternal Destiny.”
And, we have our own tension of what can – and can not – be said about her. In the Evangelical world that tension is mostly around, “what is true?” and ours certainly has that element to it but also adds in a layer of, “Even if it is true can it be said?” That layer of carefulness is hard for Evnagleicals to understand as they don’t really have an equivalent dynamic. They don’t have a category called, “sacred things that should be kept private.” Latter-day Saints clearly have that category and the only quibble comes in trying to decide everything that should be in that category.
I do want to take minute to talk about the Catholic perspective here. It’s not my area of research or specialty – for that I would refer you to frequent FAIR speaker Robert Boylan. But there is an interesting thing happening in Catholic theology that Latter-day Saints will find interesting.
You are probably at least vaguely familiar with the idea that Mary the Mother of Jesus has a special place in their theology. Exactly what her position is has changed over the centuries, but her importance has never gone away. Non-Catholics sometimes day that Catholics, “pray to Mary” and while that is sometimes true, it’s probably more accurate to say that they are speaking to Mary and asking her to pray on their behalf. Mary is also sometimes called The Queen of Heaven, or The Mother of God in their theology. The reason I point this out to you is that it revelas the same issue the Evangelicals are trying to grapple with: They long for a feminine divine, but can’t quite work it out theologically how to get there.
Well, we are out of time. We’ll probably pick this topic up another time or two before the year is out. I hope you enjoyed this. Come back next time and we’ll take up another topic.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Luke 12–17; John 11 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Is It True? How do you know?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about truth – and how you learn it. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Our scripture this week comes from John 7:15-17. Jesus has gone up to the temple to teach and we get this:
The Jews there were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learning without having been taught?” Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” (NIV)
So, the question is: Do we approach gospel learning differently? Both groups, Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals are highly interested in gospel learning. And yet, we do seem to go about it in very different ways. We’re going to start with the question on a really practical level – what do the 2 groups do when they’re trying to engage in gospel learning, and then we’re going to look at the experiential level that Jesus is talking about in this section of scripture.
Scripture Reading
First, let me make an outsider’s observation. I’m new enough to being a Latter-day Saint that I can still see some things as an outsider. Both groups, Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints fret a lot on this topic. We both worry that people sitting in the pews don’t know their scriptures well enough, that the youth are uninterested in gospel learning, that things were better in a previous generation where more people were interested in studying. Lifeway Research, the research arm of the Southern Baptists frequently puts out studies showing the state of how frequently their people engage with scripture, and much hand-wringing ensues. Pew Research, which is not denominationally based, also regularly puts out studies on how much scripture study various groups do.
My observation is that people in both groups – Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints – fear that their people are not doing this enough and that others are doing it better. I don’t have a study to cite here, but my sense is that many comments get made in Latter-day Saint Sunday School about how we need to do better studying scripture. There might even be worries that Evangelicals do this much more frequently than Latter-day Saints do. And it might surprise you to know that Evangelicals look at Latter-day Saints and think we’re doing better. So what does the research say?
In a 2017 study, Lifeway Research noted that 49% of Evangelicals read a little bit of scripture every day. That’s pretty good and it clearly shows that they’re interested in gospel learning. The same study – done in 2017, so prior to the introduction of Come Follow Me – says that 77% of Latter-day Saints read a little bit of scripture every day. Now, this is survey research, so we’re taking people’s word for it that this is actually what they’re doing – and it’s true that there could be some inflation here. But it’s also safe to assume that if there is inflation on the Latter-day Saint responses there is also inflation on the Evangelical responses. This isn’t a “we win” conversation (in other words, you don’t get to use this information to be a jerk and lord it over your Evangelical friends) but it does show one view into how we both approach gospel learning. But it is just one view, so here are some others.
What Kind of Information
Another way to look at this question is to consider what kind of information the 2 groups are taking in – in other words, what forms the basis of their gospel learning? If you’re a Latter-day Saint the main things are probably: talks in Sacrament Meeting; Lessons in Sunday School/EQ/RS or youth classes; Seminary and Institute classes; General Conference talks, family or private scripture reading, Come Follow Me reading and the various podcasts about them, resources like FAIR, books on gospel topics, and maybe a few other things.
And Evangelicals have a fairly similar list. They listen to sermons in church; they have Sunday School and classes for youth; they don’t really have an equivalent to Seminary and Institute in the same way we do – what they call seminary is an academic graduate school program that most “normal” people don’t ever attend. I was a weirdo and went to Evangelical seminary and got a Masters in Divinity, but most Evangelicals don’t access that kind of learning. While they don’t have something to compare to General Conference talks like we do (where the words said are coming from the centralized authority of the church) they do have a wide range of various conferences they attend. And they have books, podcasts, and organizations that try to supplement and increase people’s learning.
Lectionary reading vs. spontaneous reading
And while both groups do a lot of gospel learning through scripture reading, the recent Come Follow Me change adds an interesting contrast. I’ve only been a Latter-day Saint since the invention of CFM, but my understanding is that prior to that the Sunday School curriculum followed roughly the same pattern (a year for OT, a year for NT, a year for BoM, and a year for PoGP) but that family or individual reading was based on need or preference of the individual family or individual who is reading. And this is roughly the system Evangelicals live in. Their churches set the topics/scriptures for their classes and groups, but they decide for themselves what to engage in for private scripture reading. Some churches do a corporate push toward something like, “We’re all going to read through the Psalms this summer.” But those are special initiatives and not the regular pattern.
Interestingly enough, the invention of Come Follow Me actually places Latter-day Saints in alignment with most of the rest of the Christian world outside of Evangelicals. You might not realize this but CFM is a Lectionary. What’s a lectionary? A lectionary is a set list of which scriptures are to be read during which weeks. The most commonly used one around the world is called The Revised Common Lectionary and is used by millions of Christians around the world. It runs on a 3-year cycle, compared to our CFM which runs on a 4-year cycle. CFM is also different because it includes some commentary, ideas for discussion, ideas for family and the like, but in essence, it’s a lectionary. Most Evangelicals would turn their noses up a bit at the idea of following a lectionary because they are fiercely independent and want to decide for themselves even down to the question of, “Which scripture should I read today?” There are pros and cons to that attitude, but that would be a significant difference in how we approach gospel learning.
Preaching scripture
Another way that both groups engage in learning the gospel is through listening to talks or sermons. And Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints are roughly in the same category here. The biggest difference is that Evangelicals usually have 1 person, or perhaps a small team of people, who are delivering sermons week after week. While Latter-day Saints spread that responsibility around to everyone. And Latter-day Saints you already know the kinds of content you hear in Sacrament meeting talks, so let’s look at what Evangelicals are preaching about.
In 2019 the Pew Research Center analyzed 50,000 sermons that were posted online from over 6,000 churches (Evangelical, Catholic, Mainline, and Historically Black). They compiled the data to look for trends. The average length for an Evangelical sermon was 39 minutes, which is roughly comparable to the total number of minutes that Latter-day Saints spend in Sacrament Meeting listening to talks. We’re probably under that by a bit, but not much. The researchers wondered what the distinctive things each group was talking about, and found that the unique things (this doesn’t mean the most common things – this means the things they’re talking about that others are not) Evangelicals talked about were 1) Eternal Hell 2) Losing salvation 3) Trespassing or sin. It’s a bleak list and we might be tempted to look only at the bleakness of it but on the upside, it does show that Evangelicals are thinking hard about these topics. Evangelical speakers also made far more references to other books in the Bible. They might be preaching a passage from Luke but will take care to show how that passage relates to or references other places in the Bible. Latter-day Saints have their own version of this – we just tend to make connections to modern-day talks more than other sections of scripture. Another trend was that the bigger the Evangelical church, the less likely they were to mention anything at all about the Old Testament. We might have some underlying feelings in common here when it comes to knowing how to talk about the Old Testament.
There are a lot of other practical level ways to think about this question, but I want to switch over to thinking about how gospel learning happens on the experiential level.
Service and Life
Similar to Latter-day Saints, Evangelicals talk a lot about learning gospel principles through serving others, serving their families, and serving God in a general sense. This seems to be a major way both groups are living out Jesus’, “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”
Both groups also have a good understanding of the fact that the principles of Jesus have to make sense in real life, not just as philosophies. Latter-day Saints don’t love philosophical types of thinking much for our own reasons, and Evangelicals don’t love it because it’s not practical. They are very pragmatic and not usually inclined to care about something that works in theory, but can’t be tested in life. If you’re looking for points of connection, this is a big one where we end up at the same spot.
To make the next part of my point I need to compare Evangelicals to Catholics for a moment. If you think of the typical Catholic service (even if you’ve only seen it on tv) you probably picture priests in robes, the congregation doing a lot of standing, sitting, responding, and lots of ritual, liturgy, and lots of symbolism. This kind of worship is called “high church” and it’s main characteristic is that the service is trying to teach the people something through ritual, beauty, repetition, and experience. Evangelicals generally hate this stuff. It’s too theoretical and not practical enough. It’s not at all what you might expect to see in their services. An Evangelical service would be called “low church” for this reason. It’s not an insult (as if “high” means high value) it’s just a way of describing how much ritual or symbolism is used.
Here’s where it gets kind of interesting.
In this sense, a Latter-day Saint Sacrament Meeting is very similar to an Evangelical meeting. Things are pretty plain-spoken, there isn’t anything mysterious happening, very little ritual. I suppose the passing of Sacrament or communion trays is as close as we come, but outside of that everything is pretty grounded and there is not a lot of learning through experience going on. Latter-day Saint Sacrament Meetings, like Evangelical worship services, would easily be called “low church.”
Latter-day Saints also have access to all the beauty, mystery, ritual and symbolism that is offered in a high church service – we just access it in the Temple. Our temple worship is highly symbolic, full of ritual, very liturgical, full of meaningful words being repeated or used over and over, full of beauty, and very interested in teaching by experience. In this sense, we sort of have the best of both worlds – the down-to-earth practicality of a low-church service, with the experiential learning of high-church in our temple worship. It’s really a compelling combination and most other churches do not have access to both worlds – high and low church. Temple worship is nothing if not experiential.
The other bit of being experiential that comes out is in our theology around why Adam and Eve had to leave the Garden. In Evangelical theology it’s only a punishment. In our theology part of the reason why they have to leave is to go learn from their own experience. The Old Testament tells us many times, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” and we put some emphasis on the fact that Adam and Eve had to learn what it was like to be separate from God (kicked out of the garden) so that they would know what to do to be close to him (stay true to the covenants they had made.) The fear of the Lord here is “not liking what it feels like to be out of God’s presence” so the beginning of wisdom is, “so we learn to do the things that keep us in his presence.”
Well, this was a lot – I hope you enjoyed seeing some of the similarities and differences here, and that maybe you picked up a way or two to have these conversations with your Evangelical loved ones. Join us next time and we’ll pick up another topic.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – John 7–10 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Church Disciplineby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Church Discipline. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Our scripture this week comes from Matthew 18:6:
But who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned.
I love Jesus’ powerful word here for people who harm others, especially the vulnerable, especially children. But today we’re going to broaden the scope just a bit and consider all the ways in which church discipline might be necessary. Specifically, I want to look at how this is handled in our church compared to how it gets handled in Evangelical circles. And I will say from the start that I know our Latter-day Saint church has not always gotten this right. And if you’re listening and you are involved in a situation where discipline didn’t happen in a way that you had hoped for, I want you to know that I see you and I know very well that this does not always go down perfectly, and I’m not going to pretend like it does. And at the same time, I want to talk about how the imperfect system we have is different than what Evangelicals do, and why it is that way.
So, if you’ve heard my name before watching any of these videos it is probably because I’ve talked a lot about sexual abuse cases in our church and Evangelical churches. And if you’ve watched the video on my conversion story you know that part of my lived experience is abuse in an Evangelical church and the aftermath of how they dealt with it. I’m aware that I’ve had a very particular experience, in a very particular time and place, and that influences how I think about these things. I think it’s okay to tell you my bias going in.
We’ll start with what church discipline looks like for Evangelicals. The answer, as with all things Evangelical is: It depends. If you remember back a few episodes we talked about how “Evangelical” is not a denomination. There is no central authority. There is no membership for churches. If a church wishes to be seen as Evangelical they may call themselves such – there is no one to police that term. It’s different in our church – if a new church wanted to call themselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in exactly the same way as we do, there would be pushback on that. But anyone can open a church in your town and call it something like Journey Church or Crosspoint or some such thing. So it’s almost impossible to fully answer the question of how Evangelicals handle church discipline as there are hundreds of different answers to that question. But we’ll look at some trends.
As you know, Evangelicals are Protestants and at the beginning of the protestant Reformation church discipline was considered part of the mark of the true church. The Catholic church at the time had gone off the rails, and the church leaders offered no discipline or correction. So the Reformers, named three “marks by which the true church is known”: the preaching of the pure doctrine of the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline to correct faults.” But it’s been a long time since that has been true. Christianity Today, which is The news magazine for Evangelicals says, “Today, church discipline is feared as the mark of a false church, bringing to mind images of witch trials, scarlet letters, public humiliations, and damning ex-communications.”
Lifeway Research is the research arm of the Southern Baptist Church and while not all Southern Baptists would consider themselves Evangelicals, many would and Lifeway is a good place to look for research. In 2018 they surveyed 1,000 Evangelical pastors across the US and found that almost 60% of them said that their church has never disciplined anyone for any reason. So, how do Evangelicals practice church discipline? Mostly they don’t. I don’t think this is them being lazy or not caring about standards, it’s them playing out their value that each individual hears from God alone and they are each their own prophet. We’ve talked in past episodes about how they really value an attitude of, “You can’t tell me what to do” or “I’m independent and don’t need rules or authority,” and this is one way you can see that attitude play out.
However, sometimes we do see them practice church discipline. The 40% who said that they do have some version of church discipline have not used it in the past 3 years. And there is a slight difference here between big churches and small churches. The smaller Evangelical churches, which grow fewer every year, are far more likely to have at least some version of discipline available to them. The larger churches and they are increasing every year, make it pretty easy for people to hide. If there are 5,000 people who attend your church on a Sunday morning it’s pretty easy to remain a stranger for a long time – and the folks who do that would have no one noticing anything in their life that might require discipline even if a process was in place.
And here is where we see a big difference – in a Latter-day Saint church anyone can ask for a meeting with the Bishop, and even if youd don’t have specific need to ask for one, you are invited at least once a year for a tithing meeting, and every couple of years for a recommend meeting. It just doesn’t work that way in the larger Evangelical churches, which most of them are. Once a church gets over about 500 members on a Sunday access to pastoral leadership starts to diminish. Around the 500 member level members are frequently no longer even allowed to request a meeting with their pastor, though he probably knows the names of many of the families and could recognize many people on sight. But once a church is over 1,000 people that is no longer true for obvious reasons. Some Evangelicals attend a church for a decade and never even meet the pastor.
There is an article from a group called The Gospel Coalition written about a decade ago (so they used the term Mormon) that compared Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints that says, “But compared to the Mormon experience, evangelical churches are a carnival ride of short services, low accountability, and rare church discipline. If you’re a faithful Mormon, you’re not living a 95 percent secular life like so many evangelicals.” So we’re starting to see how some of these differences play out.
Back to the Evangelical churches who do practice some form of church discipline. Some of them like the Evangelical Free Church actually do have a formal process for discipline, but it only applies to the clergy. Others have an informal process where a church leader will use a kind of persuasion/exclusion approach where they will try to persuade a person that what they’ve done is wrong (for example, an unmarried couple living together) but if that person disagrees or isn’t moved by the persuasion the only thing that happens is a “light exclusion” where they are now allowed to do any teaching in the church – meaning maybe they will be asked to step down from teaching the 6th grade Sunday School for example.
Cautionary Tale
There is a really well-documented example of how all of this plays out and you can hear it in a podcast put out by the Evangelical magazine, Christianity Today. It’s called “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.” It’s 10 or so episodes long and it’s essentially a cautionary tale of how church discipline goes wrong. The podcast features a church called Mars Hill that was at one time the hottest thing in Seattle. My family and I were members of that church in the early days. My son, who is now a full-grown adult, was a toddler in the nursery when we were there. And Mars Hill was the place to be. It was the fastest-growing church in America and primarily made up of young Seattle hipsters in the early 2000’s. But what happened was the pastor who founded the church really went off the rails in a number of ways that require too much detail to go into here, but suffice it to say that the board of the church came to a decision that the pastor needed to be put under discipline for some of his actions. The church was drawing 15,000 people a week in multiple locations, in 4 states. And when the board wanted to discipline the pastor he initially agreed to submit to it, and then backed out. He decided he would rather quit his role as a pastor than be disciplined by the church. He resigned and moved his family to Arizona 8 years ago. And to this day, the Christian community in Seattle is impacted by this man’s refusal to face accountability for his actions. But, in the Evangelical world, all you have to do is move to a new church or a new city and you get a fresh start. So this pastor moved to Arizona where he formed a new church and is predicted to essentially repeat the process since apparently, he didn’t learn from the last time.
In a Latter-day Saint congregation, this could never happen. If a bishop or stake president went off the rails he can’t just move to a new city and become bishop again. At least not based on policy. Have the policies of the church been poorly enforced at times? Of course. But having some policies around stopping someone who refuses accountability is better than having no policies at all because the end result is there is never an expectation that behavior gets addressed. What this case illustrates is that Evangelicals have decentralized leadership and that Latter-day Saints have centralized leadership. If you don’t like your Evangelical leader or pastor, you just change churches. If a leader is trying to hold you accountable for your behavior, and you don’t like it, you change churches. That is harder to do in the Latter-day Saint world.
Example
I will tell you this next story with a little bit of trepidation. It involves people I care about, so I will disguise some of the details. You’ve probably never heard someone say before, “I have a testimony of church discipline councils”, so here ya go…
I had to take the Evangelical church where I grew up to court to hold them accountable for some things. I didn’t want to and tried for a very long time to find another way. But when the church refused to police itself, I employed the help of the secular courts to enforce some consequences for them. I’m glad I did it, and I’m glad it’s over. It was very hard on me. The church said things in court papers like, “Any damage Jennifer took on due to this is her own fault.” I had to fight them, tooth and nail, to take accountability for their actions.
Contrast this to the experience of a friend. He was abused by a family member who is a long-time member of our church. My friend hadn’t spoken about this to anyone, but in his 30’s he decided to speak to his family about what had happened and found out that he was not the only victim. The cousins of that family banded together, believed the victims, and wanted to help make things right. The legal statute of limitations had long run out so they had no criminal or legal options, which was heartbreaking and frustrating to them. Their next move was to go to the bishop of the abuser. Within a very short amount of time, the man’s stake held a disciplinary council and he was disfellowshiped. If he would ever like to rejoin the church he would need approval from the First Presidency.
When I contrast that experience against my own – where the Evangelical church couldn’t admit what had happened and certainly wasn’t going to disfellowship anyone over it – I understood why church discipline matters in a way I never had before. The church’s actions took the feelings and experiences of the victims into consideration. I relayed the events to a friend who told me about an experience where the details are very different, but the experience of the victim was also prioritized. I know it doesn’t always happen this way in our church. I’ve heard many of your stories in recent years and I acknowledge them and how painful they are. But it does give me great comfort to know that our church at least strives to get this right, and frequently does. I will never meet the men who sat on the disciplinary council of my friend’s abuser. They live in a different state and I don’t even know their names, but their actions of discipline against an abuser knit something back together in my heart, even though it wasn’t my case.
I hope this conversation helps you see and understand some of the differences. Join us next week as we take up a new topic.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 18; Luke 10 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: “What Apostasy?”by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the Apostasy. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Our scripture this week comes from Matthew 16:18:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
On the one hand, what a fantastic, reassuring scripture. And on the other hand, you can immediately see how there is a lot of debate about what this actually means. And I’ll be honest, Latter-day Saint friends, some of the ways we talk about the apostasy are adding to the confusion and I think as we go along you’ll be able to see what I’m talking about.
So, first off, I will tell you, when I was an Evangelical the apostasy and the accompanying restoration were the hardest concepts for me to understand. This is the spot in our conversation where it is easiest to see the phenomenon that if you ask a fish to describe water he can’t do it – he has no idea what it means to be without water, so he really has no idea what to compare water to. I took missionary lessons for 9 months and we talked about the apostasy many times, but it was hard for the missionaries to get much past, “the apostasy happened and that’s why we need a restoration.” And even when pressed they could only cite a couple of points in Church History where things were especially bad, usually having to do with the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. But from the Protestant point of view, the pre-Reformation Catholic Church is a blip in a 2,000+ year landscape where God has always been active on the Earth. Honestly, during those lessons, my thought to myself was, “Well, these are young kids who are high school graduates and haven’t studied much history so they are simply unaware of the vastness of Christian history.” But once I started to understand what they were actually saying – and it took me an embarrassingly long time for that to actually click – I started to see that this was a case where Latter-day Saints are using the same language to mean something slightly different. For me, at the end of the day, the nuances of how our church is using that language are better. It’s theologically fuller and more hopeful than the Protestant/Evangelical meanings. And I will also say that this is probably one place in which my formal theological education probably made it harder for me than it would for the average person simply because I was able to see all of the knowledge the missionaries couldn’t and had a hard time reconciling what they were saying with the truth of Christian history. So today I want to talk about the terms we use when talking about the apostasy and help you see how Evangelicals hear them so that maybe you can help someone else short-cut through the difficulties I had.
We’ve talked in many episodes of this series about how Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints use the same words differently sometimes and that fuels the confusion between us. You might not be aware but there is a niche dictionary called the Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology which gives us a definition that Evangelicals would agree on. Baker is the publisher and it’s a nice, thick 1,000-page dictionary. So we’re going to draw on that a bit.
First, let’s start with the word “apostasy.” Evangelicals don’t use this word a lot, but it’s probably in their vocabulary and according to Baker’s it would mean, “Defection from the faith, an act of unpardonable rebellion against God and his truth. The sin of apostasy results in the abandonment of Christian doctrine and conduct.” And this gets used in two ways.
First, and probably most common, is that apostasy is something an individual person does after making a covenant or decision to follow Christ. “He went off the rails into apostasy.” Basically, a person who used to believe the right things, but no longer does.
Second – and you’ll see that this is where the confusion comes in – this word can be applied to large groups of people. They see widespread apostasy as an eschatological sign – meaning a sign of the end times signaling the second return of Christ is near. So if the whole world goes into apostasy, the return of Christ is near. Here is how they get there. Just like us, Evangelicals can read the Old Testament and see that constant pride-cycle. The Israelites follow God for a while, then they start to prosper and fall away from God, then God allows bad things to happen to them and they get back in line. They see this as a prototype of what will happen before the second coming of Christ. They base this on 2 Thes 2:3 “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day (the return of Jesus Christ) will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.” In that verse, they hear that an apostasy absolutely will happen, but only in the future, and only right before Christ comes again. So when we say, “the apostasy happened” it just doesn’t compute for them because if an apostasy happened, surely Christ would have come again.
Another term that causes some confusion here is “priesthood.” Now there is a lot to say about priesthood, and we’ve got several episodes coming up on that. When talking about the apostasy Latter-day Saints would say, this comes straight from the Church’s website, “(After Jesus Christ ascended back to Heaven)…The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority—including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church—was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings.”
That word “priesthood” throws them here because they define it very differently than we do. Again, according to the Baker dictionary priesthood is defined in 4 ways. The priests we see in the Old and New Testaments; the priesthood of all believers; the post-resurrection ordained priesthood which is modernized into, “being a pastor”; the priesthood of Jesus. So when they hear us say, “the priesthood was lost from the face of the Earth” it doesn’t make sense because 1) Clearly that statement can’t be talking about the priests of the Old and New Testaments. 2) It can’t be talking about the priesthood of all believers because believers in Christ have existed on the Earth since his resurrection, which has never gone away. They’re not wrong about that. 3) It can’t mean that pastors don’t exist because clearly, they do. 4) And it can’t mean that Jesus is no longer our great high Priest. So even though they have 4 definitions of “priesthood” available to them, they can’t work out what we’re talking about when we say that the priesthood authority was taken from the Earth.
For Latter-day Saints, there are two additional meanings of priesthood that Evangelicals don’t easily see. Those are 1) Priesthood is the power and authority of God. It has always existed and will continue to exist without end. 2) In mortality, priesthood is the power and authority that God gives to man to act in all things necessary for the salvation of God’s children. Both of those are straight from the church’s website. It’s the power of God, given to humans in certain circumstances to do stuff.
Evangelicals get really nervous right here – and this might sound funny to your Latter-day Saint ears – but they hear that as a very Catholic concept. They have no conceptualization of the idea that certain actions like baptism would need to be done in certain ways, by certain people, according to God’s law. That is not a concept for them. Instead, they would say something like: We take the principle of baptism and contextualize it into our specific culture and there are no absolute rules about how that must be done. It’s sort of a “pragmatism wins” approach to theology. Evangelicals are very pragmatic, for better or for worse. The idea that a person might need to wait to be baptized because baptism requires someone who bears the priesthood is nonsense to them. They would have a kind of “hero cowboy” approach of: Well, I would jump right in and baptize that person who cares about your rules.
