Lessons from the Battle of Gettysburg

The Battle of Gettysburg was a decisive and bloody part of my nation’s history. It was the battle with the largest number of casualties in the Civil War, and is considered a major turning point of that war.

When I was in Hawaii, my mission president taught us three lessons from the Battle of Gettysburg, one from each day of the battle. Lest there be any Civil War buffs reading this blog, keep in mind that these lessons simplify a very complex battle.

I also won’t work too hard to apply each of these lessons. They fit many different situations, and perhaps you can get the most out of them applying them to your lives yourselves.

Day 1 – Recognize and Seize the Moment

On the first day of the battle, Confederate forces met Union forces at Seminary Ridge. During the course of the day, the Confederate forces pushed Union forces back to Cemetery Ridge.

But it was getting late. It was 4:30pm on a hot, southern afternoon, and the troops had been fighting all day. They were tired, and they were hungry. The Confederate troops called it a day.

But the Union forces did not rest. They spent the night reinforcing their line.

The Confederate army never regained this advantage, and they lost their chance to take the hill.

I like the poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, particularly the last stanza:

We have not wings, we cannot soar;
But we have feet to scale and climb
By slow degrees, by more and more,
The cloudy summits of our time.

The mighty pyramids of stone
That wedge-like cleave the desert airs,
When nearer seen, and better known,
Are but gigantic flights of stairs.

The distant mountains, that uprear
Their solid bastions to the skies,
Are crossed by pathways, that appear
As we to higher levels rise.

The heights by great men reached and kept
Were not attained by sudden flight,
But they, while their companions slept,
Were toiling upward in the night.

Day 2 – Hold the High Ground

The Confederate forces wanted to take hills south of Cemetery Ridge. Cannons there could overlook the entire battlefield, and would be a significant advantage.

The Confederate force (the 15th Alabama) attacked the Union force (the 20th Maine) on Little Round Top several times. By the end of the fourth attack the 20th Maine, led by Lt. Chamberlain, had only 200 men and no ammunition.

The Confederate forces readied themselves for the fifth attack on Little Round Top. What did the Union men decide to do? They fixed their bayonets and charged the Confederate forces climbing the hill. The 15th Alabama fled in fear.

Have faith that you will be supported, sometimes even miraculously, as you hold to higher ground. Don’t be afraid to fix your own bayonets in defense of the high ground.

Day 3 – Strengthen the Core

The Battle of Gettysburg ended on its third day. Having failed in attacks on both Union flanks, Confederate forces engaged in what has come to be known as Pickett’s Charge. With around 12,500 men, the Confederates attacked the very core of the Union line.

How was the Union able to repel such a force? It was because their core was strong; their fundamentals were solid and their commanders involved.

In preparation for the main advance, the Confederate army fired at the Union line to soften up artillery and infantry. Unfortunately for the Confederate forces, Union artillery was unaffected by a Confederate barrage. Union commanders wisely ceased artillery fire slowly, giving the appearance that their cannons were being destroyed one by one. When Confederate infantry begin crossing the 3/4 mile plain towards the Union front line, they were exposed to heavy Union cannon fire (from the intact cannons) and suffered great casualties.

Union forces also flanked the Confederate forces. When Union fighters began to take casualties, Union leaders bolstered their moral. One commander, General Hays, had two horses shot from under him while he rode across the battle line shouting, “Hurrah! Boy’s, we’re giving them hell!”

Ultimately, Confederate forces suffered over 6,500 casualties because the Union was prepared to defend their core.

This is an age of political correctness, but we should not stand unprepared for attacks at the very center of our beliefs because we’re waiting for dogs nipping at the periphery.

Conclusion

Hopefully these lessons will have application to you. Good luck in the battle.

Free to Choose Immodesty

There is a scandal going on at BYU as we speak. It’s such a horrible atrocity that the subject hardly fits within civilized conversation. In fact, it probably has the force to bring the Church Educational System, nay, the Church itself, to it’s knees!

Or maybe not.

Maybe some self-righteous guy was just being a bit of a prick.

On Valentines Day this week, Brittany Molina was studying accounting in the Tanner building on BYU campus. A complete stranger, a young man, walked up to her and gave her a note, then quickly disappeared. Excited to be getting a love note from a secret admirer, Brittany opened the letter and read this:

You may want to consider that what you’re wearing has a negative effect on men (and women) around you. Many people come to this university because they feel safe, morally as well as physically, here. They expect others to abide by the Honor Code that we all agreed on. Please consider your commitment to the Honor Code (which you agreed to) when dressing each day. Thank you.

As a side note, I went to BYU for a world-class education, not because I was looking to obtain an education in an isolated bubble. But I digress.

What kind of outfit was Brittany wearing?

This young man was not Brittany’s bishop, home teacher, parent, Relief Society president, or friend, and as such she was not his stewardship. The letter was a cowardly, emotionally immature misstep that embarrasses me as a BYU student and a Latter-day Saint, and should embarrass this young man.

You can find more on this news story in the article “BYU student’s honor code note goes viral”.

The Letter of the Law

What does the Honor Code say about dress and grooming standards?

The dress and grooming of both men and women should always be modest, neat, and clean, consistent with the dignity adherent to representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any of its institutions of higher education.

Modesty and cleanliness are important values that reflect personal dignity and integrity, through which students, staff, and faculty represent the principles and standards of the Church. Members of the BYU community commit themselves to observe the following standards, which reflect the direction of the Board of Trustees and the Church publication For the Strength of Youth. The Dress and Grooming Standards are as follows:

Women

A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, strapless, backless, or revealing; has slits above the knee; or is form fitting. Dresses, skirts, and shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extremes in styles or colors. Excessive ear piercing (more than one per ear) and all other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.

This mirrors what the Church leaders have written in the pamphlet “For the Strength of Youth” on dress standards.

From the picture, it looks like Brittany’s dress comes above her knee. The BYU Administration has made it clear that leggings do not waive this standard. Under these guidelines, is she breaking the standard?

Yes.

And I’m completely okay with that.

There are too many other issues of greater import that demand my attention, and demand the attention of my peers in the Church, for us to be concerned with a minor dress infraction on a college campus.