There’s a prototype here much earlier in American religion than the Evangelicals. You’ve certainly heard of the Methodist Church. They invented this attitude. Back in the 1700’s, pre-Revolutionary war, the Church of England whose members are called Anglicans was very well established in the colonies, but because all the senior leadership was still headquartered in England things moved very slowly for the Anglicans in America. When the Revolutionary War ended in 1783 the Anglican leaders in America were ready to start spreading out further and reach people who were living outside of the cities. Westward expansion wasn’t really in full swing yet, but it was starting and the Anglican leaders wanted to develop churches in outlying places. Their leaders in England made it hard for them – feelings were still pretty sensitive as the war had only been over for a few months. So 2 Anglican brothers, John and Charles Wesley become very frustrated and want pragmatic solutions for how the American churches could self-govern and make decisions about where and how to Evangelize. The Anglican leadership in England said no, so the Wesley brothers started the Methodist church primarily so that they could figure out how to reach people who lived outside of the established cities at that point. They needed and wanted practical solutions. It was sort of a, “Well, I don’t actually need your permission Leaders in England. Goodbye.” And Evangelicals inherited that attitude from them. It’s: you can’t tell me what to do; I don’t need your authority; I can innovate solutions without you getting in the way. It’s very, very American in that sense. And it is a high value for them to solve problems without bureaucracy. So when we say something like, “ordinances require proper authority” they hear “I want to put bureaucracy in your way.”
One final definition I want to touch on is kind of more of a cultural issue than a literal definition issue. From the same article on the church website talking about the apostasy we get, “Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasy.” Now, how that sometimes gets taught by members in our church is something closer to, “Absolutely everything from God was removed from the Earth and no evidence of his presence could be found.” And this is maybe were we could be a little more careful with how we say things because that’s actually pretty insulting to the many people who have loved Christ and been faithful to God in the best way they could ever since Christ’s resurrection. In every era of history, we can find that people who love God are alive and well. It’s going to cause some real confusion for Evangelicals if you try to suggest that is not true. And it’s quite needless to suggest that every bit of God’s presence was removed – because that’s not even what our church is teaching, as evidenced by the quote I just read. But still, culturally, some members of the church are still saying it that way.
I hope you enjoyed this conversation about the apostasy and hopefully, you understand a bit more about why this gets muddled between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints, and maybe some ideas about how to talk more clearly about these ideas because this is one area where our church really does have a lot of goodness to offer.
Join us next time and we’ll take up another topic. I hope to see you then.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 15–17; Mark 7–9 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: “Don’t Latter-day Saints worship a different Jesus?”by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Easter and Jesus. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
So, you are probably watching this video sometime in April or later. Dear people of the future, I hope the sun is shining and it’s warmed up because I’m recording this in February and the sky just dumped 1 foot of snow.
This week’s topic is a tiny bit different because of Easter. We jump forward in the readings from earlier in the Gospels to the events of Easter this week, we’ll go back and pick up the rest of the Gospels after this. So I don’t have a particular scripture that encompasses the question for this week, but it goes something like this…”Don’t Latter-day Saints worship a different Jesus?”
I’ve you’ve been following along you know that this is our 3rd episode on Christology and there are many aspects to this question. We’ve already talked about the question of, “Is Jesus God?”…and “If Jesus is ‘the son’ doesn’t that prove the Trinity?”…and the question of what worshiping or praying to Jesus looks like. So if you’re interested in those aspects see the earlier videos. And there will be more in Christology coming up, including the ever-popular, “How can you say Jesus and Satan are brothers?” But for today I want to focus on the basics of beliefs about Jesus as Evangelicals or Protestants express them in one of the most important Creeds in mainstream Christianity, the Nicen Creed.
First we need to talk a tiny bit about Creeds as a concept – meaning figuring out even what are they?
So one of my early questions when I was investigating the church was: Aren’t the Articles of Faith a creed? They certainly read like a creed. Afterall a creed is, “a brief authoritative formula of religious belief.” And the Articles of Faith are brief, they’re authoritative as evidenced by the fact that they are found in our standard works, and they spell out our religious beliefs. It’s confusing right?
But the way a creed functions is something else. A creed is not just A statement of belief for a faith group….It is THE statement of belief for that group. That is, it means, “here is what we believe and nothing can be taken away, modified or added.” For Latter-day Saints this doesn’t make any sense when you set it next to the idea of ongoing revelation. You can’t have both. Either you can nail your beliefs down at a single point in time and demand that no changes ever be made OR you can say you believe in ongoing revelation so here are our beliefs but when God reveals more, we will believe that too. So it’s not so much that we disagree with what is contained in a traditional creed – though there is some of that – it’s that we disagree with the entire concept of having a creed because that means saying official revelation is closed.
Having said that, let’s talk about the Nicene Creed. What is it? Who wrote it? Why is it important to traditional Christians? So, the Nicean Creed was put together in the year 325 AD. No one who is alive at that time had been alive during the time Christ or the Apostles were alive. More time has passed between the Resurrection and the writing of this creed than has passed since the United States has been a country.
So what happened was there was a guy named Arius who argued that, “if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not.” This is a heresy called Arianism.
As a side note….if you’ve been paying attention to these videos you remember in the very first week we started talking about this question of, “Was Jesus created?” Your Latter-day Saint ears probably heard that and thought, “Who in the world is even talking about this stuff?” Well, this is a very old heresy that has been talked about since the 300’s and Evangelicals have historically misunderstood Latter-day Saints as believing this. In theological conversations a really bad insult to throw around is that someone is an Arian, meaning they believe this heresy. And Evangelicals think we believe this – that Jesus has not always existed.
So back to the Nicene Creed. Constantine is Emperor at this time and he has made Christianity the state religion. And he’s a smart guy, he can read the tea leaves and see that Arius and his teaching are going to destabilize the entirety of Christianity, and thus the entirety of the Holy Roman Empire. So Constantine asks the leaders of the church to come together and hammer out what the church actually believes, and they do it in a city that was then called Nicea. It’s now called Iznik and it’s in Turkey. If you follow the news you know that some really bad earthquakes recently happened there. The earthquakes were in the southern part of the country, and Iznik is in the northern part, near Istanbul (which used to be Constantinople, named after Constantine.) So the leaders of the church meet in Nicea and want to lay down, once and for all, what the church beleives so that Arias gets knocked down. The creed was a collaborative effort, though there are three main authors called the Capadocian Fathers. They’re from Capadocia (which is also in Turkey, and on my bucket list of places I want to visit. Just google it, it’s gorgeous.) The Cap Fahters are two brothers and their good friend. In the background is also their sister. Her name was Macrana and they all called her The Teacher because she was said to understand theological concept more deeply than any of them and helped them make needed connections. There is a bakery in Seattle named after her. So the three Capadocian Fathers, with Macrena in the background, really are the ones who hammar out the creed.
So the question – the reason we’re going down this path at all – is to ask: What does the Nicean Creed say about Jesus? I’ll read you the section about Jesus…
“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.”
The only place a Latter-day Saint would quibble here is in saying that Jesus is, “One being with the Father.” In English it sounds a little softer than it does in Greek. In English we can almost imagine stretching that phrase as far as it can go and landing on an understanding of the Godhead that is kind of close to what we believe. But in Greek, which is what the Creed was written in, it doesn’t stretch. The Greek word is Homoousious – meaning, “the same substance.” This is exact spot they take a left turn into Trinitarian thinking and end up having a hard time disambiguating God the Father and Jesus Christ.
I point all of this out because it’s a really interesting example of how Latter-day Saint has taken a creedal statement – that is a statement that is supposed to be set in stone – and applied ongoing revelation to it in a way that undoes the exact left turn that got taken in 325.
I think you’re able to see from here that there are a number of ways to approach the question from Evangelicals of, “Do you believe in the Jesus of the New Testament?” A plain answer would be something like: Yes, that’s exactly what we believe in, and we’ve corrected the error that was introduced 300 years later. But it gets difficult here because Evangelicals do a really normal and human thing at this point. You know, from standing in 2023 looking back over history the year 30 AD and 300 AD seem like pretty much the same thing. If I asked you to tell me 5 developments that had happened over those 300 years, most people couldn’t do it. 30 AD and 300 AD are pretty much the same thing to folks in 2023. So when your Evangelical friends have a hard time seeing the difference between what is taught about Jesus in the New Testament, and what is taught about Jesus in the Creeds, they’re not being difficult or obstinate. They’re just standing in 2023 and can’t squint hard enough to see the difference between the NT and Nicea.
I had a missionary ask me recently, “Do Evangelicals literally think that we believe in another boy named Jesus, who also had a mother named Mary, who grew up at the exact same time, and had the exact same things happen to him?” And no, that’s not what they’re saying when they ask if we believe in the same Jeus. What they mean is that their concept of Jesus has been shaped by the Creeds just as much as it has been shaped by scripture. We might say they have an extra-scriptural book called “the creeds” that they have been shaped by….while they would say that the Creeds are just a summary of what is already in the New Testament. They’re sort of color-blind to the difference between what is in the NT and what is in the Creeds.
So in the 1990’s when Gordon B Hinkley says that we don’t worship the traditional Christ, the Evangelicals lose their minds over it. Because they think the traditional Christ (that is the Christ portrayed in the Creeds) is identical to the Biblical Christ. They can’t tell the difference.
Our rejection of Creeds enables us to embrace a correction to an error that was made by really well-meaning people, long after Christ and the Apostles were gone. If that isn’t the best news ever I don’t know what is. We are not stuck with the burden of someone else’s mistake just because they thought we should be bound to it forever.
The reality is that we share a deep love of Jesus with our Evangelical friends. The vast majority of items we agree with them on, and where we don’t, it’s because we are open to God’s ongoing revelation.
I hope you’ve enjoyed this conversation and have a bit more understanding of why and how this rift happens, and maybe how to talk about it instead. Join us next time and we’ll get to work again.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Easter appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: “Paid Ministry?”by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful answers to New Testament questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about paid ministry. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Today’s verse comes from Mark 6:7-9:
And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts— but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics.
And there is so much in that verse alone to talk about, but I want to focus on a question that comes up a lot between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals: Is it right to pay clergy or isn’t it?
And I will give you a full disclaimer here. I’ve been on both sides of the fence. I’ve earned full-time income working in churches and had no problem with it – and now I’m a Latter-day Saint and I can see why paying clergy is problematic. And, I will also point out that it’s true that our church does in fact have paid clergy – our senior leaders work full-time and are paid for their work. So the answer here has to be nuanced. We can’t just say, “paying clergy is bad,” because we do in fact pay a small number of clergy. The right question is something closer to: Under what conditions should clergy be paid?
As always, let’s start with how Evangelicals think about this issue. And we’ll start with the practical reasons. How does an Evangelical even become a paid clergyperson? There are exceptions to this, but for the most part a person who wants to become ordained as an Evangelical minister must first do a 4-year undergraduate degree followed by a 4-year Master in Divinity (MDiv). There are some types of positions where a person can get away with a 2-year Masters in theology but the standard route is a MDiv. I know this route well – you will notice in my credentials that I earned one. It was a fantastic program, I loved every moment of it. But most MDiv’s come with a pretty hefty price tag, mine did too, so the people who take one are either very serious students of theology who are learning just for the love of learning, or they are hoping to work in a church setting for their employment – in part because they will need to pay off their student loan. So, right out of the gate, on a very practical level, you can see why Evangelicals are set up for a paid ministry situation. And while there are some outliers in either direction, the average salary for an American pastor is about $80,000 a year. Now, the tax situation makes this a little bit more livable for them because a pretty large chunk of that can be claimed as a housing allowance, which is not taxable income. So, there’s our second practical reason why they usually pay clergy – even the American tax system is set up with the expectation that ministers are paid. The third practical reason is that most of the time being a paid minister is a full-time job, meaning they don’t have the opportunity to earn income elsewhere, so they need to be paid.
Moving from the practical to the values of Evangelicals that cause paid clergy to make sense to them. First, Evangelicals, as their name suggests, puts a high value on sharing the message of Christ as they understand it. And while the 75-year history of Evangelicals has always included paid clergy, the idea really found substance in the example of a church in the Chicago area called Willow Creek. Willow Creek was the first of its kind because they made Sunday mornings, not a time for believers to gather and worship, but a time to showcase what a church had to offer for “seekers.” Willow Creek goes on to become the largest church in America for quite a long time and their influence was felt in every Evangelical church across the country. While a typical little church on the corner of some small town would normally have 1 paid minister working alongside several volunteers to present a Sunday morning worship service, Willow Creek employed hundreds of people full-time to produce television-quality services on Sunday mornings. No longer was it good enough for a volunteer to play the piano or guitar, they began employing professional musicians. And the rationale for all of this was that someone who was interested in their church but not yet a believing Christian needed a very specific kind of experience in order to feel comfortable. They coin the term, “seeker sensitive,” meaning that everything is looked at through the lens of the “unchurched” (another term they coined) person. Willow Creek believed that those seekers should be given the most professional presentation possible in order to get them more interested in Jesus. And soon, every other church in the country was trying to imitate them. So the average church on the corner went from one pastor and some volunteers to multiple pastors or other workers who would produce services for them. This fed an explosion in attendance at Evangelical churches during the 1980’s and 1990’s. The downside is that not every church could manage this kind of financial burden and many of them would combine their congregations to make employing these people more affordable.
The unintended result of this was that churches kept getting bigger simply because they were bigger. And any smaller church that was trying to buck the trend and keep Sunday mornings for worship by believers was just financially edged out. The whole experiment doesn’t go all that well for Willow Creek either, to be honest. There were some sexual scandals happening with their top leadership that were not dealt with very well, and they lost well over half their congregation over it. But, the reason I tell you all of this is to illustrate that the Evangelical value of producing services for “seekers” is part of what drove their need to pay people to do the work.
And to be fair to them, the value behind this – wanting to help seekers understand more about Christ – was not bad. It’s even admirable. But there were not enough checks and balances in the system to keep it on the rails as the decades go by.
Another value held by Evangelicals that influences them here is that the members of a congregation are seen as people who need to be fed and taken care of, and I mean that in the very best way possible. It’s not that they don’t think those people can do some of the work of the church, it’s that they want them to feel that the church cares about them, and therefore God cares about them. The church doesn’t want to put too much of a burden on even a willing volunteer because when that volunteer goes out of town for a week, the job won’t get done, and someone else in the church may end up feeling not cared for. Because of this the “most important” jobs are paid – paid work comes with different expectations than volunteer work. A volunteer and a paid worker both sometimes go out of town, but there is a different set of expectations for the paid worker than the volunteer in terms of how things will be taken care of in their absence. So when an Evangelical church hires someone to be the Pastor of Middle Schoolers (yes, that’s a thing) part of why they’re doing that is so the people in attendance have a reliable go-to source for that area of ministry. To put it bluntly, volunteers can flake out, it’s harder for employees to do so. Or at least there are more consequences when they do. These churches place a very high value on what could be called, “customer service” and they don’t want volunteers making that difficult.
Now, Latter-day Saints, the thing you will notice in that discussion is that they use the word, “volunteer” to describe these non-paid positions – and that volunteers are held at slightly lower standards, are seen as less reliable, and are not trusted with the really important jobs in the church. I think you get a sense now of why they’re doing that. But let’s contrast it with what we’re doing.
In our church you are not a volunteer – you are called, sustained, and set apart. Non-paid workers are not given then unimportant jobs, they’re given all the jobs. And we see these positions not as just being good for the church presenting a professional or slick image, but they are good for the person who holds them. Whether you work in the Nursery or are the Bishop that calling is a responsibility where you will help shoulder the weight of what the congregation needs. And we all do it together. And that is part of what shapes our spirituality. Church is not something we pay other people to produce for us, it is something we co-create.
The trade-off here is that Sister Jones might not be very good at giving Sacrament Meeting talks but we all have to listen to her once a year. And Brother Miller hasn’t been able to figure out how to get on Family Search, but he still does his best to learn when he gets the calling to be a Family History consultant. But it’s really, really good for Sister Jones to give a talk, even if she’s not very good at it, because it helps shape her ability to study and articulate her own faith. In an Evangelical church if you are not good at something, you will not be doing it for long, even if you volunteer. The value is on impressing seekers or outsiders. While our value is on shaping the spiritual life of Saints.
But we’re still left with a question I pointed out at the beginning of this video: If our system of calling people to positions of service and not paying them is so good and healthy, why do we pay our top leaders? And it’s a fair question. I don’t have a definitive answer, but let me tell you what I think.
Do you remember earlier in this video where I mentioned that “seeker sensitive” church Willow Creek sort of falls apart in the end? The obvious reason for that is that the man who created that church and led it for decades showed himself to have very poor moral character as evidenced by the sexual abuse he committed. But the less obvious reason is that he had no one above him. He had no accountability. He didn’t answer to anyone. There was no one to have the equivalent conversation that we have about renewing a temple recommend, for example. He had no accountability. And because Evangelicals don’t conceptualize “ministers” as “priesthood holders” he didn’t even have to see himself as accountable to God all that much. In our language he was a bishop without a Stake President to be accountable to. So in our church, you can see how everyone has someone above them they answer to, even the Prophet who answers to God. And when you’re a worldwide church it eventually requires a small number of people who are given a different calling than the rest of us – they are called to work full-time to keep this thing on the rails SO THAT the rest of us can enjoy the blessings that come with ordinary ward-life…callings and releasings and working together and all the goodness and soul-formation that comes with that comes with that. We actually need a structure that goes all the way up so that the vast majority of us can be sheltered in the orderliness of everyone being accountable to someone.
I hope you have enjoyed these thoughts on paid clergy. If you’ve got questions put them down in the comments and I try to get to them as I can, or you can hit me up at jroach@fairlatterdaysaints.org and I will see you in the next video.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 14; Mark 6; John 5–6 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: “Certain Women”by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Women and their role in the church. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Today’s verse comes from Luke 8:1-3:
Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.
So here we have Jesus and his disciples going around doing what they do – and we also have a group of women who are supporting them financially, and though the text doesn’t say it they were probably offering lots of other practical means of support as well. And so the question presents itself about the role of women in various churches. This is not an easy question answer on a number of fronts, but one of the most complicating factors is that “Evangelical Churches” are not 1 single entity. “Evangelical” is not a denomination or formal group. Evangelicals are a subset of Protestants whose tradition and way of thinking developed about 75 years ago – around the time when the Billy Graham crusades began. But they can be of any denomination – like Baptists or Methodists – or they can be of no denomination at all. So when we say, “What is the Evangelical stance on women?” there is no one single answer to that. There are some general trends and I’ll talk about those, but there are also lots of exceptions. Explaining our LDS understanding is complicated for other reasons. Unlike Evangelicals who have a decentralized structure, we have a very centralized structure so the official list of what women can and can’t do isn’t hard to identify – the difficult thing for us is that there are a lot of feelings around this. And I’ll talk about that a little today too.
The Evangelical View on Women
First, let’s gain some understanding on how Evangelicals view women and why they see it like they do. And the first thing I’ll say is that I’m not talking about the characteristics of Evangelical women. The reality is that they’re not all that much different than Latter-day Saint women in many ways. They love Jesus, they serve their families and community tirelessly, and they want good things for their children. But I’m going to talk about how they’re viewed in their churches, what they’re allowed to do, and why.
I want so badly to be able to explain this to you in a simple way by saying, “there are two groups, and here is what they think,” but the on-the-ground reality is very different than that. I’m going to tell you how I understand it, even though it’s a bit messier. And I know that even though this series is aimed at Latter-day Saints that we have some Evangelical friends who are listening along and I’d love to hear your experience on this issue in the comments – there really is a wide variety of how this plays out here.
So, according to the Pew Research Center roughly 10% of American churches (in all their varieties) will ordain women and allow them to take the top leadership position in a church. And about half of those are Evangelical churches. So a pretty small minority of churches will say that women can be the lead pastor in a congregation. Of the largest 100 Churches in America – churches that have between 10,000 and 40,000 members (a few outliers have up to 100,000 members) 3 have a woman in the senior role, and 4 others have had one in the past, but not now. So the number of churches that have women in top leadership positions is very small, and we’re going to set that group aside for moment. The only reason I really point them out is that sometimes I think Latter-day Saint women look at other churches with a sort of misunderstanding that they all have women who are allowed to do as much as they want, and that’s just not true.
Public Role of Women
Of all the remaining churches, which is the vast majority, there are limits on what women are allowed to do, but those limits vary from church to church. Latter-day Saint women might find it amusing to hear that is that many, many of those churches women are not allowed to speak (meaning teaching or preaching) in a public service. I say that’s amusing because we let 12 year-old-girls teach us on Sunday morning on a regular basis. So sometimes when I hear Latter-day Saint friends complain about women not having enough of a role I just chuckle to myself because right out of the gate girls and women in our church already have a greater role than in many places. Churches that have this practice – women not being allowed to teach a mixed group in public – are doing so because they are trying to obey their understanding of Paul in the New Testament when he says, “a woman should remain silent in the church.” They take that very literally – this doesn’t mean that all of them like it, but they get respect for trying to take scripture seriously.
In other churches women are allowed to speak or teach, but they are restricted from doing other things like bless and serve communion, or perhaps are restricted from being on a governing board or something similar. And here is where women in our church have a lot in common with Evangelical women as girls and women in our church do not do these things either. And it is probably fair to say that Evangelical women have mixed feelings about this just as Latter-day Saint women do. And they manage those feelings much like women in our church do.
In terms of public worship outside of speaking/teaching Evangelical and Latter-day Saint women are pretty similar. In both traditions women are frequently found leading worship – for us that looks like a song leader helping the congregation with hymns, and for them it might look like a praise-band on a stage. In both traditions women are often found doing things like teaching Sunday School, leading youth, planning events, coordinating various service efforts, and more. We sometimes joke that our church would not run without the Relief Society, well their churches wouldn’t run without the women who do the equivalent work.
Ordination
When it comes to ordination it’s an interesting view. Many Evangelical churches don’t even practice ordination, so it’s not an easy comparison to make. Of those who do, they think about it differently. Ordination is usually not about being able to lead priesthood ordinances. There are a few minor exceptions to this and those have to do with who is authorized to do something like perform a wedding. But for the most part ordination is a process through which the community recognizes that a certain person has a call to some kind of ministry and they become ordained as a way for the congregation to say that they will sustain this person in their call. In function this is what we do too. I know that there are women – some whom I like and respect a lot – that would feel really frustrated with that explanation because they feel using the word “ordained” is important. And I sympathize with that pain. But in function, the callings that women experience in our churches work the same way that ordination works in most other churches. It’s recognition that someone is going to be filling a role and the community pledges their support.
Interestingly enough, Evangelical women do not usually receive this formal kind of calling and declaration of support or sustaining. If the 3rd grade class needs a Sunday School teacher, a woman might volunteer, get a bit of training and some materials to use, and that is that. There is no calling and setting apart, no sustaining. While we don’t use “ordination” language for women in our church, the apples-to-apples comparison puts us in a situation that is often better than is recognized.
Heavenly Mother
Another difference to point out is that only the most liberal of Evangelical or Protestant churches would talk about having a Heavenly Mother. And to be fair, it’s not like we know a lot about how to do with her or even have a very developed theology around her – but we do have the concept of her. The only comparison that comes close for Evangelical women is that they can sometimes talk about God having feminine qualities – maybe a reference to the verse about Jesus being like a “mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings.” But it stops there. Before I joined our church I did not know that Latter-day Saints had a belief in a Heavenly Mother. The way I found out went like this…I wasn’t even studying with the missionaries yet, but I wanted to visit a LDS service and just see what it was like. It happened to be Father’s Day. We sang the hymn “Oh my Father,” and I was shocked to see the line about, “I have a Mother there.” But I think I told myself that it was only a song and didn’t think too much about it. But one of the speakers that day was a middle aged man whose children were teenagers. He talked about the work of being a father with all its rewards and challenges, and admitted that he could not have begun that journey in any way without his wife. And then he said something like: It’s just like our Heavenly Father…a Mother is required for someone to become a Father and aren’t we grateful to have a Heavenly Mother.” To say that I was shocked was an understatement. Only the most liberal of liberal churches would talk about God in that way. I was very confused. Later I messaged a friend to ask about it – the only sense I could make of it was that this idea must have belonged to that individual man and he was saying something provocative but it was based in his own belief and logic – it couldn’t possibly be a teaching of the Church.
The Two Trees
Before we are done here I want to make one recommendation. I know this is a tough topic for some women in our church. If nothing else I hope this comparison has helped you see that when you compare like-to-like, we actually have quite a bit to be very pleased with. And still, I think any of us can struggle from time to time. And I have a thought for something that might help.
On the FAIR website (and YouTube channel) there is a talk called The Two Trees by Dr. Valerie Hudson. Dr. Hudson is a member of our church and also a professor at Texas A&M in the Department of International Affairs, previously she taught at BYU. Her list of impressive credentials is longer than my arm. I say all of that to say that this woman is no dummy. She is incredibly impressive. And she gave a talk called The Two Trees that addresses this topic so well. It’s a long and dense talk. I won’t do justice to it with this summary but her main point is that both men and women are required in this work. Without a woman (Eve) the whole human project would have never got off the ground. And without another woman (Mary), Jesus Christ could not have come to save us. But men have their role too. Without the man Jesus Christ we would be stuck in our sin forever. And without a priesthood bearing man we have no ability to accomplish ordinances. It took women to usher us into this world, and it takes men to usher us into the next. If this is at all interesting to you please go listen to Sister Hudson’s talk. It was the single most helpful thing for me to get all of this settled in my head.
So there you have it. There are many similarities – and some important differences between Latter-day Saint women and Evangelical women. I hope this conversation encouraged your faith and sparks something in you to learn more.
Join us next week and we’ll tackle another topic from the New Testament.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 13; Luke 8; 13 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Why Don’t You Pray to Jesus?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Prayer. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Today’s verse comes from Luke 11:1-2:
“And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name….”