The Prayer of the Utahs, er, I mean Zoramites

I think it may be worthwhile to look a prayer of the Zoramites. Their form of worship involved climbing a great stand known as the Rameumptom and repeating, verbatim, this prayer. It went, in part:

“Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy….

“Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children….

“But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren… which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.

“And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen” (Alma 31:15-18).

This attitude is repulsive, and it’s one that I see exemplified in the above letter. What did Alma think of this prayer?

“Now when Alma saw this his heart was grieved; for he saw that they were a wicked and a perverse people….

“Yea, and he also saw that their hearts were lifted up unto great boasting, in their pride” (see Alma 31:24-35).

Choosing to be Offended

We each have different standards. When confronted with such base evil as an honor code violation, what other choice do we have than to take offense and confront the evil-doer?

According to Elder David A. Bednar, we have plenty of other choices. He says,

“It ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else….

“To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation.”

If someone does not share our standards, we have complete control over how we react when those standards are not met. I’ve lived outside of Utah most of my life. I grew up in California, served a mission in Hawaii, interned for a summer in Oregon, and will soon live and work in Washington. I’ve met countless people with different standards than mine. Had I always chosen to be offended and confront others like this young man, I would have run out of ink long ago.

Our Responsibility

I have standards of my own, and contrary to popular belief, I don’t think that they are restrictive. These standards act as guardrails in my life, and help me to be happy. Knowing how happy I am, I would certainly want others to share in that happiness, right? This leads me to share my standards, in the form of the gospel, with others.

But there is an important balance between boldness and overbearance. People are “free to choose liberty and eternal life,” but they are also free to choose “captivity and death” if that’s what they want (2 Nephi 2:27; see also this section of “For the Strength of Youth” on Agency and Accountability).

So what is this balance?

I talk about this in a post about Mere Christianity, and you can read more there if you like. In short, as we try to find this balance between being bold but not overbearing, between sharing our gospel standards and still remaining Christlike, perhaps we should keep this council from Rex Lee in mind. He said,

“It’s not enough to do the right thing. We have to do the right thing in the right way” (see here, page 4).

I like to go one step further, and add “for the right reasons.” Remembering that the ends do not justify the means helps keep us from going astray.

Is confronting a random girl about her perceived immodesty doing the right thing? Perhaps. Probably not, but perhaps.

But was it done in the right way? Certainly not.

And was it done for the right reasons? I’d wager the answer is a resounding “No”.

Let us keep this council in mind as we seek to balance boldness with overbearance in our quest to bring the everlasting peace and happiness of the gospel of Christ to our friends and neighbors.

Mormon Observations on “Mere Christianity” – Preface 4

This is a post continuing my analysis of Mere Christianity from an LDS perspective. See my table of contents here.

The Parable of the Hall and the Rooms

At the very end of his preface, Lewis gives an analogy, a parable if you will. He says,

“I hope no reader will suppose that ‘mere’ Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions – as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.”

I talked about this idea briefly in Part 1. I laid out briefly my personal stance, which is echoed by the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We unequivocally and unapologetically claim to be the one true church on the earth today, the one door that offers the fullness of salvation. The Lord himself told Joseph Smith that this Church is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30). Yet Latter-day Saints do not believe that they have a monopoly on truth. They believe that the Lord has given to all nations the portion of truth that he sees fit that they should have (Alma 29: 8; see also 2 Nephi 29:10-13).

In 1978, the First Presidency of the Church (at the time, Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney, all pictured above) released an official statement which summarizes this position. In reads, in part:

“The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals… Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all people sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come.

“We also declare that the gospel of Jesus Christ, restored to his Church in our day, provides the only way to a mortal life of happiness and a fullness of joy forever. For those who have not received this gospel, the opportunity will come to them in the life hereafter if not in this life.”

Thus, even though there is one true church, that does not make all other churches wrong. It just makes them not enough. Some Christians may have a problem with a statement such as this, but isn’t this essentially what they are saying to everyone else? “There may be some truth in your religion, but to be saved it is not enough. You must come to Christ.” That is, of course, the truth. And to their statement we only add, “And you must come to the true Christ, and the Church wherein you can find the fullness of his gospel, his priesthood power, and his chosen leaders.”

The contradictions that are set up if one believes in a plurality of truth will not be covered in depth here; perhaps I will write on that later. Suffice it to say that God will contradict himself if he allows multiple churches, who all teach different things, to be true. This is not the God I believe in. The God I believe in teaches, instead, of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5, emphasis added).

For those who share beliefs similar to this, in the biblical position of one true church, it seems that Lewis may not go quite far enough. While many of the rooms may contain, as Lewis puts it, a “hint of truth,” there is only one room that provides eternal life through the gospel of Jesus Christ. That room is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Waiting in the Hall

Lewis gives some profound advice about choosing a door near the conclusion of his analogy. He says,

“You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and panelling. In plain language, the question should never be: ‘Do I like that kind of service?’ but ‘Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular doorkeeper?’”

It is true that I have grown up in the Mormon Church, and so I have very little experience of “hallway” time. I gained a testimony for myself that I was where I wanted to be, and I have learned much of other churches and religions, but I admit that I have spent little time in the hallway.

I have, though, served as a full-time missionary for two years (you can see me to the left at a baptismal service). Many of you have probably met someone much like me. We come in pairs, knocking on doors, clean cut and in white shirts and ties. Though we are young, we go by the title of “Elder.” We probably tried to talk to you about eternal families, modern day prophets, or the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And unfortunately, few of you have probably spent time with us in places other than on your doorstep for a few brief moments.

I did have the opportunity, though, of teaching quite a few people over the course of those two years, people that spent time in the hall deciding whether or not to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I can tell you from personal experience that there were many things they considered that were not important. They were worried about what their friends or family might think, or about how hard it might be, or about a “pet sin” they would have to give up. Concerns about things like these kept them from entering into the door.

Being Kind to Others

Lewis concludes his metaphor with an admonition. He says,

“When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still In the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.”

How to we balance kindness with the need to share the gospel?

This is a very difficult question to answer, but it is absolutely essential to answer it. The difficulty is in finding balance between two seemingly conflicting gospel ideas. The first idea is the need to be Christlike to those around us, even (and perhaps especially) our enemies. In following his example, we would expect to use kind words, to be generous and accommodating, and to have all the other qualities the Savior exemplified perfectly during his life here on earth. The second idea is the need to be a witness for the gospel, and to testify fearlessly to our friends and neighbors of the truth we hold so dear. We believe these are eternally significant principles, so why wouldn’t we want to share them?

The reason these ideas conflict for so many is that we naturally prioritize our missionary duties above our Christlike-living duties. We think, “Certainly our neighbors should forgive us for being bold, when in the long run they can learn to qualify for eternal life!” Many do not know where to draw the line, and boldness quickly crosses over to overbearance. I talked about how being a Latter-day Saint made me especially sensitive to the issue of defining what it means to be Christian. It is the same with this issue of being kind to those of different denominations. Other Christians often loose sight of the line between boldness and overbearance, and end up saying very hurtful things about me in the name of saving my soul.

How can we avoid this kind of behavior, which is certainly disappointing to our Savior? I believe the key is in something said by Rex Lee, a BYU law school dean. He said,

“It’s not enough to do the right thing. We have to do the right thing in the right way” (see here, page 4).

I think there is great wisdom in this statement, but I would go one step further. We need to do the right thing, in the right way, and for the right reasons. If we remember that the ends do not justify the means, and always have as our motive the love of God and for our fellow man, it will be difficult to go astray.  Chip Ingram suggests that we “add more light, not heat.”  We want to illuminate a subject, and discover truth, but heated contention will prevent that and often cause more harm than good (see 3 Nephi 11:29).

If all else fails, it never hurts to make the issue a matter of prayer.

Study Questions from this Section

The Parable of the Hall and the Rooms

• Is this analogy valid?
• How does being in a “room” differ from being in the “hall”?
• Is it right to believe in one true church? Or are there a plurality of true Christian religions or true world religions? What implications does this have on who we believe God is?
• If there is one true church, does that make all the other churches completely wrong?

Waiting in the Hall

• What should we do and consider when looking for a “door”?
• What should we not do or consider when looking for a “door”?

Being Kind to Others

• What does it mean to be kind? What does it mean to be unkind?
• How might this relate to Alma 38:12?

Mormon Observations on “Mere Christianity” – Preface 3

This is a post continuing my analysis of Mere Christianity from an LDS perspective. See my table of contents here.

The Meaning of  ”Christian”

Lewis addresses the objection that he should not be allowed to define who is and who is not Christian. He says,

“People ask: ‘Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?’: or ‘May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?’ Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.”

He goes on to tell how the word “gentlemen” once had a useful meaning. It meant someone who had a coat of arms and some landed property. Over time, it eventually came to be used more as a compliment when someone else did something you liked. As a result, it becomes quite useless if anyone tries to use it in its old sense. As Lewis says, “it has been spoiled for that purpose.”

He concludes that it’s important to define who is a Christian so that it does not become useless. It, like the word gentlemen, will simply be used as a compliment. Instead, he suggests that

“We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to ‘the disciples’, to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles.”

I think Lewis’ analogy is a good one. It is important to define who is Christian so that the word doesn’t lose it’s meaning. He is not looking to exclude people; he is simply trying to make sense of the hundreds of Christian denominations he sees and find a common ground.

The question of who is Christian will be one that he tries to answer for the rest of the book, and I think generally he does a good job (though I don’t agree with everything he says). But while he takes an entire book to answer that question, it is important to note that he answers it wonderfully in just two lines – someone who is a follower of Christ and of the apostles whom Christ chose to speak for him after his ascension.

Are Mormons Christians?

But are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Christian? As a member of the Mormon church, this question has particular import for me. I have worshiped and followed Jesus Christ all my life, but often mainstream Christians would call me unchristian, or worse, a member of a cult!

(For an in-depth discussion of this, see my post on Mormonism and Robert Jeffress. Briefly, though, the claim that Mormons are members of a cult is also one of semantics. Much like the word “gentleman” has been corrupted into little more than a compliment, the word “cult” has been corrupted to little more than an insult. We’re a little weird, sure, but who isn’t? Perhaps someone who is abiding be the rule Lewis mentions as “common to the whole house” should choose different terminology (see Part 4).)

This is not a simple question. If, when we say “Christian” we mean something akin to what Lewis identified above, a follower of Jesus Christ and his apostles, then certainly Mormons are Christian.

Usually, though, the term “Christian” means something entirely different for those who use it. Instead of a follower of the apostles, one must also be a follower of the Church Fathers and all their creeds, including the doctrine of the Trinity (for a discussion of the authority of the Church Fathers, see here). They must also adhere to only the Bible, and believe that God has stopped speaking to his Church as a whole. In this respect, Mormons are unlike other Christians.

I am somewhat unique (among Latter-day Saints) in my belief that there is great power in focusing on what makes us ‘non-Christian’ rather than shouting, “We’re Christian too!” In the introduction to his book “Here We Stand,” Joseph Fielding McConkie expounds on this idea:

“The message of the Restoration centers on the idea that it is not common ground we seek in sharing the gospel. There is nothing common about our message. The way we answer questions about our faith ought to be by finding the quickest and most direct route to the Sacred Grove. That is our ground. It is sacred ground. It is where the heavens are opened and the God of heaven speaks. It is where testimonies are born and the greatest truths of heaven are unveiled. It is of this sacred ground that we say, here we stand.“

Do Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ? Of course we do! We believe that he was born of a virgin, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. He died for the sins of all men, becoming the only way we can gain salvation (Mosiah 3:17). He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. As a church,

“we bear testimony… 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” (for a summary of what Mormons believe about Jesus, see this statement written by the apostles of the Church; compare it to what makes someone a “Christian”).

But we also believe in a Jesus Christ that appeared to Israelites in the Americas, showing to them as well as other scattered tribes that he indeed had died for them and had been resurrected (See 3 Nephi 11; also 3 Nephi 11-30). We also believe in a Jesus Christ who is a separate and distinct personage, separate from the Father and the Holy Ghost (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). We also believe in a Jesus Christ who appeared to answer the prayer of a 14 year-old boy and end the dark night of apostasy that had swept over the world since the death of the apostles (see Joseph Smith – History; see also here and here). We also believe in a Jesus Christ who stands at the head of this Church, leading it today through a modern prophet.