If you’ve ever visited an Evangelical church for a worship service you’ve probably noticed a lot of differences from how we conduct worship in our church. A couple videos back I talked about this at length and if you want a more thorough discussion on that take a look at the episode about honoring the Sabbath. And one of the things you may have noticed is that they address prayers directly to Jesus, while we do not.
…And here’s a bit of an aside…All of the issues I’m discussing are addressed in depth on the FAIR Latter-day Saints website. And many other issues this series won’t touch. Almost every video in the comment section (“Hi people who leave comments!! Love you!”) someone will ask about addressing some other aspect of the same topic, but sometimes it’s just far beyond the scale of what I’m trying to do here. But FAIR has a massive collection of articles and research that explores every nook and cranny of just about every issue you can think of. One of my hopes for this series is actually that something you hear makes you curious about the topic and you set out to learn more. And the FAIR website is just a treasure trove of information for you to dive into. Okay, back on topic…
So before we talk about why Latter-day Saints pray differently, we need to work to understand why Evangelicals are praying directly to Jesus and what it means to them to do so.
First we should say that Evangelicals also pray to the Father. And some also pray directly to the Holy Spirit. That’s not off limits to them and you will hear plenty of this in their services or private prayer. But they have special affinity for praying to Jesus that’s a bit hard for us Latter-day Saints to understand.
Evangelicals would start with the Bible and say that we have examples from the New Testament of people praying to Jesus and it seems to work out for them. There are 3 main examples of this plus one other, and we’ll quickly look at all of them.
The three examples are Stephen, Saul, and Ananias – their stories are found in Acts chapters 7-9. The other instance is in Revelation 22:20, the second to last verse of the Bible. There are some other examples that people quibble about, but these are the ones where there is agreement that these are prayers directed toward Jesus.
Stephen
So first let’s look at Stephen’s example and try to see how Evangelicals see it. In Acts 6 we see that Stephen is a man full of the Spirit and working to spread the Gospel. The ruling council called the Sanhedrian – they’re a ruling council for Jews during this era – if you remember Jews are under Roman occupation so the rule of Rome is still enforced, the Sanhedrian is a ruling body or court for religious matters the Roman government didn’t concern itself with. The members of the Sannhedrian are upset with Stephen, they conspire to make false charges against him and haul him into court. The charge is that he has spoken blasphemous words against Moses and against God. Stephen is asked if the charges are true and he gives a passionate speech explaining how Moses points directly to Jesus. The Sanhedrian is furious – they “gnashed their teeth at him” – and then they drag him outside the city limits and start stoning him. Stephen looks up to Heaven, sees Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in a vision, and prays, “Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit.”
Stephen’s prayer is very short and directed at Jesus, despite the fact that Heavenly Father is there too. Evangelicals take this to reinforce the idea that Jesus is the mediator between God and man. They’re not taking this passage to say, “You shouldn’t pray to Heavenly Father,” but they do take it to reinforce the idea that no longer did people need to consult a priest or make an animal sacrifice to approach God. Praying in Jesus’ name is now the key to communication with God. For them, “praying in Jesus’ name includes praying directly to him.” They see Stephen taking this option – even though God the Father was right there too.
Bruce R. McConkie addresses this in his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary by basically saying the prayer was consistent with what Stephen had just preached, and was being stoned for – calling Jesus God. Jesus, showing his approval for Stephen’s actions, reveals himself to Stephen as he is dying, and Stephen addresses him directly because that’s how he got in this spot in the first place.
Saul
We’ll look at the example of Saul, but Evangelicals basically make the same argument here. In Acts 9 Saul (who becomes Paul) is traveling around persecuting Christians for many of the same reasons the Sanhedrian was persecuting Stephen. He and his companions are walking on the road to Damascus. Saul sees a great light and hears a voice asking, “Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?” Saul answers back directly to the voice, “Who are you?” and the voice tells him that it is Jesus speaking and then gives him some further directions. Paul’s “who are you” is a kind of prayer directed at Jesus. Evangelicals would say that this is an example of praying to Jesus when things worked out.
Is it? Technically, yes. Paul speaks to Jesus, speaking to the divine is prayer, so Paul prayed to Jesus. And it worked out for him.
But the experience does seem like an outlier. It’s not a normal occurrence to be traveling down the road, blinded by a light, and have Jesus speak directly. And I suppose if you have this experience, answering directly is the right thing to do. But these are not the normal circumstances of how most of us are going to pray our entire lives.
Ananias
The final example Evangelicals would cite is Ananias. He’s a disciple living in Damascus, where Saul is headed. Now, Saul had been blinded by his encounter with Jesus on the road and Ananias is who gets called on to restore Saul’s sight. Ananias has a vision of Jesus asking him to go to a certain house where Saul will be to restore his sight. Ananias’ first response is, “Yes, Lord.” And I think we Latter-day Saints would agree that if Jesus appears to you and aks you to do something, the correct response is, “Yes, Lord.”
But none of these examples – Stephen, Saul, or Ananias – are typical. They happen very soon after the resurrection of Jesus, they all happen within a short time of each other (Acts 7-9), they all involve Jesus appearing to someone, speaking to them, and the person speaks back. Evangelicals see this as a prototype of prayer, while we would probably see it as an understandable exception.
Revelation 22:20
And there is one other example that helps explain why Evangelicals see praying directly to Jesus as a good thing. Revelation 22 is the last chapter of the Bible. It’s not the last chapter that was written – that’s probably 2 Peter, though there’s plenty of debate – but it is the last chapter of how the New Testament is arranged, and this verse is one of the final verses we read, so it has some weight.
The verse goes like this, “He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” And, ‘he who testifies to these things,’ is Jesus himself, and the phrase “Amen, Come, Lord Jesus,” is seen as a prayer in agreement that he does so.
And that phrase, “Come, Lord Jesus,” has a history. It is considered the second oldest formulation of prayer, second only to the Lord’s prayer. Part of how we know this is that Paul quotes it in 1 Cor. 16:22 – but he quotes the Aramaic version, Maranatha. The people living in Corinth are Greek speakers. So for Paul to assume they would know an Aramaic phrase suggests that it was a well known prayer. The phrase also appears in another book from that era called the Didache, which is kind of like an early “church handbook” and teaches about how the church should be run in practical terms. The phrase, “Come Lord Jesus” or Maranatha is suggested as a way to end a prayer, much like we would say, “In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.” Early Christians could say, “Come, Lord Jesus. Amen,” and they meant the same thing. And the phrase, “Come, Lord Jesus,” goes on to have an important place in Christian worship for many centuries.
Evangelicals aren’t usually super interested in ancient church history though. And they don’t understand the history and development of how that phrase has been used. Remember the entire Evangelical movement is about 70 years old, so they don’t care much about history before that except to jump way back into time to the days of the New Testament. And when they see “Come, Lord Jesus” in the New Testament they take it to be a prayer toward Jesus. But they miss the fact that the phrase was being used as something much closer to, “In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.” Their desire and motivation here is not bad. They want to get as closely connected to Jesus as they can, and that is admirable. But in doing so they miss the fact that Jesus himself asked us to pray in the name of the Father.
One of the weaknesses of the Evangelical movement is that because they hold a view of the Bible as inerrant, they take things in it more literally than context and history would allow. They take “Come, Lord Jesus” as a literal prayer, not a formation of praying in Jesus’ name. Their hearts are in the right place, but they get a bit lost in the weeds of obeying the Bible vs. obeying Jesus. I say that kindly, and I think they have very good motives for doing so, but the resulting practice has some issues.
Repetition in Prayer
The other issue I want to briefly introduce here is repetition in prayer. For the most part we would be on the same page as Evangelicals about scripted prayers. Like us they would say scripted prayers are to be avoided because it’s too easy to pray them without your heart in it. However, there is a sizable minority in the Evangelical world who experiment with scripted prayers, and they have an interesting motivation for doing so that I want to point out.
Now, usually scripted prayers are not new prayers. They are very old prayers that have been written down and repeated throughout the centuries. You’ve probably heard of The Book of Common Prayer which contains the Anglican prayers assigned to any given Sunday. Evangelicals who are interested in this kind of thing have a soft spot for Anglicans so that’s usually their go-to source. These prayers have been prayed by Christians for many centuries. And there is a decent sized minority in the Evangelical culture that longs for learning about ancient ways. They have an innate understanding that their so-called “happy clappy” churches are actually missing something. And they know the thing they’re missing is ancient. Using very old scripted prayers is one attempt they make to learn ancient practices. They know that something has been lost, and they long to have it restored. I’ll push my luck here and say: they long for a restoration. And what they long for in theory and vagueness, we have in specificity. Just something to think about as you talk with your Evangelical friends about these kinds of things.
I hope you will join us next time. I love getting your questions in email – you can find me at Jroach@fairlatterdaysaints.org And I will see you next time.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 11–12; Luke 11 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: No Authority Needed?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful answers to New Testament questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Authority. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Today’s verse comes from Luke 9:1-2:
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Why Authority?
A common Evangelical question that would come up here is something like: Why are Latter-day Saints obsessed with authority? In our church authority comes straight from Jesus.” And it’s interesting because there are several spots in this week’s readings, and in the readings coming up, where Jesus’ authority is questioned. People want to know under what authority he is doing this or that. And in our church we talk a lot about authority…proper authority…priesthood authority…general authorities. Who has authority to do what is an important question to us. We would say its part of how Jesus Christ has ordered his church. Evangelicals see questions of authority differently. I want to explain how they see authority and what they mean by it, so that we might see a way our church’s point of view might be thoughtful or a blessing to them.
First, I need you to set aside, just for a minute, the worry about the Bible being corrupted and translated incorrectly. Yes, those are true, but if that is your whole focus in conversation about the Bible you’re going to be butting heads with Evangelicals and not seeing a way to understand them, or to let them see the beauty in our beliefs. So, yes, there are issues in the Bible’s translation and transmission process. We will just let that sit to the side for a moment. In this video I want you to think of the parts of the Bible that are inspired, that truly show God, that are translated correctly – all the best parts of the Bible.
And this topic gets a little heady – and we need to geek out a bit to get to the point – stay with me there is a pay off, I promise.
If you’ve been following along with these videos you are starting to see that because Evangelicals hold a certain set of values, they prioritize different concepts differently.
When Evangelicals use the word “authority” it’s usually in the context of, “the authority of scripture.” And they put a lot of effort and priority into demonstrating how and why the Bible is the source of authority. They have a sincere desire to live in a way that is resisting the pull of culture (to some degree) and place themselves under the authority of scripture. This value goes all the way back to the earliest Protestant roots. At least part of what the Reformation was about was the question: Who or what gets the final say? Is it the Pope? Who?
The Reformation
Prior to the Reformation (which was not a singular event, but a process over many years) authority was contained in the Catholic Church. Few people had access to a physical Bible, few could read, and frankly few had time to devote to study as their lives were primarily about doing what needed to be done to sustain life. Leisurely sitting and studying the scriptures is not easily compatible with agrarian life. So before the Reformation the Catholic Church holds all the authority. The scriptures mean what they say it means – very few people could open up their Bible and check their work. And it wasn’t just Martin Luther who saw some of the contradictions between what the text said, and what the Catholic Church taught that the text said. Plenty of priests saw this, some were even writing about it. But it took a Martin Luther to have the courage to take the argument public. And he does it in spectacular fashion – and with excellent timing. If he had been born even 100 years earlier his argument wouldn’t have mattered much because there was no way to get scripture into the hands of average folks since the printing press had not been invented. But Luther comes along and makes a good point at a time in history when there is technology to actually apply it. And all of this is a very good thing. However, what happened when the Bible itself was given ultimate authority, and the church took a back seat. Anyone with enough education to read could access the Bible – their level of understanding the context of what they were reading didn’t matter much because the Bible itself was the ultimate authority. As long as they read with as “plain” a reading as they could, the Bible could replace the authority of the priest. This is referred to as Sola Scriptura – meaning “Scripture alone” has the final say. Today’s Evangelicals very much follow in this tradition. The idea for them is that God is the ultimate authority, and he has given us a book, therefore that book has to have authority too.
Did God come to us as a Book? Or did he send a Son?
But here’s the problem. We don’t say, “God so loved the world that he sent us a book.” That feels pretty cold, a bit lonely, kind of disconnected. We say, “God so loved the world that he sent us his son.” Sending his son came with all kinds of messiness and pain and difficulty, but the experience Jesus had while on Earth was very human so that is to be expected. It just seems odd that God would go to this great, messy length to send us a Son, and then expect those who come after that Son to be given a book to represent him and whose authority to follow, and not an actual real-live human being who can act in his authority.
We believe, as the first 1500 years of Christianity believed, that the authority to act in Christ’s name is best located in a human being who can understand the messiness of life – not in a book. Further – without even talking about the problems with translation and transmission of the Bible – all written words have to be interpreted. You have to take the written word and understand what it means. This requires a human mind. There is no bypassing this where God just dumps words straight from his mouth into your head. (Michael Ash’s book, “Rethinking Revelation: The Human Element in Scripture” is 700 pages explaining why this is true if you’re interested.) God’s project of communicating to us has to involve humans. Evangelicals want to place it in an object, a book.
What is the Authority of the Bible?
And it’s easy to see how some problems develop right away when a book is the container for God’s authority on the Earth, instead of a human being who represents him. The biggest question seems to be, How can an ancient narrative text hold authority over modern people who do not understand the culture and context from which it came?
Here is what Evangelicals do, and it’s interesting, they simply open the scripture, read what it says, and apply it to themselves. The end. Or so they think. They understand themselves to be doing a “plain reading” of scripture, and that they have within themselves all that is needed for understanding – anyone who understands differently is at best dull-minded, and at worst outright evil. But most of the Bible is not a list of things to do and things to avoid, or even a list of things to be believed. It’s a story, a narrative. And even when it lists things to be believed or things to do, those are in the context of some story. But if you can’t understand the story, you have no way to understand the do’s and don’ts. It can kind of be a grab-bag approach – just reach into the text and pull out some meaning, doesn’t really matter if it was ever intended to apply or not.
A low view of Scripture
Evangelicals then think about the Bible as something that represents God – He has placed his authority into the Bible. When they say, “authority of the Bible” it’s a kind of short-hand for, “God has authority and he has vested it into the book we call the Bible. We can turn to the Bible to learn what we need to learn.” But we think of it sort of the other-way around. And it’s the same point that NT Wright makes in some of his writing. We would say that according to the Bible itself authority is vested in God – and God gets to decide what to do with it – and the narrative of the Bible shows us, over and over, that God vests it in his representatives. To say that God now vests the authority in a book takes a complete left-turn away from where the story of the Bible is leading you. It’s actually a very low view of scripture because what it’s saying is that: God’s plan within the pages of the Bible is to cooperate with humans to do his work, but we feel ambivalent about that, so we’re going to change the plan and let God place it all in a nice neat book, not a messy human race. By taking the authority away from where God was pointing it, we disrespect him and the very book he gave us.
So what about your Evangelical friends? They want – desperately want – to get things right about God. And having everything all neat and tidy inside a book seems like a good way to do that. So they remove authority from human leaders and place it in a book. They’re trying to keep things “pure” and not let the humans mess them up. That’s an understandable desire and goal. But it’s not God’s desire. God partners with us to create, to organize, and to lead. And to remove authority from the humans God partners with, and placing that authority in a book might feel safe, but it’s not because it’s not God’s plan.
In other words, Jesus gives authority to his apostles in this story. That’s what we read in Luke 9. Evangelicals are saying, “That’s scary because humans mess things up – remember the Reformation.” And they’re not wrong. But the answer isn’t to change God’s way of operating in the world, the answer is to try and get better at following the very pattern the Bible has laid out for us – listening to God’s representatives on the Earth. The Evangelicals desperately want to have a high view of scripture. But they undermine themselves because they’re pivoting away from scripture when they place the Bible as God’s partner instead of the humans God has decided to partner with. Think of it this way, the Bible is kind of like a 5-act play…Creation, the Fall, the story of Israel, Jesus, and then the book we call, “The Acts of the Apostles,” where the gospel is taken to the ends of the Earth. And that is the stage we’re still in. We don’t call it, “The Acts of the Book.” Books don’t commit acts. They’re objects. Everything in the Bible is intended to teach us how to carry on the story of the Bible, and that includes placing authority in humans, not books.
I hope you’ve enjoyed this episode. Come back next week and we’ll look at some more.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 9–10; Mark 5; Luke 9 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: But I thought Jesus said we don’t have to follow the Sabbath anymore?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Sabbath. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Today’s verse comes from Mark 2:23-27:
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.
A common Evangelical question that would come up here is: WHY does your church teach that we should obey the Sabbath when clearly Jesus says we don’t have to. First we’ll address what that looks like during Sunday worship and then what it looks like for the rest of the day on Sundays.
So, how do Evangelicals understand what “keeping the Sabbath” means? As we’ve talked about in another video the history of Evangelicalism really goes back about 70 or so years and it’s growth happens right along side the Baby Boom. And those initial churches that called themselves Evangelical were pretty much following the pattern churches had followed forever – Sundays were for worship, no working, no shopping, no extravagant entertainment, spend time with family, try to keep a reverent spirit about the day. But by the late 60’s that starts to change and it’s a Southern California church called Calvary Chapel they’re at the forefront of that change. They were hugely successful. They become the hub of the “Jesus Movement” of the 1970’s where churches and a tension starts to develop between the rules and expectations that churches, even Evangelical Churches had, and what the Jesus Movement/Hippies were looking for. But for most of the 1970’s this tension is located Southern California and isn’t an issue. Most Evangelical churches across the country would still have been thinking about something like the Sabbath Day in traditional ways. The members probably would have still been dressing up for church, men in ties and women in dresses. But by 1979 the younger leaders at Calvary Chapel wanted to take the church culture they had created there, and start churches with the same mind set around the country. And so during the 1980’s the Evangelical movement takes a radical turn toward a more casual worship style. It doesn’t happen all at once, but by the end of the 1980’s most Evangelical churches are encouraging people to come “dressed as you are” to church, and have also de-emphasized most rules on Sunday behavior. This is the history of how they got there, but why did they do it?
Ultimately Evangelicals place high priority on the pragmatic – does something work – and far less priority on the long term consequences. Beginning in the 1980’s and certainly into the 1990’s the kinds of Evangelical churches that were embracing a casual style of worship were growing. They were exciting places to be. Families with youth flocked to these churches because they had fun programs that kept the teenagers engaged. But by the 1990’s and into the 2000’s a pragmatic practice that had begun for a good reason (to accommodate the Jesus Movement culture) had turned into the normalized practice. By 2000 you would be hard pressed to find any Evangelical church where members and clergy alike were not dressing in casual clothes on Sunday morning. And when that shift happened along with it was the shift away from “rule keeping” around other Sunday practices like not working or shopping. Nobody really saw a point in emphasizing what was relevant because embracing what was casual was working for them from a pragmatic point of view. The casual style did draw in young families and lots of excitement. By the time this had spread to most Evangelical Churches there really wasn’t a way to put the Genie back in the bottle. The change happened and that was that.
Interestingly enough, about 15 or so years ago, a movement started within some corners of Evangelicalism to embrace more traditional practices, to have services that were quiet and not full of rock music. Many of the people who embraced that ultimately move out of the Evangelical world and become Anglicans, Lutherns, Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.
One thing I’ve noticed in our church is that it can sometimes be hard for Latter-day Saints to look at Evangelical services and not be a little jealous. They’ve got exciting music, lots of energy, worship bands, and more. And so sometimes I think that a conversation with an Evangelical friend would end with a Latter-day Saint saying something like, “Yeah, I kind of wish we were doing what you’re doing.” And I sympathize. Our hymns are old, organ music is not the most exciting, even when the hymn says it should be “sung vigorously” it’s usually not. But I’d like to make the case about why a more reverent style of worship sets the tone for a day where the Sabbath can be kept, and that keeping the Sabbath is a blessing, not a rule we chaff against.
When Evangelicals started to dismantle a more formal style of worship for the sake of the Jesus Movement they had the best of motives. But as it grew into a standard practice without the underlying motivation it also came with an unspoken message that said something like: We can follow Jesus without traditional constraints, and in fact, it is our obligation to do so. “We need to show people that church is not about following your grandmother’s rules for church, it’s for us fun, modern people too.” Do you hear the change there? It went from, “We want to change our worship style for the sake of the Jesus Movement people who seem to need an honest accommodation,” into “We make the change for ourselves because we’re not old and boring.” The goal moved from accommodating others to expressing one’s own coolness. And if the point of worship is about me and what makes me feel comfortable, it’s really hard to accept that anyone else, even God, should place any expectations on me. So the idea that God gets a say in how worship goes gets tossed aside. But none of them really looked far enough into the future to say, “If we start to throw out God’s expectations in one area, it becomes pretty easy to throw them out in other areas.” And a deep cynicism starts to develop of God’s right to have any say in our behaviors. If his opinion doesn’t matter on Sundays, soon it won’t matter on Friday night either.
Instead, what we are trying to do in our church is to say that God asks us to have an attitude of reverence when we worship him, especially on the Sabbath day. And that attitude should be carried throughout the day. And it’s true that the expression of reverence might look different in different cultures, but there is no culture where failing to express reverence in at least some way is obedience to that command. God is the object of our worship, His day is Sunday, we modify our behavior to worship him as he would like – not as we would like. And so while I see what the Evangelicals are trying to do, at least historically, I think that project ultimately failed. It became about what makes the members of that church feel good – and when they stop feeling good at that church, they can move to another one across town where they might feel good again.
But what about after church? How do Evangelicals think about keeping the afternoon/evening holy?
In our church there has been some change over time here as well. Some of the more strict practices of the past seem to have softened. If you were to peek in on a Latter-day Saint family during a Sunday afternoon and an Evangelical family during the same time, you might not see much difference. It’s subtle, but let me try to tease it out for you.
In the last 10 years or so there has been a flurry of books published in the Evangelical world on the topic of the Sabbath. I’ve read many of them, one of the classes I had in Divinity School was simply titled, “The Sabbath.” Those books have titles like, “Finding Renewal on the Sabbath”…”The Sabbath for Soul Rest”…and one simply titled, “Breathe.” The thesis of most of these books is that God wants you to feel good and mentally healthy, and taking time for yourself on the Sabbath is God’s plan for how to do that. Now, you know this, I’m a mental health therapist so I’m all about good self-care and doing things in your life that will bring about more mental health. This is not a bad pursuit and I’m certainly not making fun of them for it. You should be taking care of yourself and you do need breaks from your obligations and that is certainly part of what is going on in observing the Sabbath. But is that it? Is it just for me to feel better? You can hear in this the same logic that is used for an Evangelical Sunday worship service playing out here too. This is “you time” which is quite different then,“This is a day where we focus on worshiping God all day long, and in various ways, even when that requires quite a bit of effort from us.” The traditional understanding of keeping the sabbath day holy was that this is God’s day, and we use it for him. But for Evangelicals that has turned into “this is a day for you to rest and feel better.”
So, how do we explain our beliefs to an Evangelical friend without their eyes glossing over and them thinking, “that doesn’t sound like Sabbath day rest to me at all.” Well, let me tell you what it was like for me when I was investigating our church.
I noticed the external differences in worship right away, anyone would. But eventually I noticed the spirit of reverence behind the differences and found that very attractive. It’s impossible to be both reverent and cynical. Those two things repel each other. And, while this isn’t true for every Evangelical, my experience of it was that all that striving to be cool also came with a deep river of cynicism. When you form a church to suit your own preferences, you have to edge out at least some of God’s preferences, and things get confusing. It’s hard to tell which of God’s commandments even matter any more. Or what things about God are even true. Not everyone’s experience, but it was mine. So when I encountered a very typical, boring service at my local ward it didn’t take me long to see the lack of cynicism as very comforting. I came to enjoy being able to worship reverently with friends, but also to have a hilarious time with those same friends in other contexts. But when we’re together doing the things of God we act like God wants us to act. That’s the feeling of community and purpose. There are very few feelings that are better than that.
I hope you enjoyed this discussion on the Sabbath day. Join us again next week when we look at more Evangelical questions as they come up in our Come Follow Me text.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 8; Mark 2–4; Luke 7 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Why Do You Need Prophets Anyway?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Matthew 7:15-20 Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful answers to New Testament questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about prophets. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
A common question from Evangelicals is why do we think we need prophets? Aren’t they easily identified as false prophets? And to be honest, when I was investigating the church this was the hardest issue for me to grapple with. The idea of having prophets made literally no sense to me. These days I can see it how other Latter-day Saints see it – it’s a blessing and a gift – but back then I felt suspicious. So why is it so hard for Evangelicals to understand the need for modern prophets? I think there’s two reasons and we’ll talk about both of them.
First, Evangelicals are suspicious of the idea because they have a belief that Jesus is the last prophet – and to call anyone who comes after him a prophet is to be disrespectful to Christ. Where does this belief come from? Let’s look at Hebrews 1:1-2 “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” I know, to your Latter-day Saint ears there is no problem with that verse. You don’t hear it how they hear it. For them that verse sounds more like, “but in these last days we will only hear from Jesus.” As with most scripture quagmires, a careful reading of the text helps us out a bit. All they hear is, “Jesus was the final prophet, no more prophets will come.” But that’s not what the text says, and it’s not what the New Testament shows.