Is that different? Yes! And it’s wonderful! So are Mormon’s Christian? As we can see, the answer is yes and no depending on what you mean. But Latter-day Saints can find great strength in not abandoning those things that make us different. We can find great strength in not abandoning our “sacred ground.”

For more information on the Restoration, see here.

Study Questions from this Section

The Meaning of “Christian”

• Is the analogy about the term ‘Christian’ a good one?
• Who is a Christian?
• Are Mormons Christian?

Mormon Observations on “Mere Christianity” – Preface 2

This is a post continuing my analysis of Mere Christianity from an LDS perspective. See my table of contents here.

“Common to Nearly All Christians”

Lewis explains that he wants to talk about what has been “common to nearly all Christians at all times.”

It is very difficult to decide what is common to all Christians. If we do happen to accomplish such a thing, not only is it a very short list, but it is a very empty list, including perhaps only a belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We not only exclude people and groups unnecessarily, but we strip religion of all that makes it what it is. Allow me to explain by using some comments by William James as to how all religion is uniform from his lectures The Varieties of Religious Experience.

James details a “uniform deliverance in which religions all appear to meet.” He offers that there is an “uneasiness,” a need or problem with which the human race is accosted. This need is met with a “solution,” where somehow the human race is saved from this need by making appropriate devotions to the Divine Reality. Where religions differ is in how they describe this need, and in what way a solution is given. For many Western religions, sin is overcome through a savior. For many eastern religions, men gain needed enlightenment in communion with the whole of the universe. But though these interpretations are different, it can be argued that they are still interpretations of the same Divine Reality. The interpretations differ simply because the experiences are taking place within different cultural frameworks.

While the uniform deliverance James pointed out can be seen in all religions, they had to be boiled down to the utmost simplicity in order to create that uniformity. To do so is to purposefully exclude all those things that differentiated religion in the first place. One might say that all sports are essentially the same; their object is to put some sort of ball in some sort of goal despite some sort of organized obstacle. The shape of the ball, or the size of the goal, or the manner of the obstacle are different, but these differences can be attributed to the “interpretations” of cultural framework.

Still, football is much different than golf, which is much different than water polo, which is much different that cricket. In boiling these sports down to their most basic essentials we are able to find common denominators, but in doing so we have also lost the essence of what makes each sport unique and endearing.

To boil down the religions of the world is to do the same, and we trivialize vital qualities of belief. Even in Christianity, the only thing that we can truly consider common is that sin is our uneasiness and Jesus Christ has provided the solution to that uneasiness. Even before we add in Mormonism, finding a common denominator among Christianity leaves a hopeless shell of the belief systems they truly are.

“A Vague and Bloodless H.C.F.”

Lewis addressed the concern I raised above later in the Preface. He says,

“It may possibly be of some help in silencing the view that, if we omit the disputed points, we shall have left only a vague and bloodless H.C.F. The H.C.F. turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all… It is at (Christianity’s) centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if’ not in doctrine.”

When it comes to comparative religion involving more faiths than those of Christian descent, I can relate to the Lewis when he says that “I should have been out of my depth in such waters.” I do not know enough about the Muslims or Buddhists of the world to be able to say one way or the other with any degree of certainty how different Christianity really is. I will leave that to you.

A more important point to consider is the way Lewis continues to downplay the differences between Christian sects. He has done this since the beginning of the Preface, and continues to do so until the end. The question of where exactly is Christianity’s center deals very much with themes in Part 1 (when discussing Lewis’ first reason for avoiding the topic) and Part 3 (when discussing what it means to be a Christian). Rather than rehash either of the themes here, I commend those sections to you.

Study Questions from this Section

Common to Nearly All Christians

• How might this relate to 1 John 4:1-3?
• In what ways may we consider Christianity to be uniform? Can we consider Christianity to be uniform at all?

A Vague and Bloodless H.C.F.

• Is it true that differences between Christianity and other world religions are enough to eclipse the differences between Christian sects?
• How can we decide what Christianity’s “centre” is?

Mormon Observations on “Mere Christianity” – Preface 1

This is a post continuing my analysis of Mere Christianity from an LDS perspective. See my table of contents here.

The Purpose of Mere Christianity

In the Preface, Lewis clearly defines his purpose. He says:

“The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian ‘denominations’… Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.“

How you feel about Lewis’ decision to forgo any treatment of fragmented Christianity will very much depend on how you view religious truth. Do you believe in religious pluralism? That is to say, can Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all lead men to the same God, and to the same reward in this life and after death? If not, then can Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, or the host of other Christian sects all lead men to the same God, and to the same reward in this life and after death? Maybe not all of them, but only the Protestant or Evangelical sects? Maybe only one or the other? Is there only one true path?

Your position in regard to religious pluralism will effect how you consider Lewis’ purpose.

It is difficult to know Lewis’ own position from just the content of Mere Christianity. In fact, he purposefully writes so as to hide his own position, and does so effectively. Yet there are a few statements which infer that he might lean towards believing in some sort of Christian pluralism. First, in his analogy of the hall and the rooms, Lewis says that he believes that “the worst of the rooms” is preferable to remaining in the hallway. Second, in another work he commented,

“I couldn’t believe that nine-hundred and ninety-nine religions were completely false, and the remaining one true.”

Still, Lewis says,

“If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all other religions are simply wrong…. You are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of truth.”

What Lewis is saying is that a true church does not necessarily have a monopoly on truth. Other religions are not necessarily completely wrong if there is a single true path.

As someone who believes, as the Bible teaches, in one true church, I am inclined to think that Lewis does not quite go far enough. You can find more about the LDS position on this topic in Part 4, where I cover Lewis’ hallway analogy.

After defining his purpose, Lewis gives the reasons behind his decision, which we’ll discuss below.

Reason 1

“In the first place, the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history, which ought never to be treated except by real experts. I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others.”