“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets, at many times and in various ways” – We have no disagreement with Evangelicals there. The problem comes here, “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things.” In that they hear that Jesus is the last and greatest prophet, that him being the “heir of all things” means that no other “heirs” are needed. The problem here, of course, is that we’re talking about prophecy in a few different ways. When we say that we have a living prophet on the earth today we are not saying that the prophet is greater than Jesus. The Old Testament prophets pointed to a future day when God would save his people. Then Jesus came. Now modern prophets still point to Jesus. Evangelicals are confusing the role of Jesus as prophet with the role of all the Old Testament and modern day prophets. It’s a bit nonsensical since they don’t literally think Daniel or Habakkuk are in competition with Jesus. But they feel very sensitive to the idea of upstaging Jesus. One way to talk about this with them is to talk about what a modern prophet does – points us to Christ over and over.
And then the second issue comes up. Evangelicals wonder why they would need someone to, “point to Jesus” when they already have a few reliable sources of doing that. They see the New Testament as pointing to Jesus (and we certainly wouldn’t disagree with them there); they see the Holy Spirit testifying to them of Jesus (again, no disagreement, we believe the Holy Ghost does that too); and they rely heavily on the concept of the, “priesthood of all believers” meaning that they themselves contain all the needed gifts to hear from God, no “mediator” needed. We’ll talk much more about the priesthood of all believers and what that means when we get to that section of scripture but for now we’ll just say that Evangelicals basically believe that no leader can hear from God any better than they can. Their own pastors teach them, but if the individual doesn’t like what is being taught then they move to another church where they like the teaching better.
Latter-day Saints may find it odd to say it this way, but there is a sense in which Evangelicals believe that by doing this they are emulating, as closely as possible, the New Testament church. They would say they’re just trying to boil down to the essence of the gospel and follow that as much as they can. And it might sound odd to you, but underneath that is a desire for Restoration.
They can easily look around and see that the Evangelical world is in trouble in some very real ways. And they long for God to reach down and set things straight. Sound familiar? What a fascinating opening to talk about what it means that we have a restored church. It might surprise you, Latter-day Saint to learn that many, maybe even most, Evangelical churches sometimes talk about how they’re really just trying to live in a way that contextualizes the New Testament for today’s world. They think they’re living a kind of restoration. I want to talk a little more about that in way you might be somewhat familiar with.
This comes from the work of Dr. RoseAnn Benson. She previously had been in the Ancient Scripture department at BYU and now teaches at Southern Illinois University. Her book is Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith: 19th-Century Restorationists and it’s worth reading. Let me explain what she says and then you’ll see how it relates to Evangelicals. My apologies to Dr. Benson for this simplistic summary. Her work is layered and deep and beautiful and I cringe at the way I’m about to summarize it for you, but summarize it I will.
The year is 1830 and Parley P. Prat (PPP) has been corresponding with his friend Sydney Rigdon. You know from church history that Rigdon is a Campbellite preacher at this time. PPP and other missionaries convert him and about 100 others including 5th President of our church Lorenzo Snow and his sister Eliza R. Snow. This is the basic church history information that you probably already know. What you might not know is that the Campbellite movement considered themselves a Restorationist movement. They thought they were doing the work of bringing the restoration, but they were going about it with an entirely different strategy. The Campbellites believed at that time that in order to restore the Lord’s true church they needed to pare down the essence of the gospel and remove everything that wasn’t essential.They wanted to strip away everything that was not the very basics. They wanted to clear things to the side that didn’t support the goal of restoring the the very essence of the gospel. They were trying to take the very heart of what the Bible teaches and bring it into their day in a way that would get rid of all the errors that had crept into the church over the decades. You can kind of see the logic in what they’re doing.
What happens when PPP and Sydney Rigdon meet in person is that PPP is able to agree with him about the need for a restoration – but that Joseph Smith was teaching the restoration doesn’t come from paring everything down. Joseph doesn’t want to take everything away that isn’t the rock-bottom essentials. Joseph wants to restore everything. Every, everything. He didn’t want to push anything to the side – he wanted to open everything up. To restore it all. Once Rigdon, and 100 others including the Snow family, hear this they understand. They already believed a restoration was necessary – but now they understood it wasn’t going to come through removing parts of what God had established, it was going to come through restoring everything.
Back to our Evangelical friends.
They already know things need to be restored. This is where the mental health therapist comes out in me. If they don’t trust you, or you don’t have enough relationship with you, they are not going to feel safe admitting that any kind of restoration is needed. They will feel defensive and not open up. That’s okay, it just means you need to earn more relationship collateral with them. But if they trust you enough to admit that there can be some issues with their church from time to time, you can probably have a pretty cool conversation about what restoration would look like – is it a paring down of everything so that an individual person sitting alone with their Bible is enough? Or is it a restoration of everything – so that the individual can certainly sit alone with their Bible, but they are also guided by a Prophet from time to time to keep them headed in the right direction?
Now, I told you I would tell you how I gained a testimony of having a Prophet and here it is.
Three and a half years ago I was in the middle of taking lessons from the missionaries. (If you haven’t heard my conversion story it’s a fun one and I’ll put a link to it in the description below where you can listen to it on the FAIR website. But, warning, it has some difficult themes in it and probably isn’t great to listen to around small kids – teens and up would be fine.) From Anglican Minister to Relief Society Sister – Interview with Jennifer Roach – FAIR (fairlatterdaysaints.org) And honestly I was struggling with the idea of having a Prophet. I’ve seen the worst of what can happen in churches when people in power take advantage of that power (listen to my story if you want to know more about that) and I was skeptical that a man with that much power could be trusted.
One day the missionaries say, “The Prophet is coming to Seattle and we have tickets for you.” At the time I didn’t know that this was an unusual thing. Maybe the Prophet just drops by from time to time. But it was a very special event and it was held at Safeco Field, the baseball stadium. It was a beautiful summer evening and 50,000 people showed up to see Russel M. Nelson. And he was great, just like you’d imagine. But it wasn’t his talk or anything in the evening’s program that made me change my mind. What helped me was that when I arrived about half an hour before the event was to begin and sat with friends from my ward. While we were waiting everyone around us was talking about “their prophet” – usually the one who had been leading the church when they were young, and what it meant to them to have a leader like that. To be totally honest I think my own skeptical nature on this topic would have kept me from trusting a man I didn’t know and will never meet. But I saw what having a Prophet did in the lives of my friends and how much goodness it brought to them. And I was converted to the idea that very night – not by President Nelson’s words, though they were great, but by the testimonies of my friends.
I hope these words have given you some thoughts about how to talk with your Evangelical friends about the idea of Prophets. If you have a question an Evangelical friend has asked you that you’d like to get some insight on please email me at jroach@fairlatterdaysaints.org. I got an email this week from some Sister Missionaries in the Houston, Texas mission so shout-out to Sister Cox and her companions. I’ll be answering their question in an upcoming episode. And I look forward to seeing you all next time.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 6–7 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Why You So Judgy?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Luke 6:37 Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about worthiness. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
A common question from Evangelicals is why our church spends so much time and energy, “being judgy” – meaning, why do we care about worthiness? Why do we say our Bishops are, “Judges in Israel.” Can’t we just follow Jesus’ words and refrain from all the judgment?
This is a huge issue, and there is not enough time in a video like this to parse through all of it, so I’m just going to cover the parts the average Evangelical would be worried about. And they are worried about it. If you remember a couple videos back we talked about the history of the Evangelical movement and how they can be considered “Double Protestants” because they come from a tradition that protested against the Catholic Church, and then they did it again and protested against their own Protestant churches. And that same dynamic is going to come into play here, especially as it comes to them being Protestants who have moved away from the Catholic Church.
So, an Evangelical’s understanding of what is happening in a Catholic Church is that the priest sets himself up as God and directly forgives sins, or refuses to forgive them, and that people have no direct access to God. Now, that is not what is happening in a Catholic Church – all of you who have a Catholic background can take a deep breath, I know that is not what is happening in a Catholic Church, but that’s what Evangelicals (largely) think is happening. And in reaction to that they have a very high value on the idea that only God can judge and no other human ever has to be involved in the process at all. It’s actually a really unfortunate over-reaction to their misunderstanding because what happens is that the individual is left utterly alone to learn how to repent and change and grow. There is no communal support for how to repent. They’ve created that culture for what they think is a good reason – a really important reason – which is that they see themselves as the ones who take down barriers between people and Christ.
How Does This Work
So you, Latter-day Saint, you know how this works in our church. Let me try to explain how this works in Evangelical churches. You remember from our previous videos that Evangelical churches place a really high value on the conversion experience or, “saying the sinner’s prayer.” Not all Protestant churches function this way, but at least historically in Evangelical churches the entire point of everything is to get people to say the sinner’s prayer….and what happens next varies greatly, depending on the particular church. Some churches are content to pretty much stop there – oh they certainly want people to keep attending, and keep learning about God, but not much more is going to be expected of them. They’ve already done the thing – they said the prayer. One hugely popular Evangelical author says it’s like going around the bases in baseball, once you’ve gotten to home plate you’re done and now your main job is to cheer on the other members of your team so that they can get to home plate too. Sure, you probably need to learn and grow a bit, and that includes confession of sin, but that’s a private thing that you do alone on purpose. No one else is to be involved because that would be putting a barrier between you and God. They don’t even really have a conceptualization of getting help in the repentance process because if a person asked for such help they would be told to go pray in private, confess their sins, and move on. The best case scenario is that this is a system which fosters self-reliance and forces a person to build up their own relationship with God – and the worst case scenario is that it leaves people without much help or hope on difficult issues when they know what they should be doing but can’t quite bring themselves to do it.
So, when your Evangelical friends or family members learn that we require adults and teenagers to sit for worthiness interviews, or that we sometimes say bishops are to function as a, “judge in Israel,” their defenses go up pretty high. They’re worried that we’re doing unnecessary gate-keeping and leaving people separated from God unnecessarily. Interestingly enough we both have the same worry about each other – we worry a bit about them abandoning people to have to handle every act of repentance entirely alone; and they worry that we are causing people to feel abandoned by God because we’re putting up barriers for them to repent.
Common Ground
But at the end of the day, we both want the same thing – for people to repent from their sins and grow in holiness. And still it seems kind of hard for many Latter-day Saints to explain why we do what we do. I don’t have the definitive answer on that, but I do have some thoughts about why what we’re doing is worthwhile and how you might be able to talk about it with your Evangelical friends in a way they can understand, and might even learn from.
Maybe you’ve had this experience, I certainly have….if the topic of worthiness interviews comes up, your Evangelical friend is going to look at you like you are a crazy person for voluntarily submitting to that. They’re going to think you are handing over your autonomy and will probably quote Jesus’ words to you about, “judge not lest ye be judged.” But what is Jesus actually saying there?
In my day-job I’m a mental health therapist and this question comes up all the time. A client will be participating in a certain activity, or spending time with a certain person and the activity or person turns out to not be very good for them. They leave that person’s presence feeling more anxious, or they have some other bad consequence from spending their time that way. If I, as their therapist, suggest that they might need to reconsider who they spend their time with I am often met with the objection, “Well, I can’t judge them.” But, I don’t even know what that means, to be honest. When I go to the grocery store and want to buy a nice piece of salmon I have some choices to make. I can buy the piece that looks like it came off the boat that morning, or I can buy the piece that looks like it’s been sitting in the case for 5 weeks. Buying the fresh fish has one set of consequences, and buying the weeks old piece of fish has a different set of consequences. I get to choose which consequences I’d like. These days I know exactly how to go to the store and notice the signs of freshness in a fish, but I didn’t always. Someone had to point them out to me so that today I can properly judge which piece of fish is going to give me the consequences I want. Am I judging the fish? Yes. But what I’m really judging is the consequences of my own actions. The topics that come up in a worthiness interview are kind of the same thing. Let me use an old example to explain.
As you know, the worthiness interview questions have changed over time. A previous version of the questions asked members if they had, “stolen irrigation water from their neighbor.” I grew up in an agricultural area where irrigation water was, and still is, fiercely debated. Stealing water that does not belong to you is going to have bad consequences for you (you will be used to a certain amount of water for your crops, and when it becomes restricted after you get caught the crops you planted with that extra water will die); it’s bad for your neighbor (their crops will die), and it’s bad for the entire ecosystem (I don’t have time to explain that piece, just trust me). So if we’re looking at a behavior called, “stealing irrigation water” we can demonstrate how it will have negative effects on the individual and community. It will be negative in the same way that eating a bad piece of fish from the store will be bad. In our modern worthiness interview when you are asked, “Do you live the law of chastity?” is that an improper use of judgment, the kind Jesus was talking about? Or is that designed to help people consider the consequences of their actions and decide if those actions are going to have good or bad consequences for them and their neighbors? I think most members would say that this is intended as – and functions as – a question about considering consequences. Infidelity is an act that is not between two people in private, that’s an act that impacts everyone they love and have influence over. And those consequences – the natural consequences of infidelity – are far more devastating than eating a piece of bad fish.
Despite the fact that your Evangelical friends or family members largely are left to confess sin in private they could probably see the benefit of worthiness conversations when we think about them this way. The word, “judgment” has a bad reputation these days, and probably for some good reasons, but we’re left without a better word to explain what we’re after in those interviews. In this topic my mind often goes to the youth. Youth in Evangelical churches are going to be expected to sustain some form of chastity (for the most part) but without a vehicle to talk about that and potentially get help repenting over that, it’s an incredible burden to place on them and ask them to manage it alone. In this sense the very concept of a worthiness interview is similar to teaching someone how to choose good fish at the market. It’s not the kind of judgment that tells the person, “you’re a bad person,” it’s the kind of judgment that helps them discern which outcomes they would like to have the best chance at getting.
I hope this episode helps you think through how to talk about these things with your Evangelical friends and family members. The unique gift that our church has in this realm is that we provide a private place for every member to have a private chat with their local leader to think through these things, and that’s not just limited to a worthiness interview, but includes going to your bishop when an issue comes up where you can’t figure out how to repent on your own. If you’ve grown up in the church you might not realize how rare it is to have that option. There may be a few exceptions but for the most part Evangelicals don’t have that option – and at the larger churches their local pastor won’t even know their name, nevermind how they or their family are doing managing the challenges of life.
Join us next week as we take up another Evangelical question. If you have a specific question you’d like to see answered shoot me an email at jroach@fairlatterdaysaints.org See you next time.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 5; Luke 6 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: What Must I Do To Be Saved?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
John 3:16-18 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about what it means to be saved. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.
Well, if there ever was a topic where Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals get confused over language it’s this one…What is salvation? Our agenda for today is this: First we’ll talk about how Evangelicals understand salvation and why they think the way they do, next we’ll answer their questions hopefully in a way they can hear, and then we’ll talk about the unique contributions our faith makes to this part of the conversation.
What Does it Mean to be Saved?
In our church when we talk about life after death we have a conceptualization that pretty much everybody is “saved.” We get anxious about what exactly that will look like, and especially anxious over what the relationships will be there, but the actual question of salvation isn’t really all that interesting to us. But it is huge to Evangelicals and I want to help you understand why. First I’m going to talk about Evangelicals broadly, and then about the two subsets of Evangeliclas who view these issues slightly differently.
First, in general Evangelicals believe that after this life is over each person will face judgment where there really is only one question God asks, “What did you believe about my son, Jesus Christ?” Those who can answer that question by saying they believe Jesus is Lord receive a reward of eternal happiness in Heaven, and those who either can’t say that Jesus is Lord, or who have never heard of Jesus are condemned to eternal suffering in Hell. While historically Catholics have believed that there is some wiggle room with their conceptualization of Purgatory, Evangelicals believe it is a one-time judgment that can never be changed, even if the reason for the person’s lack of belief is that they lived in a time and place where no one had heard of Jesus.
And if you remember from an earlier video you know that Evangelicals as we know them today are really a post-WW2 invention. One of the original goals of the Evangelical movement was to take down all barriers that churches had put up for people coming to Christ. And as their name – Evangelical – implies they are very interested in sharing the message of salvation with everyone. But they had a problem which was churches who put up, in their opinion, too many barriers to faith. And by this they meant requiring people to be baptized. Now, many Evangelical churches still practice baptism, it has not gone away. Instead what has happened is that they’ve changed the process from, as the New Testament puts it, “Believe and be baptized” to “Believe, say the sinner’s prayer, and later show evidence that you have done these things already through your act of baptism.” Baptism itself is not efficacious, it’s the sinner’s prayer that actually does the heavy lifting, and the baptism is for show. So for them, to be saved means that you pray a prayer of repentance, inviting Jesus “into your heart,” and then you are saved. When judgment day arrives for you the issue will be already settled since you have made some declaration that Jesus is Lord and will be placed in Heaven. That’s what salvation is for them in a general sense.
Two subsets
I don’t want to get too far off track here but there are two important distinctions to talk about here. “Evangelical” is a broad term. It’s not a denomination. It’s a descriptor that applies to many different types of churches. You can be a Baptist, and be an Evangelical. You can be a non-denominational church and be an Evangelical. And there is another descriptor that it’s important to talk about here: Calvinist. Evangelicals come in 3 varieties: Calvinists, Non-Calvinists, and Blind-To-Theology. The Bling-to-Theology category simply means this: members at a specific church are not taught using theological terms or categories. This is your, “We just love talking about Jesus” kind of church. Now, the leadership of that church, and the denomination they belong to (if they belong to one) absolutely has a stance as Calvinist or Non-Calvinist, but the pew-sitting people in those churches couldn’t tell you who Calvin was or how he is influencing their lives if you paid them. Their leaders simply side-step the issue by using other language to talk about the same things. So, really, we only have 2 categories.
100 years ago it would be easy to spot a Cavlinist church because they were mostly called either “Presbyterian” or “Reformed.” That hasn’t been the case for a long time. The hipster church on the corner that is called something like, “Engage! Church” could be Calvinist, or they could be Non-Calvinist, you’d have to dig to find out. So what is a Calvinist anyway and why is it important?
John Calvin was born during the Renaissance in France. He’s educated at the University of Paris but right after his University studies he breaks away from the Catholic Church and becomes a Protestant (French Protestants are called Huguenots) but eventually he has to flee to Switzerland because there is a great deal of violence against Protestants in France during that era. Calvin was trained as a lawyer, but he becomes a theologian and you can see the lawyer in him when you read his theology. And Calvin’s biggest theological contribution is the idea that because God is so Supreme, so sufficient, so all-knowing, he already knows who will and won’t be saved (at this time in history that’s the “believe and be baptized” version of being saved, not the “pray the sinner’s prayer version.) And in fact, this knowledge in God is so certain it must only be because he chose who would be saved and who wouldn’t. And, even further, it is entirely possible for a person to want to be saved, but if God has decided they will not be saved, there is no hope for them. The opposite is true too – if God has decided you are to be saved, that will be “irresistible” to you in a way that requires no agency from you. Today, there are various versions of Calvinism, some softer than others, but the basic idea is the same: God chooses who will be saved and who won’t. A person can’t really know for sure that they’re saved until the judgment.
Calvinism still has a huge influence on Christianity today, especially in America. Roughly 60% of Evangelical churches believe some form of Calvinism, and this is part of what fuels the grace-vs-works debate. But it’s not a clear-cut distinction for which Evangelical church follows it and which ones don’t. The opposite position, Armeniniasm believes every person has the possibility of being saved and that the church should work hard to reach as many people as possible. But most churches have some mix in them. I grew up in an Evangelical church where we were jokingly told, “You should spend your waking hours as an Armeniest (meaning you should work hard to spread the gospel) but you sleep like a Calvinist (meaning you should leave it all in God’s hands and be content with whatever he decides.)”
You can see, in these two subsets there are two very different views on what it means to be saved. In one version God pre-decides it for a person, and no agency of theirs is required. In the other version the person has to use their will to decide to follow God, and that creates salvation for them. (I know this doesn’t make any sense, I didn’t make the rules, I’m just telling you.)
So, you can see, even within Evangelicalism there is disagreement about what it means regarding how to get saved. But they all agree on the fact that not being saved means eternity in Hell. How will that time be spent? Opinions vary from, “eternal conscious torment” to “obliteration,” and obliteration is about the best you can hope for. About 15 years ago there was a movement in the Evangelical world to reconsider what Hell is, who goes there, and how that time will be spent, and the “obliteration” option largely became more popular because of that movement. Which means that in their view, if we’re considering a person who has never heard of Jesus Christ, the very best thing we can hope happens after they die is that they simply no longer exist. The alternative is that they are consciously tormented forever.
Talking About Salvation
Normally in these videos I’ve tried to explain the Evangelical position in a way that hopefully makes you say, “yeah, I can see where they’re coming from even if I disagree.” But I gotta be honest, it’s really hard to do that here. The best I can do is to point out to you that their belief system (whether they’re Calvinists or not) is highly self-reinforcing. When I was an Evangelical I completely bought into this system because of the ways it’s self-reinforcing. There is the threat of eternal damnation hanging in the balance after all. But I’ll tell you how it started to crack for me.
I grew up in a family where my mom took us to church and my dad only attended if us kids were having some kind of special event (a special choir performance, etc.) I was taught as a girl that someone like my dad would go immediately to Hell if he died in his unbelief. They softened that for people like me by saying, “life is long and you have no idea when someone’s heart might turn to God.” But it turned out that my dad’s life was not long. He died in a car crash at 44 years old. I was 12, which doesn’t sound very old, but I was a weird kid and interested in theology straight out of the womb. So I had to figure out how to understand that my church said my father was going to be consciously tormented forever without letting it break my faith. And in my little 12-year-old mind I kept a secret thought, “I think my church is wrong about that.” It would take me decades to gain enough theological sophistication to think all the way through that, of course, but that’s where it started. And I can tell you exactly where I was standing when I had it (12th and M street, Modesto CA), because it shook my world. The fruition of that thought wouldn’t come for decades, but I don’t know that I would be here today without it.
I tell you all of that to say this: There are Evangelicals out there who question this system they’re in, even if it is very quietly. And frankly, our church’s conceptualization of the afterlife is far kinder, far more in line with the character of God. In this series we’re talking about the gifts our church has to offer to the larger Christian world, and this is certainly one of those areas. When you talk with Evangelicals about, “what it means to be saved” you will have to fight past a lot of anxiety about the threat of Hell, and worries about getting things wrong, and an entire self-reinforcing system. But you have something to offer here that your friends or family members might end up wanting.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – John 2–4 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Why is there so much of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon anyway?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Luke 4:15-17 “He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read… the scroll of the prophet Isaiah.”
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about something from the New Testament that is actually something from the Old Testament, and what it has to do with the Book of Mormon. We’re talking about Isaiah, and why so much of it is in the Book of Mormon. The reason this topic comes up in this week’s readings is because we see Jesus going to the synagogue and reading from the scroll of Isaiah. Luke 4:15-17 “He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read… the scroll of the prophet Isaiah.”
If you’ve had conversations with Evangelical friends and family before this topic has almost certainly come up: Why is there so much Isaiah in the Book of Mormon? So we’re going to talk about that in a couple ways. First, we’re going to try and understand what Evangelicals mean when they ask that question – it’s a bit different than what we mean when we ask it. Then we’ll look at some answers to their questions and finally look at the unique gift our faith brings to this part of the conversation.
What Are They Asking
You have certainly heard church members ask (complain? bemoan?) about why is there so much Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, but they mean it more in a way that says, “We already get this during Old Testament year, why do we have to spend weeks on it again?” It’s a complaint about repetition, or sometimes a complaint about not understanding the meaning, but that is not what an Evangelical is doing when they ask this question.
I’ll tell you my experience….The first time I read the Book of Mormon I did not know what it was about. I think I’ve mentioned before that I actually thought it was about the Utah period. So I went in not knowing the plot, and certainly not knowing that Isaish would be quoted so much. I was surprised and curious about what it was doing there and how it was functioning inside the larger text. That’s a conversation for another day because what a lot of people reading the Book of Mormon initially think is that this is plagiarism. “Oh look, he just straight copied that out of the Bible!” Now, that’s not what’s happening or how the Isaiah quotes are functioning inside the text, but it is what Evangelicals worry about. Why?
Because what they’re really asking with this question is something like, “Aren’t you just stealing scripture from the Bible to legitimize the Book of Mormon?” And that’s a fair question for them to be asking because it puts them in a dilemma that goes something like this…If I believe the book of Isaiah is scripture, and it’s here in the Book of Mormon then I have to concede that I believe at least parts of the Book of Mormon and I feel uncomfortable saying that because of my loyalty to the Bible.”
In order to understand a bit deeper we need to look at that word, “scripture.” For Latter-day Saints the word “scripture” is a pretty broad word. We refer not only to our 4 standard works as scripture, but we refer to our Patriarchal Blessings as “personal scripture,” we treat some documents that are not officially part of our 4 standards works as if they are scripture such as the Proclamation on the Family, and even further we sometimes treat the words we receive from our leaders during General Conference as scripture. For us, the word, “scripture” has a lot of wiggle room in it. But it is not that way for Evangelicals. In the Evangelical world only the Old and New Testaments are scripture. Some of them have a bit of fuzzy knowledge about the fact that there has been debate over certain books of the Bible which are sometimes included in the canon, and sometimes are not. But all of that is seen as just part of the historical process – today the lines of what is scripture and what isn’t are very clear for them. You can see why they get a little nervous when material from their very carefully defined canon is mixed into our open canon in service of a story that they don’t know, and don’t understand. We’ll leave out of the conversation the fact that the entire Old Testament (not just Isaiah) is included in their Christian Bible and sometimes the Jewish people (whose Bible it was first) have had some things to say about that. But that aside, you can see how this is a really a conversation about open vs. closed canon.