In his first reason, Lewis seemingly downplays the differences between Christian denominations. In his eyes, such questions of “high Theology” and “ecclesiastical history” have little to do with the saving power of Jesus Christ, and need only be treated by “real experts.”

And yet, the contradictions between denominations are anything but minor. How essential is baptism? How are we to administer the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, or other ordinances for that matter? How should we revere important figures in church history? How important is grace in comparison to works? Where does one receive the authority to minister in the name of Jesus Christ?

There are countless questions, and the majority of them have to do with matters that directly influence our salvation and our daily walk with God. If left only to the experts, then almost all of us would find ourselves without knowledge essential to bring us back to God. These are important questions; whether or Lewis knows the answer to them all, they are important to at the very least present.

Who gets to decide what issues are important and what issues are negligible? The question of who gets to decide doctrinal issues is itself one of the most important questions, and a key point when discussing the veracity of the LDS Church. Ours is a church built upon revelation from Jesus Christ, revelation that is received by prophets and apostles in our day. Because of this, we never have to worry that our beliefs are based on the philosophies of men.

Reason 2

“And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.”

I take issue with Lewis’ initial statement, that discussing these questions “has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold.” I disagree, and add that discussing these questions can have a positive effect on the Christian world. I see this positive effect coming in two ways.

The first way that this positive effect comes is that it develops an atmosphere of scholarship. The gospel of Jesus Christ has the truth. We have nothing to fear from religious scholarship, and so much to gain – a growing reputation in the eyes of the world, and a more intelligent and faithful group of followers (see my post on faith and philosophy), for starters.

The second way that this positive effect comes is that we can create “genuine options” for of non-believers. The term comes from William James‘ essay “The Will to Believe.” He uses, as an example, the option for us between becoming a follower of Mahdi or not. The option is not genuine, but dead; neither choice has the least bit of appeal for us.

I believe that in discussing these kind of questions, we can potentially make questions genuine for unbelievers even though they may have been previously dead. They can hear something that sparks their interest, a doctrine suddenly appeals to them, and who knows but that the interest may one day be fanned into a faithful flame (I highly recommend that those interested read the essay by James).

What’s more, Lewis’ admonition that these questions be discussed only in the presence of believers seems somewhat deceptive. While it is important to have milk before meat, that needs to be balanced against honestly presenting the case of Christianity in its fullness and letting the hearer decide its validity. At the very least, we cannot exclude questions that are as important as the ones Lewis seems to skirt. Remember, the gospel of Jesus Christ has the truth. We have nothing to fear.

Reason 3

“Finally, I got the impression that far more, and more talented, authors were already engaged in such controversial matters than in the defence of what Baxter calls ‘mere’ Christianity. That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest. And to it I naturally went.”

Lewis’ third reason is the one that makes the most logical sense. It seems natural to want to go where the need is greatest, or where you can do the most good. This reason would be sufficient for me to accept Lewis’ purpose. And yet by virtue of the fact that Lewis gives the above two reasons when he doesn’t have to shows me that his purpose is an important part of his overall argument.

Conclusion

The bottom line, it seems, is this: there is value in not discarding the differences we find between Christian denominations, and when we do discard these questions we do so at our own peril. Besides, in avoiding questions, we have no better standard for what Christianity should be than what the masses have thought it is; and we have no reason to believe that they were correct, or that they were correctly interpreting the words of the apostles and the Savior.

Perhaps it was appropriate to abandon the discussion for this book, but to do so indefinitely is unwise.

Study Questions from this Section

The Purpose of Mere Christianity

• Do you agree with Lewis’ purpose?
• What does you think about religious pluralism?
• Are all Lewis’ reasons behind his purpose valid?

Reason 1

• Lewis downplays the importance of doctrinal questions. Is it right for him to do so?
• What type of differences do we find between various Christian denominations today?
• Is it true that these questions should only be treated by “real experts”?
• Which differences matter, and which differences don’t? Who gets to decide which is which?

Reason 2

• Is it true that discussing these questions “has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold?”
• Is it true that our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of believers?

Reason 3

• Is it good to go to the areas of discussion that are most unoccupied?
• How might this relate to 1 Peter 3:15?

Mormon Observations on “Mere Christianity”

C.S. Lewis is considered a talented writer and Christian apologist.  The HarperOne publishers write, “Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably the most influential Christian writer of his day…  He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year.”  He is also perhaps the the non-Mormon that is quoted most often by General Authorities and Church leaders of the LDS Church.  His writings are valued by many Christians, regardless of their denomination.

I began reading Mere Christianity recently.  I thought that it might be valuable to look at it from an LDS perspective.  Please note that the analysis will be mine, as a Latter-day Saint, and not the official opinion of the LDS Church itself.

I include a table of contents below, with hyper links to the appropriate sections as I complete them.  As of right now, I have no plan on how often or how soon installments will be released.

Preface

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

Book 1.1: The Law of Human Nature
Book 1.2: Some Objections
Book 1.3: The Reality of the Law
Book 1.4: What Lies Behind the Law
Book 1.5: We have Cause to be Uneasy

Book 2.1: The Rival Conceptions of God
Book 2.2: The Invasion
Book 2.3: The Shocking Alternative
Book 2.4: The Perfect Penitent
Book 2.5: The Practical Conclusion

Book 3.1: The Three Parts of Morality
Book 3.2: The ‘Cardinal Virtues’
Book 3.3: Social Morality
Book 3.4: Morality and Psychoanalysis
Book 3.5: Sexual Morality
Book 3.6: Christian Marriage
Book 3.7: Forgiveness
Book 3.8: The Great Sin
Book 3.9: Charity
Book 3.10: Hope
Book 3.11: Faith
Book 3.12: Faith

Book 4.1: Making and Begetting
Book 4.2: The Three-Person God
Book 4.3: Time and Beyond Time
Book 4.4: Good Infection
Book 4.5: The Obstinate Toy Soldiers
Book 4.6: Two Notes
Book 4.7: Let’s Pretend
Book 4.8: Is Christianity Easy or Hard?
Book 4.9: Counting the Cost
Book 4.10: Nice People or New Men
Book 4.11: The New Men

Mormon Observations on “The Book of Mormon” the Musical – Tomorrow is a Latter Day

For a list of all the posts in this series, see here.