Why does an open canon bother them so much?
Many latter-day Saints have a hard time understanding why an open canon is so troublesome to Evangelicals. “If God has more to say, wouldn’t you want to hear it?” But when you get into conversation with Evangelicals something confusing starts to happen. Evangelicals DO want to hear more from God, they do believe God speaks today, they do believe he has both personal messages for them as well as larger messages for all who call themselves Christians. We very much have that in common with them. During my first read-through of the Book of Mormon I really had to grapple with this. I believed that God can and does speak today, but I felt a bit queasy about it being written down in a book. But when I started to formulate that into a sentence that went something like, “God can speak today, you just can’t write it down in a book,” I knew that wasn’t a solid place to stand. It was surprising for me, but what this question illuminates is the struggle Evangelicals have around authority.
A bit of history is in order here. Evangelicals are a subset of Protestants. Which means, as you will see, that they already have two strikes against the concept of authority. In 1517 Martin Luther nails his 95-Thesis to the church door and Protestant Reformation begins (that’s not a historically accurate version of how it began or why, but it is the popular version and good enough for our purposes here.) The Reformation results in churches that used to be under the authority of Rome, now becoming their own authority. And it was mostly based on country or region. The Dutch Reformation happened very differently than the English Reformation, for example and by the end the Dutch wanted to do things the way they wanted to do them, and the English wanted to do things the way they wanted to do them. Fast-forward about 500 more years and we have many churches doing as they see fit. Around the same time as the Baby Boom is happening there starts to be a feeling in American Christianity that the old ways should be moved on from, and that included religion. Starting in Southern California, and moving across the country churches began with the expressed purpose of not being fuddy-duddys about church but bringing in rock music, allowing for casual dress and a more relaxed service. This group, initially called Neo-Fundamentalists, become the Evangelicals. So, Evangelicals are not just Protestants (protest-tant) and the children of all that entails, they “protest” against their own tradition and advocate for a more relaxed and informal worship setting where no one is going to tell them how to dress or to cut their hair. In this sense they’re double-Protestants, and have a double-dose of suspicion of authority.
Their attitude of being suspicious of authority shows up in their theology too. You’ve certainly heard an Evangelical friend say something like, “We don’t need the priesthood, we have the priesthood of all believers” (this is an issue we will also get to in another video) and that is the ultimate anti-authority statement because they get to have it both ways by saying that authority is not needed, and even if it were we have it in ourselves.
But then a funny thing – a very human thing – happens and it’s a psychological principle that happens to everyone. Let’s take the topic of budgeting and responsible spending. Most people will look at those who spend their money more freely than they do and consider them foolish, maybe even reckless. But they will look at those who are stricter with their money than they themselves are and see them as too tight or too rigid. Somehow the human mind always sets itself as the exact, perfect midpoint. And this phenomenon happens here to Evangelicals – the very ones who we can call “double-Protestants” look at the open canon of Latter-day Saints and say, “No, that’s too far. Our fuddy-duddy grandparents didn’t go far enough, but you go too far. We are the correct midpoint.”
I don’t tell you that so that you can go and argue this reality with them, I tell it to you so that you can understand what is going on with them and why they think the way they do. It’s actually a very human and understandable process. Instead of arguing against it and trying to convince them of why we actually do have the proper authority to introduce new scriptures, or that having an open canon is a good thing, maybe go back to the very thing that prompted this entire discussion. What is Isaiah doing in the Book of Mormon? Or for that matter, consider the verse that inspired this conversation: Why is Jesus quoting from Isaiah?
Here is what Jesus read from Isaiah:
The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
When Jesus takes Isaiah out of its original context and applies it to his day, he does so in a very unique and unexpected way. The poor get good news, the prisoners get free, the blind get sight. To be totally fair, this is what the Evangelical movement was about when it began, or at least what it tried to be about – making room for all kinds of people in the church. The sections of Isaiah that are in the Book of Mormon are there to teach us about covenant keeping and that God keeps his side of the deal, and that even when we keep messing up there is always a path back to God. When your Evangelical friend asks you why there is so much of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon at least part of what they’re asking is: Do you really have the authority to add Isaiah to your book? But it’s the same pattern and purpose that they are longing for in their churches too – that there is room for everyone, that it doesn’t matter what has happened in your life, there is always a path back to God. They put a huge emphasis on the Gospel being for everyone, no matter what. And by including the sections of Isaiah that we do into the Book of Mormon, we are also saying that God has a path for us back to him, and that when we make covenants with God he will always help us keep them. In that sense, we want the same things….and if anything our unique contribution here is that the path back to God is not some ethereal path you have to figure out for yourself. It’s defined well and there is an entire church to support you on that path.
I hope you enjoyed this episode, join us again next week when we look at more questions about the New Testament.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 4; Luke 4–5 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Wait. You Don’t Believe in the Trinity?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Mark 1:10-11 “And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. I’m Jennifer Roach and today we’re looking at a popular question you might get from your Evangelical friends or family members: Why don’t you believe in the Trinity? As you know we’re following the Come Follow Me readings in the New Testament this year and this week’s reading brings up the question in Mark 1:11 because we have Jesus being baptized, the voice of God calling down from Heaven, and the Spirit appearing in the form of a dove. So it’s understandable that our friends get confused on this issue. Here we are reading Mark 1, but denying the Trinity. What gives?
Understanding the Question
As always we are first going to try to understand where an Evangelical is coming from with this question. It comes up a lot, and it certainly is a big deal to them and I want to help you understand why so you can see where we have commonality, and where we can offer a unique gift to the rest of Christianity with our perspective.
So, why is the Trinity such a big deal? But the word “trinity” is not found in the Bible, nor are the Greek or Hebrew equivalents. Most Latter-day Saints have some knowledge that this idea came from the church councils that formed the creeds, and that’s a good start. But instead of looking at this history of how the Trinity developed, I want to look at the modern understanding of it by today’s Evangelicals. (We will talk about Creeds in a later episode, but that needs a full episode all to itself.) At the heart of it, their concerns are about getting the nature of God correct. That’s a commendable thing. On that note, we want the same thing that they do.
It’s a really important question and Evangelicals will often think of this in terms of the nature of God being a foundational piece that will throw everything else off if it is gotten wrong. I attended an Evangelical Divinity School for my Masters in Divinity and one our professors was found of saying, “Every conversation is about the nature of God – it just looks like it’s about finance or fashion or pizza from the outside.” And if you’re not a person who lives in your head, maybe that’s taking it too far, but there is some truth to it. So we give them respect for caring about who God is and what He’s like. And if you have Evangelical friends who are willing to talk with you about the nature of God, well you are very lucky – what better conversation is there to have?
Today’s Evangelical Belief in the Trinity
Ironically, Evangelicals often don’t understand this issue any better than Latter-day Saints do. In 2018 two Christian ministries – Ligonier Ministries which focuses on doctrinal competence and LifeWay Publishers which is the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention – did a survey of Evangelicals to assess their understanding of the Trinity. What they did was ask participants to affirm certain statements about the Trinity, but the trick was that each statement was an official heresy, not a true belief about the Trinity. On average they affirmed 3 out of 8 heretical statements, earning them a failing 62.5%.
Although to be completely fair, in the past many Evangelicals would have used a handful of popular analogies to describe the nature of the Trinity such as, “It’s like water, steam, ice – all three are made of the same stuff.” Or, “It’s like an actor who wears three different masks.” Evangelicals themselves have mostly debunked these and gotten away from their usage, which is a good thing. Each of those analogies really better represents a rejected heresy about the Trinity than the actual concept itself. You’ll certainly still hear these analogies, but far less than in decades past. However the thinking behind them persists, as evidenced by the previously mentioned survey.
And in more thoughtful corners of the Evangelical world they’ve made a move to talking about the mystery of the Trinity, and shying away from the specifics of it. Instead of hearing, “The Trinity is like a three-leaf clover,” you are far more likely to hear, “The Trinity is a great mystery where the members of the Trinity are in perfect communion with each other because they are made from the same substance as each other, and yet they have full independence to act as themselves without that ever disrupting the unity of the group.” And I’ll be honest, when I was an Evangelical the appeal to mystery worked for me because it appeals to the Trinity as a community of whose love overflows outward to humanity. And here’s where it gets really interesting for Latter-day Saints.
Jürgen Moltmann
You may have never heard of Jürgen Moltmann, and your Evangelical friends or family members probably have never heard of him either – but their pastors absolutely have, the academics who write thoughtful books for them have, and the professors who teach in Divinity Schools absolutely have. Why is Moltmann important?
Moltmann was born in 1926 in Hamburg, Germany. As of this writing he is still alive at 96 years old. You can guess by his birth year and home country that he has saw the horrors of World War 2 and the rise of authoritarianism. And it led him to think about the problems that happen in Christianity when we have a “hyper sovereign” view of God in the Trinity. That sentence alone has way too much to unpack for a video like this so let’s just leave it at saying he started to see the holes in the 3-in1-1-in-3 model of the Trinity. Moltmann develops an idea about the Trinity that he calls, “The Social Trinity,” which basically means he sees the Trinity as a cooperation or society of Divine persons, each separate from each other, but united to their core in purpose and will. Starting to sound familiar?
Before you get too excited, don’t go out and sit by your mailbox waiting for an invitation for Moltmann’s baptism into our church. Ultimately what Moltmann does with that idea of the Trinity is to demonstrate the dangers of forcing unity without free will under a supreme dictator. He was born in Germany in 1926 afterall. However, what Moltmann has done is introduce the idea of a Social Trinity that sounds very similar to our concept of the Godhead. They are not identical, and if we had more time I could show you the layers of difference, but for now it is interesting to note that the conversation around the Trinity is changing. No longer will you only hear, “The Trinity is like an egg made of a yoke, the white and the shell.” The influence of Moltmann has filtered into many corners of the Evangelical world and they are having better conversations about the Trinity because of him. And it’s not just him, the theologians who come after him (and are teaching today’s pastors) like Miroslav Volf, a Croatian theologian who writes about the intersection of theology and public policy. Volf is extremely influential on pastors who have been trained in the last 20 years. Will the average pew-sitting person know his name? Probably not. But their pastor does and has likely been influenced by his ideas about the Social Trinity.
So What?
I tell you all of this about Moltmann and Volf to say that things are changing in the Evangelical conversation about the Trinity. And while they themselves are still trying to reign in heresies about the Trinity, the conversation is also opening up. Your Evangelical friend or family member is very likely to at least be introduced to the idea of the Trinity as a community of Divine beings of love whose goodness flows outward to humanity. And that’s a conversation that would be very interesting to have.
Matter Matters
The most unique contribution that our faith makes to the conversation about the nature of God is that God the Father has a body. You may have heard that statement so many times in your life that it has no meaning to you and it’s hard for you to understand the implications of God being only a Spirit. Let me draw out some meaning for you.
In the traditional conception of God the Father he is seen as a spirit who has no body. Jesus gets a human body for a time while he lives on Earth, but that is God’s only experience of what it’s like to inhabit matter. And when God is only Spirit it is easy to only relate to him in our hearts and minds, not our bodies. This is the heresy of Gnosticism where it becomes really important to think the right things with your mind, but not very important to do the right things with your body. As long as you have correct beliefs, well you can do whatever you want with your body. The Spiritual matters, the physical doesn’t. Latter-day Saint beliefs turn that on its head in a profound way when we say that God the Father has a physical body. Other corners of Christianity hint at this in various ways by saying that God inhabits the Eucharist (either symbolically as Protestants say, or literally as Catholics say) or other symbols of faith. But Latter-day Saints are not saying God symbolically inhabits matter, we are saying that He is made of matter. So if God the Father is made of matter, then simply giving intellectual assent to concepts about faith can never be enough. Our beliefs matter, but our physical acts matter too. We’ll revisit this idea in a future video when we talk about the tension between works (things you do in the physical world) and grace (which exists in the spiritual or intellectual world alone).
In Conclusion
My sense is that historically conversations between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals has been rough when it comes to talking about the nature of God. But never before has such a good foundation been laid in Evangelicalism itself to talk about the concept of the Godhead and how we see that working. You might be very surprised to find yourself on a similar page as an Evangelical friend on this topic, and even more surprised that our unique contribution of God the Father inhabiting physical matter is intriguing and helpful.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 3; Mark 1; Luke 3 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Why did Joseph Smith change the meaning to some verses in the Bible?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
This week we come to a very important verse in scripture. John 1:1 traditionally translated, “In the beginning was the word.” You’ll find it that way in almost every translation. It’s often the first verse beginning Greek students learn, “Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος” and straight away they are introduced to the complexities of translating. The text literally says, “In the beginning was the logos.” We look at that verse now, with the benefit of centuries of translation on our side and know “logos” means Jesus in some sense. Translators, theologians and scholars have been settled on this for a very long time. So it’s a fair question to ask, “Why did Joseph Smith step out of the established translation on this verse?” Now, your Evangelical friends or family members may not be able to point to this specific verse and see the differences, but if you’re in conversation with them about the New Testament the issue of Joseph’s variations in translation are going to come up eventually. Let’s look at how Joseph translated the same verse:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God. (JST)
There’s a lot going on here and we’re going to break it down into pieces. First we’ll talk about what your Evangelical friends think when they hear that different translation and why they hear it that way. And then we’ll talk about what Joseph is doing in this translation and how it opens up meaning even your Evangelical friends might appreciate.
First, what do Evangelicals hear when they hear that kind of translation?
There are many verses in the Bible that have translation variations and most Evangelicals are completely comfortable with this. They understand that the many different translations of the Bible are trying to do different things. For example, they understand that a translation like The Message (which isn’t actually a translation, it’s a paraphrase) is trying to do something radically different than a translation like the English Standard Version (ESV). The Message is attempting to put the Bible’s message into fresh contemporary language so that the modern reader can hear it and understand it in their own context. The language is meant to sound good on your ears. Meanwhile the ESV is trying to give as close to a word-for-word translation as possible even if it has to mean sacrificing the lyrical sound of a passage. So when they hear a different translation they’re not reacting to the fact that differences have been brought in. They’re used to that.
The thing that is bothersome for them is that they doubt Joseph’s abilities as a translator and they use his “wrong” translation of John 1:1 as proof that if he couldn’t even translate the Bible correctly, what chance did he have of translating the Golden Plates correctly?
The Golden Plates and the Bible
One of the things your Evangelical friend might be wondering about is how you can trust the Book of Mormon to be true when we have no access to the Golden Plates to check Joseph’s translation work? The interesting assumption behind that question is that we have originals of the Bible to check against. Many people (Evangelicals and others) have either seen pictures of old manuscripts, or perhaps they’ve seen one in person such as the Codex Sinaiticus which is on public display at the British Library in London. Because these manuscripts are very old many people assume they are the actual documents that the original writers literally wrote. Sinaiticus is considered the oldest complete manuscript – but even it is only dated back to the 4th-century. It’s not like we can do a direct comparison to the Biblical text either. The originals simply do not exist. Now, there is a science called “textual criticism” which identifies and tracks the variations in the text. This process is very good at identifying exactly where changes happened, which manuscripts got copied with which changes and more. But, it’s not 100% accurate, and has been wrong in the past. So we’re still in a situation where the translation of the Bible and the translation of the Book of Mormon are in pretty similar boats.
Still, Evangelicals feel nervous about a novel translation of John 1:1 (or any of Josephs’s other novel translations) because no other translations are in agreement with what he’s doing. They hear it as a subtle way to smuggle “incorrect meaning” into the scriptures. But is that what’s happening here?
What Does Joseph See in John 1:1?
So, if you remember, here is what Joseph is doing in the very first part of the verse, instead of, “In the beginning was the word,” or ““Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,” we get, “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son.” Joseph is swapping out, “the word” for, “the gospel preached through the Son.” And the question becomes, what is he doing here and why?
What is “Logos”?
Most Latter-day Saints are not particularly interested in philosophy, and for understandable reasons. But in order to get at some important content here I want to glance in the direction of philosophy for just a moment because it is the best way to understand what this “logos” actually means.
Logos is a huge concept in Greek philosophy. It doesn’t have an exact translation in English. You have probably been taught, “it means Jesus” and that’s true insofar as the concept points to Jesus, but the word itself doesn’t mean, “Jesus.” The word means something close to, “the metaphysics that are universal law.” One Greek philosopher, Heraclitus said, “the world is animated and kept in order by fire, and this fire is the Logos.” In his example it is the thing that makes everything else work. Plato and Aristotle understood logos as something like, “the very principles of logic.” The Stoic philosophers said logos was the vitalizing force guiding the universe. Jumping forward many centuries we see the philosopher Hegel saying that logos is the “absolute concept” of the universe.
So we have the literal Greek text saying, “in the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and the logos was God.” Our English translations almost universally translate “logos” as “word” and what they’re trying to do there is say something like, “In the beginning the ‘logic that makes all logic make sense” was with God…” Or, “In the beginning the, ‘story that ties together all the stories’ was with God.” Or even, “In the beginning the “thing that makes everything work” was with God.” But what we humans do is simplify things. We no longer hear, “in the beginning was the word” and understand it to mean all of these things, we just hear, “the word” and plug in, “Jesus.” Which isn’t untrue necessarily, but it certainly misses a lot of meaning.
So when Joseph translates, “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son,” he is not mistranslating, he is bringing in a layer of meaning that is largely lost to the modern reader. I read this as Joseph saying, “In the beginning God’s plan to animate this whole world was the Gospel, and it was Jesus who was going to carry that Gospel out.” Instead of Greek philosophy’s, “The universe is animated through fire.” We get, “The world is animated through the Gospel plan.” And now all of a sudden it has a whole new depth of meaning and the question of, “Why did Joseph change the Bible when no one else translates it that way?” has a far easier answer.
Insofar as it is Translated Correctly
You might be tempted to say that John 1:1 clearly is a spot of the Bible that has not been translated correctly, that Joseph got it right and everyone else got it wrong. This is tricky ground and I want to explain why.
Technically, “in the beginning was the word” is a correct translation in that it is a literal translation of the Greek sentence that is on the page. The translation is fine. What we see happening in Joseph’s translation is that he is opening up a new layer of meaning in an artistic way that is not identical to the literal translation. Your Evangelical friends might object to this by saying that it is taking too many liberties and that translation should be as close to a word-for-word translation as possible. However, at the same time, Evangelicals love The Message version of the Bible which renders John 1:1 like this, “The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God.” Now, that is not what is on the page in Greek. It is a translation which is bringing out some nuance that is not there in the traditional translation. An interesting thing for Evangelicals to grapple with is, “Why is it okay for The Message to bring out a layer of meaning, but it’s not okay for Joseph Smith to do so?”
Translations
This also brings up the issue of various Bible translations. Our leaders have said that we are to use the King James version in public worship, and for some very good reasons. But your Evangelical friends might think you crazy for going along with it because the language is sometimes hard to understand. On the other side, sometimes Latter-day Saints are skeptical of the variety of translations. Although today we’ve seen that John 1:1 gets translated the same way almost across the board, that isn’t true for many verses and there can be wildly different translations. Latter-day Saints can have the same worry about non-KJV translations that Evangelicals have about the Joseph Smith translation – that they’re bringing in corrupted meaning or have been mistranslated. Let me give you a brief run-down on other translations that might be helpful to you to add alongside your KJV translations.
As we’ve already alluded to in today there are a few different philosophies behind Bible translations, as well as a few different categories of source material. We’ll talk about source material first. Remember, we don’t have any originals of the Bible. We have manuscripts and fragments. Between the time of Christ and the invention of the printing press we have almost 6,000 manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. Most of them are fragments, some fragments are as small as a business card, others are almost complete books, and no two are identical. So Bible translators have to make some choices about which manuscripts and fragments they are going to use as source material to translate from. You can read in the preface of each Bible about which manuscripts are their source material; different versions use different source material for different reasons. That’s an interesting thing to know, but unless you are an academic it’s not going to be super helpful to you. What is helpful is that translator’s philosophy, something they will also tell you about in the preface. There are 3 basic philosophies. 1)Word-for-word 2) Thought-for-thought 3) Paraphrase into modern language.
First, you should know that the word-for-word translations are not actually translating word-for-word. No such thing is possible. The Hebrew of the Old Testament lacks a grammatical structure that English speakers rely on. In English (and any other modern language) we can break down a sentence into its parts of speech and understand how each one functions. Hebrew doesn’t let you do that, the structure is just not there so the translators have to introduce it into the English version – if they didn’t the whole thing would be unintelligible to you. It’s true to a lesser degree for Greek as well. So what the word-for-word translators are doing is trying to get as close to that as possible – even when they have to sacrifice readability to do so. Translations that fall into this category include the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible and the Revised Standard Version.
In contrast the thought-for-thought translators are trying to take a thought from the source material and stay true to that thought as they bring it into English. They’re less concerned about staying as close to the words as possible and more concerned with actually getting the meaning across. These translations sound better to our ears and are generally more understandable, but they sacrifice staying close to the source material. Translations that fall in this category are the New International Version or the New American Bible, among others.
The final category of translation are Bibles that are not actually considered real translations because the source material was not the Greek and Hebrew from an ancient manuscript. Their source material is a Bible previously translated into English. They take the English sentence and make it sound modern or fresh. These are called paraphrases and while they’re not a great choice for serious study, they can be a good choice for devotional reading. The Message and The Living Bible, as well as others, fall in this category.
Conclusion
When the issue of translations comes up with your Evangelical friends or family it can feel overwhelming and you might feel hesitant to talk about it for fear of lack of knowledge. But as you can see in John 1:1, Joseph Smith was brining out meaning in the text the same way other Bible translators do today. And your friends outside of our church might even enjoy hearing about what Joseph was doing in that text.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – John 1 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Why are temples still needed?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Luke 2:22, 27
And when the days of her (Mary’s) purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him (baby Jesus) to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord…And he (Simeon) came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law.
Again we will be looking at a section of scripture in the Come Follow Me readings that corresponds to a common question Evangelicals have about our faith. Last time we talked about how an Evangelical’s value of showing loyalty to Christ makes them suspicious of some of our claims. This week we’re going to talk about the temple – why Evangelicals are skeptical of the need of a temple, why they think that way, and some of the ways you can have better conversations with them that lead to a natural but confident sharing of your testimony.
What Do Evangelicals Understand About Temples?
Many Evangelicals actually have a keen interest in learning about the temple as it is portrayed in the Old Testament. They understand much of the symbolism and value what God was trying to teach through those symbols. They also have a knowledge of how the temple functioned in the New Testament and what role it plays in the story of Jesus. You might find your Evangelical friends or family an interesting source of conversation about the temple as it is talked about in the Bible. Another area of commonality with them is that they believe the temple will be restored in Jerusalem at some future point which is related to the End Times. All of these are great jumping off places for a conversation about temples.
Where Temples Get Uncomfortable for Evangelicals
Despite our commonalities in talking about temples in the Bible, Evangelicals would start to get nervous when we talk about modern-day temples. Here is an example: when I was a girl I lived in California not far from the Oakland Temple. If you’ve ever seen the Oakland Temple you know it sits high up on a hill overlooking the entire Bay Area of San Francisco. It’s illuminated at night and very hard to miss. We were taught by our leaders that we should avert our eyes away from the temple and not even look at it – despite it being the brightest thing on the hill – because, “strange and evil things happen inside of those temples.” Clearly this was a misguided statement, but it represents the kind of fear Evangelicals have when it comes to our temples. But when you sit down to have a conversation with them about the temple it often boils down to one real question: Didn’t Jesus do away with the temple?
Did Jesus do away with temples?
I’m going to try to explain what most Evangelicals would say about why temples are no longer needed – and why they say it. If you remember back to our first video in this series, one of the dynamics at play here is that they are trying very hard to show proper loyalty and respect to Jesus Christ. Assuming they have some other motive is going to make a conversation like this harder, not easier. So, assuming their good motives we look at why talk about temples makes them so nervous.
First, you have to understand that Evangelicals prioritize the work and words of Jesus. Despite the numerous times in the Old Testament that the temple is talked about in ways that they can learn from, the ultimate temple story is when the temple veil rips in half during the crucifixion. Matthew 27:51, “At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split.” The temple veil referred to here is of course the veil that separates the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple. In Old Testament days the Holy of Holies was only entered 1 time per year and only by a very special priest and there were very strict rules around this. Normal people certainly didn’t have access to the Holy of Holies at any point during their lives. Evangelicals interpret this verse as if it’s saying that the entire temple is unneeded. They would say something like, “If the veil is ripped, then there is no need to protect the Holy of Holies, anyone can have the special direct access to God that was allowed in that place.” While we would disagree with that interpretation there is something to admire in it. Evangelicals are trying to make it so that every person has as much access to God as they want, and all it takes is a turn of the heart to be in full communion with God. They would say that because of Jesus’ sacrifice we humans no longer need anyone to help us connect with God. And in theory, we wouldn’t disagree with that, right? We too believe that every human can choose to pray inside the quietness of their own mind and that God will listen.
The differences come when Evangelicals start to make practical applications of this theology. Because the temple veil was ripped in two, there is now no barrier between us and God. and therefore it is not necessary to go to a temple to feel God’s presence, we can access it anytime from anywhere through the Spirit. In their view temples are unneeded simply because no physical space can cause a person to have, or not have, the Spirit. Again, in theory we wouldn’t disagree, but they use this to say that therefore temples are not needed. They see us as putting up a barrier to people who want to be closer to God – when Jesus’ work on the cross took that barrier down. Their hearts are certainly in the right place.