Background

After the pageant presentation, the Mission President is outraged and orders the missionaries home. He tells the villagers that they are not Mormons, and Elder Cunningham becomes discouraged because he ended up causing even more trouble for the villagers. Elder Price, on the other hand, has an epiphany and realizes that Elder Cunningham was right all along – even though scriptures are important, it’s more important for religion to help people. Elder Price and Elder Cunningham decide to stay and help the villagers together.

The warlord returns to the village, but is driven off by Elder Price and Elder Cunningham. They accept Elder Cunningham’s earlier stories as metaphors to help them in daily life, rather than literal truth, and Elder Price rallies everyone to work together to make their village and life a paradise.

A Latter-day
Tomorrow is a Latter Day

Like I said in the post “I Am Here for You”, I’m not sure what the term “Latter-day” means in the context of the show. To learn what Latter-day Saints believe about the term “Latter-day”, see that post.

What is a Latter-day Saint?
“We are still Latter Day Saints, all of us, even if we change some things or we break the rules or we have complete doubt that God exists.”

This claim is not necessarily true, and reminds me of something C. S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity:

“People ask: ‘Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?’: or ‘May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?’ Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful.”

We can degrade the meaning of “Latter-day Saint” as Elder Price suggests, but at this point the word will have lost all meaning and, consequently, all usefulness (for more on this discussion in relation to the term “Christian”, see this post on the preface of Mere Christianity).

So what is a Latter-day Saint? What does a Latter-day Saint believe? A good place to start might be with the baptismal questions (see this post on the song “Baptize Me”). A Latter-day Saint believes that:

• God is the Eternal Father
• Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and redeemer of the world
• The Church and gospel of Jesus Christ was restored through Joseph Smith
• The Church is led by a prophet, currently Thomas S. Monson

Those that change the teachings of the scriptures or living prophets, or suggest disobedience to those teachings, don’t qualify as a Latter-day Saint. This is why members of splinter groups like the Fundamentalist LDS Church or Reorganized LDS Church are not considered Latter-day Saints. The group of villagers in the song would similarly not be considered Latter-day Saints as long as they taught from the “Book of Arnold”.

The good news is, though, that if they desired to belong to the Church it would only take a few missionary lessons!

What of those who break the rules? Certainly simple mistakes are not disqualifying. The Atonement provides us the ability to repent and return to him when we commit sin. It is true that some serious sins lead to Church discipline, but disfellowship and excommunication are paths meant to lead through repentance and to full forgiveness and fellowship in the Church once again.

Apostasy
“We are still Latter Day Saints, all of us, even if we change some things or we break the rules or we have complete doubt that God exists.”

Why is it such a big deal when people “change some things”?

Nephi saw in vision our day, and the problems that were caused when changes were made to the plain gospel taught by Christ and his apostles. He was told,

“Wherefore, thou seest that after [the Bible] hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

“And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles… because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them“ (1 Nephi 13:28-29).

The Savior has given us his gospel so that we can be happy in this life, and qualify for eternal life in the life to come. Any changes to that gospel will make us “stumble” on that path, and perhaps even lose our way and prevent us from receiving either of those two gifts.

Apostasy is a very serious thing. The Restoration of the gospel was the only way to overcome the “stumbling” that occurred as a result of the Great Apostasy (see here).

Eat, Drink, and Be Merry
What happens when we’re dead?
We shouldn’t think that far ahead

What of this carefree attitude that we should not think of tomorrow, or the afterlife? Nephi taught us that in the last days

“there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

“And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

“Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines“ (2 Nephi 28:7-9).

Alma taught,

“And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

“Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world” (Alma 34:33-34).

Surely, what we do in this life will directly impacts what happens in the life to come. Is it wise to ignore that when there is a clear end to this probationary state?

Now, some will say, “I just don’t know. I won’t make any choice.” What of that?

William James, in his excellent essay “The Will to Believe”, ended with a quote by Fitz James Stephen. Stephen said,

“What do you think of yourself? What do you think of the world? Are you a mere machine, and is your consciousness, as has been said, a mere resultant? Is the world a mere fact suggesting nothing beyond itself worth thinking about? These are questions with which all must deal as it seems good to them. They are riddles of the Sphinx, and in some way or other we must deal with them. If we decide to leave them unanswered, that is a choice. If we waver in our answer, that too is a choice; but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril.

“If a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future, no one can prevent him. No one can show beyond all reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise, and acts as he thinks, I do not see how anyone can prove that he is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best, and if he is wrong so much the worse for him. We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist, through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still, we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road, we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ”Be strong and of a good courage.” Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes…. If death ends all, we cannot meet it better.“

We cannot avoid the choice by not making a choice, for not to make a choice is a choice in itself. It would be like freezing to death after refusing to choose whether to take the left fork or right fork.

Temporal and Spiritual Needs

For more on the tag-of-war game played between temporal and spiritual needs, see my post here.

In brief, though, we must not overly focus on temporal needs to the exclusion of spiritual needs. They are both important, but it is not more important for religion to help people’s temporal needs.

Efficacious Ordinances
“We are still Latter-day Saints”

What does it take for an ordinance to be efficacious. In the post “Baptize Me” we discussed how it was vital for baptism to be performed in the proper way and by the proper authority. It is just as important for other ordinances to be performed in the proper way and by the proper authority. But is that all there is?

The Holy Spirit of Promise is also an essential element in order for ordinances to be efficacious. The Lord says,

“And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise… are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

“Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:7-8).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie has said,

“The operation and power of the Holy Spirit of Promise is best illustrated by the ordinance and contract of baptism. An unworthy candidate for baptism might deceive the elders and get the ordinance performed, but no one can lie to the Holy Ghost and get by undetected. Accordingly, the baptism of an unworthy and unrepentant person would not be sealed by the Spirit; it would not be ratified by the Holy Ghost; the unworthy person would not be justified by the Spirit in his actions. If thereafter he became worthy through repentance and obedience, the seal would then be put in force. Similarly, if a worthy person is baptized, with the ratifying approval of the Holy Ghost attending the performance, the seal may be broken by subsequent sin.”