Temple Worship in the New Testament
Even though there is a certain logic to this claim, and a good motive behind it, it doesn’t really pan out . If the New Testament ended immediately after Jesus’ resurrection, they might have a more convincing claim. However, we have a lot of information about what a life of faith looked like in the post-resurrection world. And that information includes temple worship. Let me show you what I mean.
In Acts 22 we get a fascinating story from the Apostle Paul. First he retells the details of his conversion (we converts love to do this!) and after he’s done he goes on to tell a less well-known story. He tells of visiting the temple in Jerusalem and says that while he was praying in the temple he was, as the King James version says, in a trance. What exactly does that mean? We don’t totally know but Paul tells us that God told him to leave Jerusalem because the people there were not going to receive what he had to say, and that he should go preach to the Gentiles.
For most Latter-day Saints there is nothing at all odd about a story where someone goes to the temple and God communicates to them. If you don’t have a story like that of your own, you certainly know someone who does. Saying, “It’s easier to hear God speak in the temple sometimes,” would not be a controversial statement for a Latter-day Saint to make. But that statement is hard for Evangelicals because they hear us talk about temples and think we’re trying to make it harder to hear God, not easier. At this point in the conversation your Evangelical friend or family member might ask, “Well, then why are there so many rules about who can go in the temple and who can’t? Don’t you want everyone to hear from God?” Yes, we do want everyone to hear from God, and we believe that living the kind of life that makes you temple worthy gives you the very best chance at hearing from him. And that having a physical place to go where it’s quiet and everyone is focused on God also gives you a better chance. It’s not that we want to keep people out per se, it’s that we want to help people construct lives where they regularly hear from God. The requirements for temple entry are an aid toward being able to hear from God, not a deterrent from it. Can God speak to a person anywhere? Of course. He spoke to Saul, before he became Paul, out on the side of the road. But that same Paul also recognized the value of going to the temple where he could pray and hear from God. It’s taken us to this point to make the connection, but the reality here is Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints all desperately want the same thing – a connection with the Divine. We have some disagreements on how to best facilitate such a connection, but the desire is the same. They’re worried that we’re trying to keep people away from God, but it’s an unfounded fear.
Selective Reading
One of the things you might be starting to notice, even here in Video #2, is that many of the questions that come up for Evangelicals about our faith are born out of focusing on a different set of Bible verses than we would focus on. Set aside the fact that we have additional scriptures that they don’t have, even if we’re just looking at the Biblical text you can see that we Latter-day Saints focus on different texts, and different details in the text. And for many of the issues we’ll cover in this series one doesn’t even have to look beyond the Biblical text to have a good conversation about our difference. How can this be? If Evangelicals are sincere seekers of God, how is it that we see things so differently, even when we’re just looking at the Bible? Yes, modern revelation is part of it. We have information they don’t have. But perhaps there is something else going on too. The Bible is a really big book, with a lot of details that are odd to our ears. And most people condense the stories down into memorable parts, they attach a spiritual lesson to it, and sort of put it in the “done” column. They stop thinking about what a passage could possibly mean because they think they have it figured out. It’s not just Evangelicals that do this – all humans do this when trying to understand large amounts of information, we have to develop a system of shorthand in order to manage it all. We all do some degree of selective reading. And it really can take an act of humility to take a text and look at it again with fresh eyes.
When I was an Evangelical I never would have picked up the detail about Paul having a vision/trance in the temple. It’s not that I disbelieved it, I just wouldn’t have noticed it because it didn’t fit into the other bits of knowledge I was already trying to build on. I had no real place to put that information because my preconceived idea was already that temples weren’t important. As members of the church sometimes I think we shy away from a very careful reading of the Bible, not out of laziness or disinterest, but because we already have a feast of scripture that is far more explicit about these things in our modern-day scriptures. Understandable enough. But after listening to all of this you can see how having a conversation with a friend who is not of our faith about the Bible actually can lead you to some parts of scripture that perhaps they overlooked – not in a fighting or contentious kind of way, but in a way that reads closely and might see how the pieces are put together differently. I hope that as you are going through the New Testament this year you are doing a close and careful reading of the text – not just assuming that you already know what it says, but with a mind open to the Spirit to see the important details. You might be surprised at how much they bolster your faith and your confidence in talking about your testimony.
Join us next week as we look at another question that comes up in the readings. If you have a specific question that you are hoping will get addressed please contact FAIR directly or email me at jroach@fairlatterdaysaints.org
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 2; Luke 2 appeared first on FAIR.
Evangelical Questions: Is Jesus God?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC
Matthew 1:21
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Introduction
So, right off the bat we have an interesting point of conversation that could come up with your Evangelical friends: Who do you believe Jesus is?
This is a really important question in the Evangelical world and a lot hinges on this for them. They’re generally taught, “Get this answer wrong, and you get everything wrong.” And there is a lot to respect in their thinking here. If Jesus were just another good teacher, or just trying to help people understand the mortality of being kind to each other, then we miss a lot of what’s happening in this part of God’s plan.
And one of the things you’re going to see come up in this series over and over is that sometimes we use the same words to describe different things. Evangelicals are aware of this too and they’re nervous that they’re going to almost get tricked into believing something about Jesus that turns out not to be true. One of their greatest desires and values is to show loyalty and respect to Jesus Christ. So they might approach a conversation with you about Jesus nervously. And to be honest, that’s an admirable character trait – this is one of the ways they show their faithfulness to Christ. So in a conversation with an Evangelical friend about Christ they’re going to feel really protective of him. Also admirable.
Is Jesus a Child of God?
The thing that makes talking about Jesus with an Evangelical difficult is that they think they know what members of the church REALLY think about Jesus, and their defense mechanisms naturally kick in – they feel a lot of loyalty to Christ. Here’s some examples of things I was taught as an Evangelical, and things I used to actually think…
- That Jesus is a literal Spirit Child of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
If you’re a member of the church, that probably doesn’t sound very odd in your ears. “Of course Jesus is a Spirit Child of God – we all are!” Let me tell you how Evangelicals hear that:
“To say Jesus is a literal spirit child of God is to say that he is less than God, he was created at a point in time and therefore is not eternal. He can never be really considered God.”
Now, as members of the church that probably sounds odd to you and you might be asking, “Don’t Evangelicals say that Jesus is the Son of God?” Yes, they do. But they mean something different by it and when we say that he is a spirit child born of Heavenly Father they get uncomfortable because somehow that diminishes him. Remember, they’re not necessarily trying to fight against Truth, when they say that, they’re trying to be loyal to Jesus and they feel protective of his place. Its the “literal” child of God that makes them nervous. This is probably very confusing to you because in our church we belive EVERYONE is a literal spirit child of God, including Jesus. Let’s explore that…
Evangelicals do believe in being a child of God, but let me tell you what they mean by it….
To the evangelical God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit exist as a special species of beings called God (singular) and no one else will ever join that species. Angels and demons (to the degree that they believe in them) are a separate species. They have no information on how that species began or if any more beings can be added to it. They just know it is a different species from God, and from humans. Humans are a third species. New humans are created at the moment of their conception and at that moment God creates a new spirit to put into them. Even though humans must collaborate with God in the creation of babies, all humans are a species all unto themselves with a substance entirely different from what either God or angels are made from. A human has about as much chance to become an angel as a dog does to become a cat. And in their thinking, the idea that a human could transcend their species to become like God is impossible.
What Species is Jesus? What Species are you?
So when an Evangelical says, “I am a child of God” – and they do say that – what do they mean? HOW are they children of God if they are an entirely different species? Isn’t that like saying a kitten is a puppy? Here is what they mean:
I’ll quote the NIV for clarity…
Gal 4:4-5
4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
Now, what they’re saying that verse says – that we are some other species and God adopts us into his family as there would be no other way for us to be considered his family – is not true. If you read the entire context of that paragraph of scripture you see it is talking about an underage heir who must live under some restrictions – and then when the time comes that heir becomes the master and functions as such. This is not a paragraph about cross-species adoption. But they hear that word “adoption” and combine it with their preconceived idea that God is a different species than us, so that when they say, “I am a child of God” they mean, “I was not God’s child, but He has graciously adopted me into His family, even though I don’t deserve the title.”
So, back to our original question, “I thought you didn’t believe Jesus is God?” you can now see what they mean by that. They mean: Because you say Jesus was born as a spirit child of God He can’t be equal to God but is somehow adopted in like we humans are.”
The question has been overwhelmingly answered right on the Church’s website. We believe in the Jesus of the Bible, just like our EV friends and neighbors do. We believe Jesus is the only begotten son of God, born in the flesh and lived among us, He suffered, died, was burried, and rose again. This article from the Church details it much more specifically. What Latter-day Saints Believe About Jesus Christ (churchofjesuschrist.org)
Differences
However, let’s not collapse all our differences. There are things we believe about Jesus that are different from Evangelicals. Because their view of Jesus is shaped through the Creeds, and ours is not, we see some things differently.
You can confidently say, “Yes, we believe these same things about Jesus, but here are the areas where we slightly differ…” And from my perspective, as a former Evangelical, this is one of the best spots for inspired conversation. So what are the actual differences?
God Revealed
In our church we believe that God continues to reveal himself, even now in our day. This can make Evangeliclas a little nervous because they are used to being taught that matters about God have been settled, and they can find those settled answers in the Bible and in the Creeds. They believe they’ve captured the right answers and now have them corralled into a fenced yard and if they keep those answers in, and all other answers out, they will be safe. It’s an understandable desire. This is where I was when I was first learning about the church. The idea that God could reveal more information about himself felt like a trick and my loyalty reflex kicked in. But as I came to understand that the new information God had revealed about himself was good and helpful, I began to trust it more.
When Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ visit Joseph Smith for the First Vision we see Joseph learning some things. It takes him a bit to put the pieces together, but once he does he comes to understand that Heavenly Father is material and all that implies – and what it implies is very good, more on that in another video.
The Evangelicals aren’t rejecting new information because they have particularly hard hearts or are not open to God. They reject this because they’re skeptical – they’ve been taught to be skeptical – out of loyalty. But when you can show a Evangelical friend that God revealed really means something good, they might get curious.
Jesus in the Book of Mormon
Before I read the Book of Mormon for the first time I really didn’t know what it was about. I knew the cultural references to it, and understood the basics of the story of Joseph and the gold plates. But I actually thought, as embarrassing as this is to admit, that it was about the early Utah period. So it will come as no surprise to you that I didn’t have any idea how much of Jesus was in the Book of Mormon. One of my earliest reactions was being surprised by how much knowledge they have. Part of me was skeptical that this was a heavily constructed history but I decided to judge the content of the book on its truths, leaving aside the questions about where it came from at first. When Jesus is mentioned in the Book of Mormon I decided that I would ask myself if what was being taught was true or not. And it didn’t take me very long to feel comfortable with the truths I found.
I say all of that to say this: When you’re talking with an Evangelical friend about our beliefs about Jesus don’t be too alarmed when they’re skeptical of how the Book of Mormon came to be. They don’t have to have a firm testimony of that before they can gain truth from it. And my experience with Evangelicals is that they welcome truth when they find it – as long as they can get over their skepticism. If you’re talking with your EV friend and they’re skeptical of how the Book of Mormon came to be, that’s okay. Talking about Jesus as revealed in the Book of Mormon might be a more faith-producing place to start anyway.
Conclusion
So, if the question is, “I thought you didn’t believe Jesus is God,” you can confidently assure your friend that yes, we believe Jesus is God and affirm what the New Testament teaches us about Him. You and your friend are on the same page there. And, as the Spirit leads, you might be able to tell them something good about the additional revelation we have received.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 1; Luke 1 appeared first on FAIR.
Jennifer Roach introduces this new video series that will follow our Come, Follow Me study of the New Testament in 2023.
Each week we’ll talk a look at the CFM readings in the New Testament with a specific eye looking for places where there is either a resonance or a dissonance with what the average Evangelical Christian in the US believes. And each week we’ll look at a specific question an Evangelical might ask if they were in conversation with you about this text.
The idea isn’t to give you ammunition to shoot down your Evangelical friends in debate, but to try to better understand their questions and provide an informed and faithful answer.
We have so much in common with our EV friends and neighbors, but sometimes members of the church get a little shy of talking about scripture because the whole thing can end up in a muddle. This series will give some framework for understanding how they hear the same passage and how to answer questions that might come up.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Introduction appeared first on FAIR.
Christmas Message, Christmas Prophets, Christmas Joyby David W. Smith
Jerusalem, 600 BC
The year is approximately 600 BC. The place is Jerusalem. It has been about 20 years since a major religious reform has changed how people worshiped. The prophet Jeremiah has been warning the people of Jerusalem that they need to repent or else watch as their city is destroyed and they are taken into captivity. Many other prophets echo his message. Now, after preaching for over 20 years, he is in prison.
In this tumultuous time, a man sees an amazing vision. He sees a great person come down out of heaven, shining more brightly than the sun. He sees twelve others follow him, shining brighter than the stars. The great person comes to him, gives him a book, and asks him to read. He then goes out to share with the people of Jerusalem what he saw and heard. He joins the other prophets in warning the people of their coming doom. He adds a message of hope: because of what he saw and read, he knows that a Messiah will come and redeem the world.
The people of Jerusalem are so upset at this message that they try to kill him. But through the Lord’s mercies, he escapes into the wilderness with his family.[1]
Visions in the Wilderness
While in the wilderness, he shares more with his family about this great message of joy. He shares a vision he had about a tree with fruit that “was desirable to make one happy.” He ate this fruit and was filled “with exceedingly great joy” (1 Nephi 8:10, 12). After sharing this dream, he teaches more about the Messiah who will come. He says that in 600 years this Messiah will come among the Jews and be the Savior of the world. “He also spake concerning the prophets, how a great number had testified of these things, concerning this Messiah, of whom he had spoken, or this Redeemer of the world. Wherefore, all mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer” (1 Nephi 10:4). He teaches that this Messiah will be slain by the Jews and then will rise again.
One of this man’s sons wants to know more, so the son diligently seeks for revelation from God. The Lord blesses the son with a vision, guided by an angel. In this vision he sees the tree his father saw and the fruit his father ate. He also sees his old home, Jerusalem. He sees other cities, including Nazareth, a city north of Jerusalem. “In the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white. . . . And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father” (1 Nephi 11:13, 20–21).
At this point—as this young man is seeing this special child in the arms of his mother—the angel asks, “Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?” The young man responds, “Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things. And [the angel] spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul” (1 Nephi 11:22–23).
The young man then sees this child become a man who goes about ministering and healing, with twelve others following him. The young man sees the man taken, judged, and slain for the sins of the world. After that, he sees people fighting against the twelve who were with the Messiah. He sees these people fall, and the angel warns: “Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (1 Nephi 11:34–36).
Glad Tidings of Great Joy
This young man and his family continued their journey in the wilderness. Eventually they came to the seashore, built a boat, and sailed across the sea to a new land. And the young man continued to teach the message of the Messiah using scripture and his own visions. He “did read unto [his people] that which was written by the prophet Isaiah” in order to “more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer.” He did this “that ye may have hope as well as your brethren from whom ye have been broken off” (1 Nephi 19:23–24). One of Isaiah’s prophesies was of the joy to come through the publishing of this message: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation” (Isaiah 52:7).
Centuries after this young man, another prophet heard these good tidings from an angel and was told to share these tidings with the people. Said the angel:
Behold, I am come to declare unto you the glad tidings of great joy. For the Lord . . . hath sent me to declare unto thee that thou mayest rejoice; and that thou mayest declare unto thy people, that they may also be filled with joy. For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth . . . shall come down from heaven among the children of men . . . And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name. (Mosiah 3:3–9)
The birth of Jesus Christ fulfilled this prophecy. The night Jesus was born, there were shepherds “keeping watch over their flock over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them . . . And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:8–11).
This was the message of the prophets from the beginning. Starting with Adam and Eve, “Old Testament patriarchs, prophets, poets, and people looked forward to better days, filled with hope for renewal and deliverance by the Messiah. . . . Through it all, prophets reminded them that a Messiah, a Deliverer would come ‘to proclaim liberty to the captives’ (Isaiah 61:1).”[2] As Isaiah prophesied, this Messiah would “comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning” (Isaiah 61:2–3).
The Horn of Salvation
Others also prophesied of the Messiah. While speaking of Zion, the Psalmist prophesied, “Her saints shall shout aloud for joy. There will I make the horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed” (Psalm 132:16–17). The birth of Jesus Christ fulfilled this prophecy. Zacharias, a priest in Jerusalem, announced just before the Savior’s birth: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began” (Luke 1:68–70; cf. 71–79). Simeon, a holy man in Jerusalem, saw the child Jesus and declared, “Mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people” (Luke 2:30–31; cf. 25–33). Anna, a prophetess, came to where Simeon was and “gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38; cf. 36–38).
These prophecies and others let people know of redemption through the Messiah. This message was shared by prophets, and joy came to those who listened to their message. After one prophet testified of this message, someone who heard “had infused such joy into his soul” that he was overcome and became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he stood and declared, “Blessed be the name of God . . . [for] behold, I have seen my Redeemer; and he shall come forth, and be born of a woman, and he shall redeem all mankind who believe on his name” (Alma 19:6, 12–13).
Another person was so wicked that an angel came to him to call him to repentance. After being overcome and being unconscious for days, he said, “I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world. Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me . . . And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold” (Alma 36:17–20). This person then went on to share these glad tidings.
The Testimony of Apostles
At this Christmas season, and as we conclude our study of the Old Testament for this year’s Come, Follow Me curriculum, let us reflect on the message of the Old Testament: that God will deliver His people through His Messiah, born of Mary, and that God “declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come.” They received this message “that they may bear testimony of him. And by so doing, the Lord God prepareth the way that [all people] may have faith in Christ” and be saved (Moroni 7:23–34). The Christmas message (which is the glad tidings) came from Christmas prophets to help people have Christmas joy.
The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ.”[3] Paul taught that the Saints “are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, [with] Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20), as Isaiah prophesied: “Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded” (1 Peter 2:6, quoting Isaiah 28:16).
Let us listen to the words of the prophets and receive the glad tidings of great joy. We will then be the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy: “It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation” (Isaiah 25:9).
Returning to our introductory story, the young man saw the Messiah’s birth and understood the joy that comes through the salvation He offers. The twelve apostles who were with the Messiah brought that message to the world. All who embrace their message embrace joy both now and after this life, having everlasting salvation, as proclaimed by God’s living Apostles:
“Jesus Christ has once again called Apostles and has given them priesthood authority. He invites all of us to come unto Him and His Church, to receive the Holy Ghost, the ordinances of salvation, and to gain enduring joy.”[4]
“We bear testimony, as His duly ordained Apostles—that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come. God be thanked for the matchless gift of His divine Son.”[5]
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
[1] See 1 Nephi chapters 1 and 2.
[2] “December 19–25: Christmas: ‘We Have Waited for Him, and He Will Save Us,’” in Come, Follow Me—For Individuals and Families: Old Testament 2022.
[3] “Chapter 3: Jesus Christ, the Divine Redeemer of the World,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.
[4] “The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World,” Gospel Library.
[5] “The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles,” Gospel Library.
David W. Smith has volunteered with FAIR since August 2019. He has had an article published in BYU Studies, and he presented at the Joseph Smith Papers Conference in 2019. He has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and a master’s degree in public administration, both from Brigham Young University.
The post Come, Follow Me Week 52 – Christmas appeared first on FAIR.
Malachi and Turning the Hearts of the Children to Their Fathersby Craig Foster
While the Book of Malachi is the last book of the Old Testament, it is certainly not the least in terms of the eternal teachings within the book. The name Malachi means “My Messenger” and the Malachi certainly fulfilled the purpose of his name in his prophetic calling as he discussed the end-time which is currently being fulfilled.[1]
Malachi is filled with passages regarding pure and righteous offerings, repentance, and preparing for the Second Coming. But by far, the most important teaching contained within this concluding Old Testament book is the fourth and final chapter in which the reader is warned, “the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.”[2] Root refers to our ancestry while branch refers to posterity.
In other words, as Elder Jeffrey R. Holland explained, without proper eternal links, “no family ties would exist in the eternities, and indeed the family of man would have been left in eternity with ‘neither root [ancestors] nor branch [descendants].’”[3] All would be destroyed, leaving those who have experienced mortality without not only ancestors and heritage, but also posterity and name. Holland continued, “Inasmuch as such a sealed, united, celestially saved family of God is the ultimate purpose of mortality, any failure here would have been a curse indeed, rendering the entire plan of salvation ‘utterly wasted.’”
But when the reader is left wondering if all is for naught, comes the most powerful and beautiful promise of Malachi. In the final two verses:
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.[4]
When the Angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith, he quoted Malachi with a slight but significant variation:
Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.[5]
The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, “Now, the word turn here should be translated bind, or seal.”[6] Thankfully, the sealing powers were restored on the 3rd day of April, 1836 by the visitation of the prophet Elijah to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple. President Russell M. Nelson explained, “The earth was created, and this Church was restored so that families could be formed, sealed, and exalted eternally.”[7]
What is bound on earth can and will be bound in heaven when performed by priesthood power in temples of the Lord. In an epistle from Joseph Smith giving further directions on baptism for the dead, he stated, “It may seem to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven.”[8] Relationships no doubt created in the premortal existence and continued in mortality will also continue in our post-mortal existence.
These eternal bonds are generational and multidimensional “for we without [our deceased loved ones] cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect.”[9] President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “What was the promise made to the fathers that was to be fulfilled in the latter days by the turning of the hearts of the children to their fathers? It was the promise of the Lord made through Enoch, Isaiah, and the prophets, to the nations of the earth, that the time should come when the dead should be redeemed.”[10]
As we seek after our dead and perform the necessary saving ordinances, we are blessed. As Elder Gerrit W. Gong explained, “Connecting with our ancestors can change our lives in surprising ways. From their trials and accomplishments, we gain faith and strength. From their love and sacrifices, we learn to forgive and move forward. Our children become resilient. We gain protection and power. Ties with ancestors increase family closeness, gratitude, miracles. Such ties can bring help from the other side of the veil.”[11]
Truly, as we turn our hearts to our ancestors by searching after our deceased ancestors and performing the saving ordinances in temples of the Lord, we will feel the Spirit of Elijah which is the Holy Ghost and His guiding us as we participate in family history and temple work. Everyday, millions, and soon billions, on both sides of the veil benefit from Elijah’s restoring the sealing powers as prophesized in the Book of Malachi.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
The author would like to thank Suzanne L. Foster and David S. Young.
[1] See “Malachi” at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/51?lang=eng.
[2] Malachi 4:1.
[3] Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 297–98.
[4] Malachi 4:5-6.
[5] Joseph Smith—History 1:38-39.
[6] Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), 472.
[7] Russell M. Nelson, “Celestial Marriage,” October General Conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/10/celestial-marriage?lang=eng.
[8] Doctrine and Covenants 128:9.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Bruce R. McConkie, comp., Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954–56), 2:154.
[11] Gerrit W. Gong, “We Each Have a Story,” April 2022 General Conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/26gong?lang=eng.
Craig L. Foster earned a MA and MLIS at Brigham Young University. He is also an accredited genealogist and worked as a research consultant at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City for over thirty years before retiring in December 2021. He has published multiple books and articles about different aspects of Mormon history, including co-editing the Persistence of Polygamy series with Newell G. Bringhurst and co-authored American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith with Marianne T. Watson. Craig is also on the editorial board of the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal.
The post Come, Follow Me Week 51 – Malachi appeared first on FAIR.
*by Daniel Ortner*
There are many powerful prophecies of the events leading up to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But as someone who comes from a Jewish background one prophecy stands out as particularly vivid and poignant, and that is that one day the people of Israel who did not recognize Jesus as their Messiah and Lord will come to recognize him.
Zechariah describes the moment when the Jewish people will look upon their crucified Lord:
“And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.” (Zechariah 13:6)
In the Doctrine and Covenants 45 the Lord elaborated upon this vision and left no doubt of its fulfilment.
“And then shall the Jews look upon me and say: What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet?
Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God.”
And then shall they weep because of their iniquities; then shall they lament because they persecuted their king.” (D&C 45:51-53).
My heart is filed with eager anticipation for this day when a people that has spent millennia longing for their Messiah will finally recognize him. In that day, I imagine him welcoming then to come and see and come and feel just as he invited the Nephites to do in 3 Nephi 11. I imagine the tears that will be shed both of sorrow and of happiness.
Although this prophesied day has been delayed for thousands of years, we have the sure testimony of the prophet Zechariah and the Lord himself that all these things will be fulfilled.
As one who received a witness of Jesus Christ as my Savior, I long for the day when by Jewish brothers and sisters will come to recognize Christ and receive him as their Lord and Savior. What a glorious day that will be.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Daniel Ortner is a public interest lawyer who focuses on the First Amendment. He joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an undergraduate from a Jewish background.
The post Come, Follow Me Week 50 – Haggai; Zechariah 1–3; 7–14 appeared first on FAIR.
Habakkuk – For our dayby Jennifer Roach, LMHC
Habakkuk is the book you never knew you needed.
The problem of evil is a question every generation must grapple with. If God exists, why does he allow school children to be killed in a shooting? If God is good, how can he let people suffer as they do? If God cares about his children, how can poverty, disease, and violence rampage us as they do?
Habakkuk grappled with this question too. In his day the question was, “If God loves us, why do the Babylonians terrorize us?” I offer the following reading of Habakkuk – for his day, and for our day – as an answer to the problem of evil.
| For Our Day – The Complaint | King James – The Complaint | | I wake up early and read the papers. Another shooting. No, two more. Violence all around.I pray and tell God about the violence and wonder why he does not save us from it. | Verse 2. How long, Lord, must I call for help,but you do not listen?Or cry out to you, “Violence!”but you do not save? | | And not just in the news. Family members doing wrong to each other. Destruction of faith and love. We’re swimming in conflict. It’s everywhere. | 3. Why do you make me look at injustice?Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?Destruction and violence are before me;there is strife, and conflict abounds. | | The laws don’t help. The legal system doesn’t either. We all see how much is going wrong in the world, but no one can do anything. It feels like wickedness is winning. | 4. Therefore the law is paralyzed,and justice never prevails.The wicked hem in the righteous,so that justice is perverted. | | The Lord’s Response | The Lord’s Response | | Oh, you’ve noticed the violence.Well, watch this, you wouldn’t believe it, even if you were told.I let violence happen. You cry, “How can God let this happen?”There are dreaded people who are intent on violence.They’ll amaze you with how violent they are.They care nothing about you or me, they only care about the damage they can do.I let violence exist in your world.And you cannot understand why. | 5 – 11. “Look at the nations and watch—and be utterly amazed.For I am going to do something in your daysthat you would not believe,even if you were told.6 I am raising up the Babylonians,that ruthless and impetuous people…7 They are a feared and dreaded people;they are a law to themselves…9 they all come intent on violence….11 Then they sweep past like the wind and go on—guilty people, whose own strength is their god.” | | The 2nd Complaint | The 2nd Complaint | | God, I don’t understand. You are an eternal and holy God.I know that your eyes are too pure to even look at this level of evil.I know that you can’t tolerate wrongdoing.So, I’m very confused, why do you let all this violence happen?Your children suffer.Why do you let the wicked get away with this?I will wait for your answer | 12 – 13. Lord, are you not from everlasting?My God, my Holy One, you will never die.You, Lord, have appointed them to execute judgment;you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.13 Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?Why are you silent while the wickedswallow up those more righteous than themselves? | | The Lord’s 2nd ResponseChapter 2 | The Lord’s 2nd ResponseChapter 2 | | You are only seeing part of the picture. Violence only seems to be prevailing.These violent men are never satisfied by the evil they do – they always want more.That’s why it keeps happening.They can’t get enough – in fact it is impossible for them to ever get enough.There is no end to their stealing.They can’t steal enough.There is no end to their plundering.They can’t plunder enough.There is no end to shedding blood.They can’t get enough blood.They indulge in too much vanity.They love the shedding of blood.The thirst of violence is never satisfied.You wake up and see that another act of violence has been done and ask me, “Why is this happening? And “When will this end?”You can not understand how strongly violence hungers for more.But the Lord is in his Holy Temple. | Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. For the vision is yet for an appointed time… 6 Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long?….9 Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of evil!…12 Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity! 13 Behold, is it not of the Lord of hosts that the people shall labour in the very fire, and the people shall weary themselves for very vanity? 14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea….17 For the violence of Lebanon shall cover thee, and the spoil of beasts, which made them afraid, because of men’s blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein.20 But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him. | | Habakkuk’s Prayer for TodayChapter 3 | Habakkuk’s PrayerChapter 3 | | The Lord does not give Habakkuk an explanation of the problem of evil.He could have.In fact, Habakkuk is just like us – he asked for the explanation. “Why do you make me look at suffering?”But God knew that the explanation would not satisfy Habakkuk. Just like it would not satisfy us.God could have explained all the theology behind evil. He could have explained why evil always thirsts for more and is never satisfied.But he knew that answer would not satisfy us.Instead, God give Habakkuk a vision of Himself, in all this glory. And he asks Habakkuk to be satisfied with that answer.The point being that evil and violence are never satisfied. So no explanation of them could ever really satisfy either.So God reminds Habakkuk who He really is. That he rules the universe. And he asks Habakkuk to allow this vision of Him to suffice. He asks Habakkuk to not be like evil – something that is never satisfied – and to accept the answer he has been given God. | 2 O Lord, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid…3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. 4 And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power. 5 Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet….7 I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction: and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble. 8 Was the Lord displeased against the rivers?…Thou didst cleave the earth with rivers….10 The mountains saw thee, and they trembled: the overflowing of the water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, and lifted up his hands on high. 11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear….13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed; thou woundedst the head out of the house of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. 18 Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.19 The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places. To the chief singer on my stringed instruments. |
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.
The post Come, Follow Me Week 49 – Nahum; Habakkuk; Zephaniah appeared first on FAIR.
A Gourd, a Worm, and an East Wind: Discovering God’s Extensions of Love in the Book of Jonahby Matt Crawford
Jonah called Gath-hepher home—a town which was west of the present-day Sea of Galilee (see 2 Kings 14:25). When the Lord called Jonah on a mission from his comfortable home to the Assyrian city of Nineveh,[1] he did not hesitate to act. Jonah immediately “rose up to flee unto Tarshish” (Jonah 1:3).[2]
Jonah may have run away from the mission call to Nineveh because one of Israel’s enemies, the Assyrians, lived there. The Assyrians were known to regularly torture and kill their captives, and then gruesomely desecrate their bodies.[3] While we do not know if Jonah was afraid of physical pain, we do know that he hated Assyrians and was afraid that they would repent and receive God’s mercy if he fulfilled his mission (see Jonah 4:2).
Rejecting God’s call, Jonah “paid the fare” (Jonah 1:3) for passage on a ship to Tarshish. One commentator notes that Jonah probably paid a considerable sum of money because the journey to Tarshish could take up to one year—“evidently because of the need to restock provisions frequently at ports along the way, wait for favorable winds, and trade the cargo.”[4] At one point Jonah slept soundly below deck while the ship’s crew thrashed through a storm (see Jonah 1:5). The storm was so brutal that the sailors expected the ship to sink, unless they prayed to their gods and tossed trade goods overboard to lighten the load (see Jonah 1:5). When the shipmaster found Jonah asleep, the captain woke him up and asked him to pray to God (see Jonah 1:6). When prayer did not lessen the intensity of the storm, the crew cast lots.
Proverbs 16:33 declares that “the lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof [the outcome] is of the Lord” (see also Proverbs 18:18). Casting lots was a trusted source of divine intervention during Old Testament times because it allowed the Lord to guide who was chosen—He could order the pieces so that a certain person was picked. Pieces of rock or wood were placed in a container, and, either by rolling all the pieces out of the container or inviting each participant to take a piece out of the container, led to the Lord’s decision (see Joshua 21:4–8; Nehemiah 10:34; 1 Nephi 3:11). In more recent times we might liken lot casting to drawing straws—whoever draws the shortest is the chosen one.[5]
When the sailors aboard the ship cast lots, “the lot fell upon Jonah” (Jonah 1:7). Despite his efforts to run from God’s call, the Lord is not giving up on the reluctant prophet. God continues to reach out toward Jonah through a storm and the lot. Jolted, Jonah confessed to the sailors that the storm was because he ran from God. Surprised, the crew questioned: “Why hast thou done this?” (Jonah 1:9). The sailors asked what could be done to still the storm. Fully realizing that his poor decision to run from the Lord was now affecting others, Jonah came to the following conclusion: “Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you” (Jonah 1:12). The sailors initially refused to comply with his wish. Instead, they “rowed hard to bring [the ship] to the land,” but in the end, “they could not” (Jonah 1:13). Thus, the men “took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging” (Jonah 1:15).
When Jonah hit the water, he recalled, “billows and . . . waves passed over me. The weeds were wrapped about mine head [and] I went down to the bottoms” of the sea (Jonah 2:5–6). Fearing that this was the end, Jonah’s “soul fainted” but then he “remembered the Lord” through prayer (Jonah 2:7). It appears that the prayer brought the great fish—potentially some type of whale—and it swallowed the prophet. The scriptures reveal that this was no ordinary experience: “The Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah” (Jonah 1:17; emphasis added). To prepare this great fish for Jonah, the Lord knew when the great fish needed to be born, He knew the great fish’s habits, He knew that the great fish had to be in the vicinity when the men threw Jonah overboard, and He needed a creature big enough to complete the job. Such preparation for one frightened missionary begs the question, If the Lord will prepare a great fish, a game of lots, a storm, or a mission call for a rebellious disciple, what will He do for each of us?
After Jonah is swallowed by the great fish he continued to pray: “Out of the belly of hell cried I” (Jonah 2:2). Like Jonah, we may at times be headed in the wrong direction, but change is possible. The book of Jonah is an extremely detailed case of the Lord’s multiple maneuverings to save a single soul. Jonah acknowledged his own “lying vanities,” his selfishness, and “vowed” to be more faithful to the Lord’s will (Jonah 2:8–9). After three days and nights “the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land” (Jonah 2:10).[6] Once free from the fish “the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying, Arise, go unto Nineveh. . . . So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh” (Jonah 3:1–3).
The prophet promptly enters the city and prophecies that in forty days “Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4). The inhabitants of the city, including the king, listened to Jonah’s teachings and began to repent. The people fasted, wore sackcloth as a demonstration to God that they were humbly pleading for forgiveness, and the king issued a decree which encouraged the entire populace to repent (see Jonah 3:5–9). The measures proved successful because “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way and repented; and God turned away the evil that he had said he would bring upon them” (JST Jonah 3:10).[7]
We expect Jonah to be doing back flips of joy, but the final chapter begins: “But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry” (Jonah 4:1). What displeased him? How can he be angry? Jonah prayed while upset and explained his reason: “When I was yet in my country . . . I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger and of great kindness” (Jonah 4:2). In other words: “Lord, when I was at home I knew of Thy goodness and patience toward even the most despicable of people. That is why I headed toward Tarshish and not Nineveh. I did not want Thee to forgive and bless the inhabitants of Nineveh.” Jonah vehemently hated the Ninevites—they were not part of covenant Israel and what is more they were Israel’s sworn enemies. Jonah did not want them to change and be blessed, he wanted them to sin and suffer. Jonah then concluded his prayer by asking the Lord to “take . . . my life from me; . . . for it is better for me to die than to live” (Jonah 4:3).
After Jonah’s audacious reply, the Lord, once again, shows Jonah mercy and patience—mercy and patience the Lord just demonstrated toward those of Nineveh, but which Jonah spurned. The Lord utters the simple question, “Doest thou well to be angry?” (Jonah 4:4). There is no harsh rebuke, no flash of lightning which sizzles Jonah’s flesh, no thunder from heaven to scare Jonah into a feeling of gratitude, but a simple question which may, if the prophet allows, work on his heart.
After the Lord asks Jonah if his anger is justifiable, the prophet refuses to respond. Was Jonah stung by the question or pierced by the Lord’s keen insight? The question seemed to infuriate Jonah so much that he gives the Lord the silent treatment. Like a teenager mad at his parents, or a husband after a tiff with his wife, Jonah turns and walks away from the situation, refusing to respond.
Jonah exited the city proper and headed east (see Jonah 4:5). Then he probably scaled part of the hills located in that direction and waited and watched Nineveh.[8] Jonah seems unconvinced that the repentant state of the people of Nineveh is permanent. He is waiting, hoping, for the city to “be overthrown” after “forty days” as he originally prophesied (Jonah 3:4). While he waited, he built himself a booth or hut to provide shade—perhaps fashioned of overlaid sticks and branches, as was done for a feast required by the Law of Moses (see Leviticus 23:42; Nehemiah 8:14–15). The booth or hut evidently provided some shade, but it was probably hastily constructed from errant sticks from the vicinity. If so, Jonah’s comfort level and shade was minimal—sunshine would have streamed through the sticks. Whatever its construction, the booth was probably intended to be a physical, non-verbal sign that the Lord was wrong, and Jonah was right. Jonah’s thoughts may have ventured into this line of reasoning: If I wait here long enough the Lord will see Nineveh destroyed. Despite the almost worthless hut and Jonah’s constant moodiness the Lord provided a miracle.
While the booth provided a minimal amount of shade from the blazing sun, the “Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd” (Jonah 4:6). We do not know the specific type of plant[9] which grew overnight to such a mass that it shaded Jonah (see Jonah 4:10). Yet, as was the case with the call, the storm, the game of lots, and the great fish, this “gourd” was “prepared” for Jonah (Jonah 4:6). The Lord knew that Jonah would go up on the hill and pout, and so the seed of this plant was in the right place at the right time to provide physical comfort for the prophet. God really does know our moods and routines. Despite Jonah’s gladness for the shade—the only positive emotion Jonah shows in this book—the shadow would not last.
As was the case with the storm, the lot, the great fish, and the gourd, the Lord had “prepared” other things for Jonah (Jonah 4:7). A worm “smote the gourd that it withered” a day after its astonishing growth, and a “vehement east wind” probably knocked over the booth[10] and the “the sun [once again] beat upon [Jonah’s] head” (Jonah 4:7–8). While the “vehement east wind” seems to indicate the Lord’s displeasure with Jonah’s behavior,[11] God still does not give up on this angry, uncomfortable child. Ultimately, the quick growing leafy plant served as tangible evidence of the Lord’s mercy—His constant readiness to forgive Nineveh and Jonah—while the equally fast demise of the gourd and the blasts of hot air presented proofs that without God’s goodness ruin follows.
To underscore these eternal truths, the Lord pointed out the folly of Jonah’s anger toward the inhabitants of Nineveh by asking, “Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd?” The prophet retorted, “I do well to be angry” (Jonah 4:9). Patiently, the Lord connected the dots for Jonah: “Thou has had pity on the gourd…should not I spare Nineveh, that great city…?” (Jonah 4:10–11). In other words, “Your appreciation and love for the gourd is but a shadow of the care and love I have for you and the Assyrians of Nineveh.”
In short, every person is valuable to God. He simply will not give up or stop trying to save His children. From a city of Assyrians to a frustrated, bitter servant sitting next to a withered gourd, God cares for, watches over, and strives to bring everyone back home to heaven.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
[1] Nineveh was probably located in modern-day Iraq Pictoral Bible Dictionary, ed., Merrill C. Tenney (Nashville, Tennessee: The Soutwestern Company, 1976), s.v. “Nineveh.”
[2] It is likely that Tarshish was located in modern Spain and known for its successful trade industry (see Ezekiel 27:12); Pictoral Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Tarshish.”
[3] Erika Belibtreu, “Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 17 no. 1 (1991): 51–61, 75.
[4] Uriel Simon, The JPS Bible Commentary: Jonah (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1999), 6.
[5] For more information regarding casting lots see Joh. Lindblom Lund “Lot-Casting in the Old Testament,” Vestus Testamentum 12, facs. 2 (April 1962): 164–178.
[6] Where the great fish “vomited out” Jonah is a matter of debate. One tradition holds that the great fish deposited Jonah to a spot south of Jaffa—the port city where Jonah boarded the ship days earlier (see Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Atlas of the Crusades [New York: Facts on File, 1990], 43; see also John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commenatry [Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005], 1011). Others suggest that the fish put Jonah in ancient Alexandretta—now İskenderun in modern-day Turkey (see The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, ed. George Arthur Buttrick, 5 vols. [Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 1962–1976] s.v. “Jonah, Book of,” 2:965). The ancient historian Josephus reported that Jonah was disgorged on the shore of the Euxine or Black Sea (see Josephus: Complete Works [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1960], 208).
[7] One commentator notes that the Hebrew text implies that the Assyrians only ritually repented. That is, they repented the only way that they knew how: through sackcloth and fasting. “Ritual response and ethical tidying up are precisely what one would expect from pagan Assyrians—and from every indication, they are still just that, despite the fact that they have taken a step in the right direction.” John H. Walton, “The Object Lesson of Jonah 4:5–7 and the Purpose of the Book of Jonah,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 2 (1992): 53–54.
[8] See The Jewish Encyclopedia, ed., Ididore Singer, 12 vols. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1901–1906), s.v. “Nineveh,” 12:311.
[9] The most likely was a type of giant castor bean or oil plant. Jules Janick and Harry S. Paris, “Jonah and the ‘Gourd,’ at Nineveh: Consequences of a Classic Mistranslation,” 349–357; paper presented at North Carolina State University’s Cucurbitaceae Conference September 17–21, 2006. See also Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., 22 vols. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), s.v. “Castor-Oil Plant,” 4:516.
[10] See Jack M. Sasson, Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 304.
[11] Alonzo L. Gaskill, The Lost Language of Symbolism: An Essential Guide for Recognizing and Interpreting Symbols of the Gospel (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 153–154.
Matt Crawford is a husband, father, teacher, and writer. He resides with his family in Layton, Utah.
The post Come, Follow Me Week 48 – Jonah; Micah appeared first on FAIR.
(submitted by Dennis B. Horne)
Editorial Note: In the below article, President Smith defines the label “Mormonism” very much as President Russell M. Nelson has. These prophets are one in their views on this matter. President Smith also expounds in some detail on many facets of church practice and doctrine, including the future. Most of the material is as true and relevant today as it was a hundred and twenty years ago—there is great consistency in church teachings and practice. One effect of his message is to make one proud to be a faithful member of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ. The original article is titled, The “Mormonism” of Today:
[Two and a half pages of explanatory material regarding plural marriage omitted.] Marriage is regarded by the Latter-day Saints as a sacrament. Under its higher ecclesiastical law it involves an everlasting covenant. That does not end with death. The marriage does not take place in the resurrection, but in time and in this world. It is of the nature of that marriage in the Garden of Eden between a man and a woman in whom then there was no death. It was a wedding of immortals. That which was lost through sin in the fall, was restored through obedience and the atonement of Christ in the regeneration, and the resurrection brings the parted pair together again as one, “no more twain but one flesh,” spiritual but tangible and eternal. That which is sealed on earth today by divinely revealed authority is sealed in heaven and remains in spite of death, immutable, and abides forever.
The family thus formed is the basis of an ever-increasing kingdom and dominion continuing in worlds without end.[1] Marriages are permitted for time only, as all persons are not fitted for the higher conditions and the pure and sacred obligations they impose. The secular law in all cases whether for time or eternity, is honored, and that requires a license and a ceremony to be recorded under the State statutes, which provide heavy penalties for their violation. Monogamic wedlock is thus established by law in Utah, and is really more rigidly observed than in any other part of the Union.
“Mormonism” inculcates chastity of life, self-restraint, temperance, abstinence from stimulants, order, peace, charity and fraternity. It teaches submission to law and promotes true patriotism. It recognizes the institutions of this country as established under Divine direction. It does not unite church and state. It supports each in its own sphere, but regards them as separate and distinct, and holds that neither should encroach upon the domain of the other. The “Mormon” Church does not dictate the politics of its members or direct citizens how they shall vote. The only restraint it claims to exercise as to political office is, that before any man who holds an ecclesiastical position which demands his entire services for the Church, becomes a candidate for a secular office which would take him from his Church duties, he shall obtain permission to do so from its presiding authorities. This is absolutely necessary to proper Church discipline, and is only reasonable and just. When that consent has been obtained, no man occupying a political office in this land is freer than he to perform his duty to his country, nor enjoys greater liberty as an American citizen. Notwithstanding all that is said and imagined as to the interference of the Church in political affairs, no citizen can truthfully assert that he has been deprived by the Church of his freedom, or that the Church has attempted to coerce or control conventions, elections, or legislatures.
“Mormonism” is a term coined by its adversaries. It cannot mean anything but that which was taught by Mormon. He was a prophet of God on this hemisphere about sixteen centuries ago. His doctrines can be learned from the book that bears his name. It was translated by Joseph Smith from metallic plates covered with ancient hieroglyphics and deposited by Mormon when his nation was about to perish, under the warlike race from which our present Indian tribes descended. Those doctrines are, simply, the gospel of Jesus Christ as he delivered it in person on this land, after His resurrection and ascension from Palestine. They are unmixed with the precepts of men. They are the principles of Salvation. They teach faith, hope and charity. They show the necessity of belief in God and obedience to His commands. They require repentance from sin, baptism by immersion in water by one having divine authority, for the remission of sins through Christ’s atonement, and they promise the gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands and all the gifts of that Spirt enjoyed of old. They explain the true order of the Church organization and make plain the religion of the Redeemer.
The Book of Mormon gives the history of this continent back to a remote period. It describes the customs and doings of the early inhabitants of the land and traces their origin. It gives the places of cities, temples, fortifications and buildings, the ruins of many of which have been discovered since the book was published. It treats of the wars, troubles, divisions of tribes, their religion, rebellion, travels, triumphs and tribulations, and forms a study for the archaeologist and the antiquarian.
“Mormonism,” then, is the pure gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ revealed anew in these latter times. Its advocates are not “Mormons” any more than they are Isaiahs or Ezekiels, Peters or Pauls, for they believe in the Old and the New Testaments as well as in the Book of Mormon. Their proper name is Latter-day Saints, in distinction from that of the former-day saints. They claim to have a mission to proclaim the “everlasting gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people,” and brought to earth by the angel predicted by John the Divine in the Apocalypse. They gather in places appointed of God and his elect, called from all quarters of the earth. They “seek first the kingdom of God;” that is, His spiritual kingdom set up on the earth for the last days and for the last time, in the “dispensation of the fulness of times,” in which all things in Christ are to be gathered in one. The elders of the Church go into the world for this purpose, without pay or support other than that which is voluntarily bestowed by their hearers. They travel “without purse or scrip.”[2] They are often despised and rejected. They are men of pure lives devoted to the welfare of humanity. They are constantly libeled and maligned. They bear their cross with patience.[3] Their reward comes from above. They invade no man’s family. They have no inducements to offer to converts except the blessings that come from obedience to the truth, and a witness from God to each soul that accepts the message of salvation. To these may be added the assurance of persecution and obloquy and in many instances mobocracy and violence.[4]
The “Mormons” or Latter-day Saints are baptized by one spirit into one body. They are striving to live together in love, and to observe the golden rule. They are organized into a compact ecclesiastical body, and are guided by apostles and prophets, pastors and teachers, and all the ministerial authorities had in the primitive Christian Church. These are inspired by divine revelation for the work of the ministry and the perfecting of the saints, and to give counsel and advice to them in all things pertaining to their welfare. But everything in the Church has to be done by common consent. The people prosper under the system. They are advised to own the land on which they live and the homes that shelter them. The home is held sacred by the saints as the beginning of their heaven. They rear their families in the fear of God. The song of praise and the voice of prayer are heard in their habitations. They are becoming a power in the earth because of the virtues and the strength of the religion that is intensely spiritual and also eminently practical.
“Mormonism” is for the body as well as for the spirit. It is a religion for today. By right living now, its votaries are prepared for the future. By laying a firm foundation in their world, they expect to be able to build upon it in the world to come. No one need fear the spread of “Mormonism,” for that means the spread of righteousness and order and peace. It is light in the midst of the darkness of this world. It contains the solution of every religious problem that has vexed and divided Christendom for centuries. It holds for future development the settlement of the conflict between capital and labor. It bears divine authority sent down from heaven in the nineteenth century, and it will not be taken from earth again. It will prepare the way for the coming of the King of kings, whose right it is to reign, and until then its people and their leaders are required to remain “in subjection to the powers that be,” and to live honoring kings, presidents, magistrates and municipalities and to upholding wholesome law wherever they reside.
“Mormonism” will be opposed and fought against, but it will not be overcome. It is of God and not of man. It is vital in every part. It puts down sin and vice and regards lust with abhorrence. It brings its devotees not only to the “unity of the faith,” but to concert of purpose and of action. It leads them to individual communion with Deity, and at the same time to perform their duties to one another on the earth. It promotes industry, thrift, education, progress, the fine arts as well as the common labors of life, and seeks for the acquirement of everything that is useful and beautiful in this world, and the securing of all the highest glories and exaltations in the world to come. “Mormonism” is God’s truth manifested to man, and it will endure and conquer and abide forever.
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/a8b335cc-080c-4c90-b72a-21d3add7f4ad/0/371
Note: This article was originally published on Truth Will Prevail.
[1] For further information about this concept, see: http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2022/04/getting-or-creating-planets.html
[2] This is no longer current practice, the Church having gradually moved away from that method of missionary service during the early part of the last century. Yet most missionaries still bear the expenses of their own missions today.
[3] For further explanation of this phrase, see Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s October 2022 General Conference address here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/41holland?lang=eng
[4] Regarding the persecution most members experience, see Pres. Nelson’s article here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/04/the-future-of-the-church-preparing-the-world-for-the-saviors-second-coming?lang=eng
Dennis B. Horne grew up in south Davis County and he served in the Independence Missouri mission. He attended BYU and Weber State Universities, earning a degree in Communications. After working in television broadcasting for a number of years he became a technical writer for the LDS Church Material Management Department. He became an independent researcher/author because of his love of church history and doctrine. This pursuit led him to write a biography of Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an edited publication of the diaries of Abraham H. Cannon, and biographies of President Lorenzo Snow and Orson F. Whitney. He also wrote about callings to serve in the church, the doctrine of giving healing blessings, and a compilation of the teachings of prophets and apostles about how to determine doctrinal authority. He has twice presented at the BYU Church History Symposium. His articles occasionally appear at Truth Will Prevail, Interpreter, and FAIR.
The post President Joseph F. Smith Explains What “Mormonism” Really Is appeared first on FAIR.
Amos and Prophets*by Daniel Ortner*
Amos is considered one of the “minor” prophets. But Amos 3:7 is a verse that is one of the more frequently cited in General Conference. According to the BYU Scripture Citation Index, it has been cited around 109 times. That’s more than any single psalm in the book of Psalms (not more than the whole book of Psalms). More than whole books of the Old Testament such as Judges, Ruth, and Esther. More than a lot of well known verses in the New Testament or Book of Mormon. And even about as frequently as 1 Nephi 3:7. It is a pretty big deal. Ultimately the popularity of this verse says a lot about our devotion to following the Lord’s prophet and apostles.