Full Lyrics – “Tomorrow is a Latter-day”

Elder Price: We are still Latter-day Saints, all of us, even if we change some things or we break the rules or we have complete doubt that God exists. We can still all work together and make this our paradise planet.

Elder Cunningham:You, you want to stay here with me?

Elder Price: I’d do anything for you. You’re my best friend.

Don’t worry little buddy
Know this much is true
Tomorrow is a latter day
And I am here for you

Tomorrow is a latter day

I am a Latter-day Saint
I help all those I can

Elder Cunningham: I see my friends through times of joy and sorrow

Elder Price: What happens when we’re dead?
We shouldn’t think that far ahead

Both: The only latter day that matters is tomorrow

The skies are clear and now the suns coming out
It’s a latter day tomorrow
Put your worries and your sorrows and your cares away
And focus on a latter day
Tomorrow is a latter day

Nabulungi: I am a Latter-day Saint
Along with all my town
We always stick together come what may

Elder Cunningham: We love to dance and shout
And let all the feelings out
And work to make a better latter day

Villagers: Hum na-haya, hum, hum na-haya
We’ll be here for each other every step of the way
And make a latter day tomorrow

Americans already found a cure for AIDS
But they’re saving it for a latter day
Tomorrow is a latter day

Elder Price: I believe
(Tomorrow is a latter day)
I believe
(Love and joy and all the things that matter day)
I believe
(Tomorrow is a bigger, badder latter day)

I believe
(Tomorrow, tomorrow is a latter day)
I believe
(A happy ending on a platter day)
I believe
(Tomorrow is a doper, phatter latter day)

Villagers: Why are Mormons happy?
It’s because we know
It’s a latter day tomorrow
So if you’re sad put you’re hands together and pray
That tomorrow’s gonna be a latter day
And then it probably will be a latter day
Tomorrow is a latter day

Elder Price: So what will tomorrow bring?
What does the future hold?
I can almost see it now

Villagers: Hello.
My name is Elder Matumbo.
And I would like to share with you the most amazing book

Hello
My name is Sister Kimbe
It’s a book about a people who were poor and sad like you

A sacred text
Of pioneers and frogs
And how you can find salvation if you if you just believe

Hi ho (Ding dong)
Hello (Boba Fett)
You have a lovely mud hut
And if you just put down the gun I’ll show you, oh, okay, I’ll leave

Hello
My name is Elder Galli
You will love all of the happiness this book can bring

Hello
My name is Elder Butt-*******-Naked
Did you know that the ******** is a holy sacred thing?

Find paradise
(With Jesus Christ)
And no more war
(Hello, nice door)
You read that Book of Mormon – did you know there’s more?

We swear
(We really care)
This is not a scam
(No ma’am)

Have you heard the story of our
Prophet Arnold Cunningham?

Hello
Our church is going strong
And if you let us in we’ll show you how you can belong

Join our family
And set your spirit free
We can fully guarantee you that this book will change your life
The Book of Arnold

Hello!

We are Latter-day Saints
We take, like, one day at a time
When the chips are down we know just what to say

The past may be in tatters
But today is all that matters
Because today is yesterday’s latter day

Thank you God
Ma ha nei bu, Eebowai
Tomorrow is a latter day

Gotswana: I still have maggots in my scrotum

The Jesus of Stephen Colbert

If you’re like me, you’ve seen this picture popping up on Facebook recently:

This quote was taken from the bit “Jesus is a Liberal Democrat” (you can watch the video or read the transcript below). Those posting this picture might do well to read the entire bit from which it’s taken.

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:368914

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

What of Colbert’s comments?

There is a lot (and I do mean a lot) in the bit worth considering, but that’s not my intent. Those who watch Colbert know that he’s a satirist, and exercises a certain creative licence when it comes to content. His primary purpose is not to inform, but to entertain.

Rather, my purpose is to present important principles and let you consider Colbert’s comments for yourself. These principles have to do with political neutrality and provident living/giving.

A Kingdom Not of This World

It is erroneous to assume that the Savior would align himself with any political organization. In this post about why I love Jesus and religion, I discuss this principle. In short, it is inappropriate to tie a governmental system to the gospel of him who said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

This is why the LDS Church takes political neutrality so seriously. In an official Church statement, Church leaders write,

“The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics.”

It goes against the Savior’s own words to tie him to either liberal or conservative politics, and it goes against the purpose of this life to legislate and mandate those actions which we should be choosing to do on our own.

Our Commission to Love Others

At points during his monologue, including the viral quote above, Colbert equates the ideas:

• “unconditionally loving others”
• “unconditionally giving to others”

Certainly when we care for others we seek to help them better their circumstances, but this does not lead us to unconditionally give into any demand. For example, there are many things parents deny their own children even though they care for them deeply.

As I said, I won’t attempt to tackle the complex political and governmental issues that surround welfare or entitlements, nor do I think that it would be appropriate to defend any political action based on whether on not it’d be something that Jesus would do. As I explain later, it has been left to us to decide how to act upon the principles discussed below.

I just wish to point out that “loving” and “giving” are very different, though related, concepts.

That’s not to say that loving and giving are unimportant. The commandment to love others as ourselves was one of the two great commandments taught by the Savior:

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

“This is the first and great commandment.

“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets“ (Matthew 22:37-40).

Provident Living

Because I take issue with some of Colbert’s comments, don’t believe that I disagree with his suggestion that we should care for the poor and needy. I believe it is extremely important to care for the poor and needy.

There are two principles that we should keep in mind as we consider both our charitable giving and our desire for charitable receiving.

Our Commission to Provide for Others

In the Book of Mormon book of Mosiah, King Benjamin teaches,

“And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

“Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

“But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?”

Elder Robert J. Whetten has said,

“Every unselfish act of kindness and service increases your spirituality. God would use you to bless others. Your continued spiritual growth and eternal progress are very much wrapped up in your relationships – in how you treat others. Do you indeed love others and become a blessing in their lives? Ins’t the measure of the level of your conversion how you treat others?… Service to others is what gospel and exalted life are all about.”