The context of Amos can enrich our appreciation for the Lord’s guarantee that “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7). In the first verse of the book, we read that his prophecy was received “two years before the earthquake.” (Amos 1:1). Scholars believe that this quake took place in around 750 B.C. and measured around an 8.2 on the richter scale, which is more intense than the great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.
Amos’s words are filled with warnings of this massive destruction that the Lord would bring to Israel and to the neighboring nations, including allusions to quaking and shaking that seem eerily prophetic (Amos 9:1). Through his servant, God offers a desperate plea for repentance. But unfortunately we know that the people did not repent and that by the time these words were compiled into a book the warnings of Amos were fulfilled. God of course does not reveal every single tragedy or disaster to his prophets with this degree of specificity. Natural disasters, war, and disease occur without warning. And it isn’t clear whether Amos knew exactly what would happen and when it would occur. But if we listen to the words of our prophet and apostles, we will be prepared for the disasters that come our way and we will be able to stand firm.
Those principles apply with full force in our day. I absolutely adored a recent devotional at BYU-Hawaii by Sister Sheri Dew entitled “Prophets Can See Around Corners.” Her talk was a powerful declaration of how God speaks to his Prophets and Apostles to help warn us of danger.
Sister Dew pointed to countless examples of where prophetic inspiration was ultimately prophetic such as the effort to bring smartphones to missionaries which was executed just in time for the COVID-19 Pandemic or her decision to follow President Hinckley’s advice to get out of debt shortly before the 2008 financial crisis. The point isn’t that President Nelson or President Hinckley knew precisely about the COVID-19 pandemic or about the 2008 financial crisis anymore than that Amos necessarily knew the exact date and time of the earthquake that was coming. But God spoke through his servant and revealed what was around the corner. Those who followed their advice were blessed with protection and preparation. Those who didn’t were left unprepared and suffered the negative consequences.
As Sister Dew explained: “Prophets see things we cannot see because the Lord does ‘nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.’ This is why prophets make us smarter than any other leaders or influencers on earth. Prophets help us see dangers we cannot yet see and opportunities we can’t even imagine.”
Many of us have friends or family members who have expressed their concern that as Latter-day Saints we put too much trust in the prophet and apostles and that we are going to be led astray. But as Sister Dew explained, it is ultimately not President Nelson at the head of the Church but Jesus Christ who speaks through his servants the prophets and apostles:
Brothers and sisters, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, acting unitedly, will never send the Church in the wrong direction. And here is why: Because even THE prophet is not the head of this Church. Jesus Christ is, and He is perfect. Prophets take their instructions from Him who knows all, sees all, and understands all things. . . .
In this Church, we are never dependent solely upon mortal men, as inspired as they may be. When we follow the prophet, we are actually following and placing our trust in Jesus Christ. For He has promised that His words will all be fulfilled, ‘whether by [His] own voice or by the voice of [His] servants, it is the same.’
It is vital that each of us have an abiding testimony that we are being led by a living prophet and apostles. Our spiritual safety desperately depends on it.
Sister dew discussed several powerful principles that can help us gain confidence in the teachings of the prophets:
First, we can trust that prophets do not have their own personal agenda. Instead, “[t]heir agenda is the Lord’s. And yet, too often we listen to them last.”
Second, we can trust that prophets will teach divine truth even when it is unpopular:
Apostles are under divine mandate to teach truth, even when truth is unpopular. They are pressured to change the Lord’s doctrine to make it more palatable, but the doctrine doesn’t belong to them and is not theirs to change. They’re accused of being out of touch, but I know of no group who is more in touch with the realities and complexities of life.
I promise you that no leaders on earth are more honest with you than prophets are. And no leaders care more about you and your future.
Third, we can pay close attention to the powerful spirit that testifies to us when a prophet speaks:
The Holy Ghost is eager to bear witness of prophets, seers, and revelators and the priesthood keys they hold. It is the presence of the keys we feel so profoundly when a prophet enters the room. But you don’t have to be in the presence of a prophet to gain a spiritual witness of his divine mantle.
If you want to know if fifteen prophets walk the earth today, pray to know. Ask humbly and sincerely, and the Holy Ghost will bear witness to you. I promise you that.
Prophets, seers, and revelators are, very simply, one of God’s greatest gifts to His children.
Fourth, we can try to implement the principles that the Prophet teaches us. We can take it seriously and experience the positive dividends of following his counsel.
Fifth, we need not be surprised if prophets and apostles are unpopular or rejected: “When prophets refuse to embrace the disintegration of morals championed by a rabidly secular society, that does not mean prophets are wrong. Sustaining prophets in today’s world takes faith—but not faith in them, faith in Jesus Christ, who called them.”
We likewise must not “be deceived by activists who believe their passion for a cause gives them permission to censure prophets. Don’t turn your back on those who have all priesthood keys and who can help you see around corners.”
Finally, we must let prophetic teachings be our spiritual anchor. If we do so the promises are powerful and profound:
Your greatest spiritual safety will come by following the prophet. My dear friends, there may be times when you find yourself wrestling with teachings from prophets. But this isn’t rocket science. I can promise you two things: First, you will question your testimony all your life if you do two things: break your covenants and turn your back on prophets. But the reverse is also true: You will enjoy a growing testimony all of your life if you keep your covenants and follow the prophet. That is a promise.
I personally have a strong testimony that we are led by a living Prophet and that God reveals to President Nelson and other Apostles everything that is needed for our spiritual peace and safety in these latter-days. Nothing is being withheld that is needful for us to be able to stay faithful on the covenant path. I have tragically seen too many people I care about wander off that path by first beginning to question and turn their back on prophets and then eventually beginning to break their covenants. I hope that Amos’s prophetic promise and Sheri Dew’s inspired words will help us recommit to following the Lord’s anointed as they help to illuminate the way back to the Savior.
More Come, Follow Me resources here.
Daniel Ortner is a public interest lawyer who focuses on the First Amendment. He joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an undergraduate from a Jewish background.
The post Come, Follow Me Week 47 – Amos; Obadiah appeared first on FAIR.
Why is Obedience Greater than Sacrifice? Meditations on Hosea 6:6 by Benjamin Pacini My children know that the rule on Sunday is that they can only watch “church videos.” They’ve gotten to know them so well that when I began playing one of my favorites, it was two seconds in before my son shouted from […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 44 – Hosea 1–6; 10–14; Joel (additional post) appeared first on FAIR.
His Love for Us Is Constant by Anna Buis Despite our best efforts, we will inevitably fall short because we are human. This human experience teaches us that we need the Savior and His atoning sacrifice. His invitation to us is always to return to Him; His love for us is constant. Hosea 14:4 says, […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 44 – Hosea 1–6; 10–14; Joel appeared first on FAIR.
True Prophets Call Us to Repentance by Daniel Ortner Ezekiel’s Prophetic Call to Cry Repentance Chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of Ezekiel feature Ezekiel’s prophetic call. Just like the prophet Isaiah and Ezekiel’s contemporaries Isaiah and Jeremiah, Ezekiel is called as part of a vision where he sees the throne of God and […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 42 – Ezekiel 1–3; 33–34; 36–37; 47 appeared first on FAIR.
Are There Some Things That Can’t Be Cured? by Jennifer Roach, LMHC Jeremiah, true to his nickname of “The Weeping Prophet,” wants to talk to us about some hard things this week. And it’s a little uncomfortable. In my day-job as a mental health therapist I sit with people in pain every week. They’re tired […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 41 – Jeremiah 30–33; 36; Lamentations 1; 3 appeared first on FAIR.
by Christopher D. Cunningham The motivational speaker Wayne Dwyer popularized a story about two babies in a mother’s womb. While chatting, one asked the other if they believed in life after birth. The second one said they did, and they were likely preparing for something greater later on. But the first didn’t agree, it seemed […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 40 – Jeremiah 1–3; 7; 16–18; 20 appeared first on FAIR.
Isaiah and Approaching God on the Day of Atonement By Kerry Muhlestein This week is the celebration of Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement. It takes place from sundown on Tuesday, October 4th, until sundown on Wednesday, October 5th. It is the holiest celebration in all the festivals the Lord commanded Israel to observe. […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 39 – Isaiah 58-66 appeared first on FAIR.
Poetic Parallelism and seeing some missed meanings in Isaiah By Kerry Muhlestein For this week’s readings, there are two reasons we should understand Isaiah’s use of parallelism, especially its most complex form: the chiasmus. Therefore, in this week’s essay I will share an excerpt about parallelism from my commentary Learning to Love Isaiah, then highlight […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 38 – Isaiah 50–57 appeared first on FAIR.
General Conference is coming up in 5 days! It will be held October 1-2, and will have morning and afternoon sessions on Saturday and Sunday, along with an evening session for everyone on Saturday. More information is available here. In preparation, we are doing a daily countdown with posts from different people explaining how they […]
The post FAIR’s Countdown to Conference – 5 Days! appeared first on FAIR.
Comfort Ye My People: The Crucial Historical Background to Understanding Isaiah 40 By Kerry Muhlestein It is understandable that the Come Follow Me curriculum does not have us read Isaiah 36-39. That covers material which we already covered in 2 Kings 18-19. Yet we cannot understand what is going on in many of the earlier […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 37 – Isaiah 40–49 appeared first on FAIR.
Isaiah’s ability to speak to many time periods at once By Kerry Muhlestein I have found that one of the great keys to understanding Isaiah is to see how his writings apply to more than one time period. By that I mean that the same verse or set of verses are intended to be fulfilled […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 37 – Isaiah 13–14; 24–30; 35 appeared first on FAIR.
A time to study Isaiah by Kerry Muhlestein It seems to me that this year, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have fervently embraced the Come Follow Me program, we have come to learn from and love the Old Testament more than ever before. I have high hopes we will […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 36 – Isaiah 1–12 appeared first on FAIR.
Proverbs Primer by Matt Christiansen Imagine an encounter with Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos. After introductions and pleasantries, the discussion turns more substantive, and he asks about your big picture dreams and aspirations. You seize the opportunity and lay out a detailed blueprint for the most productive, impactful, and meaningful life you can imagine. He listens […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 35 – Proverbs 1–4; 15–16; 22; 31; Ecclesiastes 1–3; 11–12 appeared first on FAIR.
The Hymns of the Temple Part 2 by Matthew L. Bowen Praise is a dominant word in the latter third of the Psalter. The imperative plural Hebrew verbal expression hallelujah (halĕlû-yāh), “praise ye the Lord,” marks the beginning and ending of many of these temple hymns. In ancient Judah, ascending into the temple to praise […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 34 – Psalms 102–103; 110; 116–119; 127–128; 135–139; 146–150 appeared first on FAIR.
The Hymns of the Temple Part 1 by Matthew L. Bowen The Psalms, originally written in Hebrew poetry,[1] were the hymns of the ancient Jerusalem temple.[2] Everything in them should be read and reflected upon with that in mind. Additionally, as Latter-day Saints, we are obligated to consider how these texts, within their temple and […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 33 – Psalms 49–51; 61–66; 69–72; 77–78; 85–86 appeared first on FAIR.
by Carl Trueman If there is one question that seems to drive so much of modern life it is that of happiness. What is it? How does one attain it? And perhaps more deeply, how does one know when one has attained it? And it is therefore perhaps fitting that the Psalter, the great hymn […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 32 – Psalms 1–2; 8; 19–33; 40; 46 appeared first on FAIR.
Lessons Learned from the Book of Job by Louis Herrey ”No pain that we suffer, no trial that we experience is wasted… All that we suffer and all that we endure, especially when we endure it patiently, builds up our characters, purifies our hearts, expands our souls, and makes us more tender and charitable, more […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 31 – Job 1–3; 12–14; 19; 21–24; 38–40; 42 appeared first on FAIR.
by K.T. Martin The Book of Esther is one of the most politically intriguing books found within the Old Testament. The story includes a king who banishes his wife and marries a new woman who is secretly a Jew. The king has an advisor who has a hatred for the Jewish people and wants them […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 30 – Esther appeared first on FAIR.
by Braeden Dyer [Courtesy of Wilford Woodruff Papers] Since beginning my work for the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project, one aspect of Wilford’s life which has struck me, and made me ponder, has been the opposition which he faced. He faced immense physical and social opposition—just one account of which we see in this excerpt from his […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 29 – Ezra 1; 3-7; Nehemiah 2; 4-6; 8 appeared first on FAIR.
by Shauna Horne [Courtesy of Wilford Woodruff Papers] Wilford Woodruff said, “Brethren and sisters, let us read the revelations of God for ourselves, and when we read them, let us believe them, and try to live in such a way that we may be ready for whatever dispensation the Lord may have in store for […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 28 – 2 Kings 17-25 appeared first on FAIR.
What Should We Make of the Story of Elisha and the Bears and What Is the Significance of the Unusual Symbolism in Elisha’s Healings? by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (Originally published August 8, 2018 and August 10, 2018) Question: One of the most disturbing and incomprehensible accounts in the Old Testament concerns Elisha and the bears […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 27 – 2 Kings 2–7 appeared first on FAIR.
by Matt Crawford The widow of Zarephath is one of my favorite stories from the Old Testament. Perhaps the greatest reason that this story resonates with me is because the widow is an outsider. She is not a member of the house of Israel—a fact the Savior confirms (see Luke 4:24–30)—and she meets Elijah at […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 27 – 1 Kings 17–19 appeared first on FAIR.
2 Samuel 11: A Presbyterian Reflection by Carl Trueman The events described in 2 Samuel 11 are pivotal to the reign of David. His adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah, will have consequences far beyond the royal household and the rest of his reign will be marked by political turmoil driven […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 26 – 2 Samuel 5-7; 11-12; 1 Kings 3; 8; 11 appeared first on FAIR.
The Asked King and the Beloved King-to-be: Saul, David, and Ancient Israel’s Rejection of the Lord’s Kingship by Matthew L. Bowen The names of ancient Israel’s first two major[1] royal figures, Saul and David, have clear, distinctive meanings. Saul (šāʾûl) means ‘asked’ and David (dāwid or dāwîd) means ‘beloved.’ The Deuteronomistic editor and narrator[2] of […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 25 – 1 Samuel 8–10; 13; 15–18 appeared first on FAIR.
by BJ Spurlock When reading the scriptures, especially as one reads through the Old Testament, it is always helpful to ask the following questions: Where is Jesus Christ in the text? Where do we see gospel doctrines & principles that Jesus Christ taught? Where do we see gospel doctrines & principles that living Prophets […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 24 – Ruth; 1 Samuel 1–3 appeared first on FAIR.
Seek the Lord Jesus Christ By Elder Kim B. Clark (An address given at the 2020 FAIR Conference) I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today. I am not only grateful to be with you, but I am grateful for all of you who seek to help people strengthen, or recover, or […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 23 – Judges 2–4; 6–8; 13–16 appeared first on FAIR.
Trying to Serve the Lord Without Offending the Devil By Nick Galieti (Originally published on February 11, 2015 as part of our “Rise Up” podcast for youth) When it comes to living our lives, we have a lot of choices placed before us. We have our choice of schools to attend after high school, or even […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 22 – Joshua 1–8; 23–24 appeared first on FAIR.
“Beware Lest Thou Forget the Lord” by Dr. Jan J. Martin Deuteronomy. It is the last book of the Jewish “Torah.” The word Deuteronomy itself may be enough to intimidate all but the most determined and dedicated students of the scriptures. In Hebrew, “eleh ha-devarim,” means “these are the words.”[1] In ancient Greek, “Deuteronómion” means […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 21 – Deuteronomy 6-8; 15; 18; 29-30; 34 appeared first on FAIR.
“Have You Been Saved By Grace?” How Do We Respond? by Brad Wilcox (This is from a presentation given at the 2018 FAIR Conference) Grace, like many English words has multiple meanings. It can mean elegance and beauty. It can mean kindness and courtesy. It can be a title, ‘Your Grace.’ It can be a salutation, […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 19 – Exodus 35–40; Leviticus 1; 16; 19 appeared first on FAIR.
Exodus, The Law of Moses, Covenants, and the Temple by Ben Spackman (This originally appeared on Ben Spackman’s blog) Now that we’re getting into the desert Exodus narrative, we’re going to encounter what scholars call “legal sections” of scripture, that is, the details of the Law of Moses. I’m not interested in these so much […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 18 – Exodus 24; 31-34 appeared first on FAIR.
Becoming Free by Amber Rothamer I’ve always treasured the account of Israel’s miraculous exodus out of bondage in Egypt and the recorded events and miracles that followed. It is a portion of ancient history that has always fascinated and humbled me. There are numerous parallels between this account and that of the one found in […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 17 – Exodus 18-20 appeared first on FAIR.
by Scott Gordon This week, with Easter, we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Currently, 63% of Americans identify as Christian. This is down from 75% just 10 years ago. Those who are religiously unaffiliated, sometimes referred to as “nones,” has risen to almost 30% of the US population. This is […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 16 – Easter appeared first on FAIR.
The world is full of delightful people pursuing delightful accomplishments, and the gospel promotes love, hope, and unity. How blessed the day when we’ll be able to think only of lovely and praiseworthy things! Unfortunately, scripture’s plain warnings about sin and wickedness are still relevant, and we can’t just ignore them no matter how hard […]
The post The Motte, the Bailey, and the Gospel of Instagram appeared first on FAIR.
A Burning Bush and a Pillar of Light: God Remembers His Children by Ugo A. Perego Many years ago, when I was a young student at Brigham Young University, I had the unique opportunity to register for and attend the Summer Semester at the BYU Jerusalem Center. To this day, it has been one of […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 13 – Exodus 1-6 appeared first on FAIR.
Amber Rothamer is FAIR’s Project Manager. She will be hosting a new podcast series called “Faithfully Informed.” In this first episode, she interviews Kerry Muhlestein on his new book, Learning to Love Isaiah: A Guide and Commentary. Autographed copies of Learning to Love Isaiah: A Guide and Commentary are available from the FAIR Bookstore. Kerry […]
The post Faithfully Informed Podcast #1 – Kerry Muhlestein on “Learning to Love Isaiah” appeared first on FAIR.
God Meant It Unto Good by Jennifer Roach Forgiveness is a strange business. I started out in life believing that forgiveness couldn’t come until I had an emotional experience of releasing the harm someone did to me. If I didn’t feel it, it wasn’t real. Later I figured out that I could forgive someone intellectually […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 12 – Genesis 42–50 appeared first on FAIR.
“The Lord Was with Joseph”: A Scriptural Case Study in Why the Lord Allows Bad Things to Happen to Good People by Matthew L. Bowen Bad things happen to good people, of course. What’s more, sometimes terrible things happen to the best people even when they are striving with the utmost diligence to do what […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 11 – Genesis 37–41 appeared first on FAIR.
Becoming Israel: Learning How to Prevail with God Through Covenants By Steve Densley The stories we find in Genesis 28-33 are rich with covenant imagery, from Isaac’s blessing that Jacob would receive the promises of the Abrahamic covenant in the first verses of chapter 28, to Jacob’s building of an altar in the last verse […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 10 – Genesis 28–33 appeared first on FAIR.
Polygamy as an Abrahamic Sacrifice by V.H. Cassler (From a presentation originally titled “A Reconciliation of Polygamy,” given at the 2011 FAIR Conference; edited here for clarity and length) Today we are going to talk about polygamy but probably in a different way than you have heard about it before. That is, we are going […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 8 – Genesis 18–23 appeared first on FAIR.
The Abrahamic Covenant, Its Influence on Scriptures, and What that Has to Do with Us by Kerry Muhlestein, author of God Will Prevail: Ancient Covenants, Modern Blessings, and the Gathering of Israel The Abrahamic covenant is a central theme of the Old Testament, and really of all scripture. Every prophetic writer, whether in the Old […]
The post Come, Follow Me Thoughts to Keep in Mind – The Covenant appeared first on FAIR.
[Reprinted with permission from The Interpreter Foundation] by Taylor Halverson “Noah built an ark; and…the Lord smiled upon it.” (Moses 7:43) Introduction The great cataclysmic[1] flood wherein “Noah…prepared an ark to the saving of his house” is one of the most well known stories in the Judeo-Christian world. It is story that most of us can remember […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 6 – Genesis 6–11; Moses 8 appeared first on FAIR.
This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference held in August. If you would like to watch all the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Jeff Bradshaw, Since Hugh Nibley: Remarkable New Findings on Enoch and the Gathering of Zion Jeff’s books are for […]
The post FAIR Conference Podcast #76 – Jeff Bradshaw, “Since Hugh Nibley: Remarkable New Findings on Enoch and the Gathering of Zion” appeared first on FAIR.
Faith and Evidence in the Witness of Ancient Texts for the Book of Moses Enoch Story by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw When I first saw the photo that accompanied the New Year’s message and invitation for 2022 from President Nelson,[3] I could not help but think of the following verses from the Joseph Smith Translation of […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 5 – Moses 7 appeared first on FAIR.
Taught in All the Ways of God: Teaching as the Theme of Moses 6 by Matthew L. Bowen Moses 5 records that an angel taught Adam and Eve the meaning of the sacrifices God had commanded them to make upon their departure from Eden (see Moses 5:5-12). Adam and Eve, in turn, taught their sons […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 4 – Genesis 5; Moses 6 appeared first on FAIR.
The Two Trees by V.H. Cassler (This is from a presentation given at the 2010 FAIR Conference) The Restored Gospel teaches me that the term “God” means an exalted woman and an exalted man married in the new and everlasting covenant (and we also get that from D&C 132). We are taught that there is […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 3 – Genesis 3–4; Moses 4–5 appeared first on FAIR.
God Sanctified and Blessed the Sabbath Day by Jennifer Roach Genesis 2:2-3: 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 2 – Genesis 1–2; Moses 2–3; Abraham 4–5 appeared first on FAIR.
This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference held in August. If you would like to watch all the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Ben Spackman, Through a Glass, Less Darkly: The 20th Century History of Genesis and Evolution Ben Spackman is a […]
The post FAIR Conference Podcast #73 – Ben Spackman, “Through a Glass, Less Darkly: The 20th Century History of Genesis and Evolution” appeared first on FAIR.
How did we get the books of Moses and Abraham? The Come, Follow Me manual poses this question and gives links to articles on the Church’s website about the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and the Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham. For further information, the following resources are available from FAIR […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 1 – Moses 1; Abraham 3 appeared first on FAIR.
by Michael R. Ash Those who have read any of my writings in the past several decades will know that I’ve been a volunteer for FAIR for more than twenty years. I’m an active Latter-day Saint who accepts prophets as the divinely called and authorized agents of Christ’s church on earth. And, like many other believing […]
The post Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture appeared first on FAIR.
This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference held in August. If you would like to watch all the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Stephen Smoot, Abraham and the Stranger at Sodom and Gomorrah: Reading the Bible and Navigating LGBT Identity Stephen O. […]
The post FAIR Conference Podcast #70 – Stephen Smoot, “Abraham and the Stranger at Sodom and Gomorrah: Reading the Bible and Navigating LGBT Identity” appeared first on FAIR.
by Michael R. Ash for FAIR Newsletter 2021 1211 Inspiration and Intellect are two sides of the same coin in how Latter-day Saints believe that God communicates with His children. We know that the Spirit testifies to eternal truths, but we often forget (or neglect) the role that intellect plays in uncovering truth. The late Apostle […]
The post Inspiration, Intellect, and Rethinking Revelation appeared first on FAIR.
Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 | Post 4 | Post 5 | Post 6 | Post 7 | Post 8 | Post 9 Post 8 of 9 by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw This is the eighth of nine weekly blog posts published in honor of the life and work of Hugh Nibley (1910–2005). The series is in honor of the […]
The post “Worlds Without Number”:[1] Hugh Nibley on Science and Religion appeared first on FAIR.
by Dell Blair How is it that a dark and formless void ends up as a holy and glorious paradise? How can something so empty become completely whole? What is the recipe? And what is our personal role in bringing it about? Is there a map? If so where is the big red ‘YOU ARE […]
The post Come, Follow Me Week 19 – Doctrine & Covenants 46-48 appeared first on FAIR.
Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses Live Streaming of the Conference April 23-24, 2021 Program and other details available here. LIVE STREAMING TIMES: 7:00 pm, Friday April 23 — Keynote Session 8:30 am, Saturday April 24 — Morning Session 12:45 pm, Saturday April 24 — Afternoon Session TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS DURING THE CONFERENCE: Email: conference-questions@interpreterfoundation.org […]
The post Watch the 2021 Interpreter Conference appeared first on FAIR.
Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 | Post 4 | Post 5 | Post 6 | Post 7 | Post 8 | Post 9 Post 4 of 9 by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw This is the fourth of nine weekly blog posts published in honor of the life and work of Hugh Nibley (1910–2005). The series is in honor of the […]
The post “The Book That Answers All the Questions”: Hugh Nibley and the Pearl of Great Price appeared first on FAIR.
April 23-24, 2021 Presented by The Interpreter Foundation, Brigham Young University Department of Ancient Scripture, Book of Mormon Central, & FAIR Due to the COVID-19 situation, this will be a live-streaming-only conference. The live stream will be available here and on our Facebook page.
The post The 2021 Interpreter Conference, “Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses,” is coming up this weekend! appeared first on FAIR.