As Christians, we have a responsibility to help care for the poor and needy. For more on how Latter-day Saints feel about this commission, see here.

Our Commission to Provide for Ourselves

Watch the video below for what Elder Robert D. Hales says of provident living:

Church welfare is not given unconditionally. The LDS Welfare Fact Sheet says,

“The responsibility for each person’s spiritual and temporal well-being rests first upon himself, second upon his family, and third upon the Church…. The purpose of Church welfare assistance is to help people to help themselves. Recipients of these resources are given the opportunity to work, to the extent of their ability, for the assistance they receive.”

For more on how Latter-day Saints feel about self-reliance, see here.

Balance and Provident Living

How do we balance these two principles – that we have a responsibility to care for the poor and needy, but that we need to be self-sufficient, living within our means and working for those things we receive? We aren’t given any specific mandate in scripture. Like many things in the gospel, God has allowed us to work out for ourselves how to be generous and the best way to give.

The Lord tells us,

“For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

“Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

“For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

“But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned” (Doctrine and Covenants 58:26-29).

John Taylor told us,

“Some years ago, in Nauvoo, a gentleman in my hearing, a member of the Legislature, asked Joseph Smith how it was that he was enabled to govern so many people, and to preserve such perfect order; remarking at the same time that it was impossible for them to do it anywhere else. Mr. Smith remarked that it was very easy to do that. ‘How?’ responded the gentleman; ‘to us it is very difficult.’ Mr. Smith replied, ‘I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.’“

Knowing correct gospel principles, we can make good decisions even if our way is not explicitly laid out.

Twisting the Words of Jesus – What He Actually Said?

Colbert suggests several statements made by the Savior refer to unconditional giving. The first is from the Sermon on the Mount, and the second is the account of the Savior’s experience with the man often referred to as the rich young ruler.

Let Him Have Thy Cloak Also

The scripture Colbert refers to is from Matthew 5:40, which reads,

“And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.”

To what was the Savior referring? It was not any sort of humanitarian aid. Bruce R. McConkie says,

“Counsel to avoid law suits and entangling legal difficulties, lest fine and imprisonment result, is directed particularly to the apostles and missionaries as they go forth to carry the gospel message to a wicked world. It is more important that they suffer legal wrongs than that their ministries be hindered or halted by legal processes.“

James E. Talmage wrote,

“Christ taught that men should  rather suffer than do evil, even to the extent of submission without resistance under certain implied conditions. His forceful illustrations – that if one were smitten on one cheek he should turn the other to the smiter; that if a man took another’s coat by process of law, the loser should allow his cloak to be taken also; that if one was pressed into service to carry another’s burden a mile, he should willingly go two miles; that one should readily give or lend as asked – are not to be construed as commanding abject subserviency to unjust demands, nor as an abrogation of the principle of self-protection. These instructions were directed primarily to the apostles, who would be professedly devoted to the work of the kingdom to the exclusion of all other interests. In their ministry it would be better to suffer material loss or personal indignity and imposition at the hands of wicked oppressors, than bring about an impairment of efficiency and a hindrance in work through resistance and contention.“

And from Clarke’s Commentary,

“Every where our blessed Lord shows the utmost disapprobation of such litigations as tended to destroy brotherly kindness and charity. It is evident he would have his followers to suffer rather the loss of all their property than to have recourse to such modes of redress, at so great a risk. Having the mind averse from contentions, and preferring peace and concord to temporal advantages, is most solemnly recommended to all Christians. We are great gainers when we lose only our money, or other property, and risk not the loss of our souls, by losing the love of God and man.“

The Rich Young Ruler

Much like the except from the Sermon on the Mount, this story was distorted and taken out of context. The account reads, in part,

“There came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

“And Jesus said unto him,… Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

“And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

“Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

“And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

“And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples,… It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”

Does this account really teach us to sell all we have to give to the poor? It does not. Instead of the focus being on the receiver of gifts, the focus is on the individual. In this case, the Achilles Heel of the individual was personal wealth. James E. Talmage writes,

“In his way, he yearned for the kingdom of God, yet more devotedly he loved his great possessions. To give up wealth, social position, and official distinction, was too great a sacrifice; and the necessary self-denial was a cross too heavy for him to bear, even though treasure in heaven and life eternal were offered him. Love of worldly things was this man’s besetting weakness; Jesus diagnosed his case and prescribed a suitable remedy. We are not warranted in saying that the same treatment would be best in all cases of spiritual defection; but where the symptoms indicate the need, it may be employed with confidence as to the cure.”

Flapping His Gums

What was Jesus’ message? What can we consider to be his most oft-preached message? What did he “flap his gums” about the most?

I’d like to offer that it was an invitation to come unto him, often phrased something like this:

“I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (John 6:35).

Conclusion

While some of the measures that Colbert suggests or quotes in his bit could be considered helpful to others, we cannot forget that God’s kingdom is not one of earthly politics.

I repeat, it goes against the Savior’s own words to tie him to either liberal or conservative politics, and it goes against the purpose of this life to legislate and mandate those actions which we should be choosing to do on our own.

Full Transcript – Jesus is a Liberal Democrat

It just seems to me that the democrats don’t get Christmas. Another example? Congressman Jim McDermott, who used the baby Jesus to push his pro-poor people agenda. Jim:

“This is Christmas time. We talk about good Samaritans. We talk about the poor and the little baby Jesus in the cradle and all this stuff, and then we say to the unemployed, ‘We won’t give you a check to feed your family.’ That’s simply wrong.”

Of course it’s wrong! We shouldn’t be talking to them at all! They’ve got unemployment cooties.

And I’m not the only one upset by McDermott’s flagrant injection of charity into the Christmas season. So is Papa Bear Bill O’Reilly. In his weekly column, he wrote,

“Every fair-minded person should support government safety nets for people who need assistance through no fault of their own. But guys like McDermott don’t make distinctions like that. For them, the baby Jesus wants us to “provide” no matter what the circumstance. But being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive” (December 9, 2010).

Good point, Bill. Jesus said, “We only have to love those who deserve it.”

Now, what I like best about Bill’s argument is it’s complete factual inaccuracy. Because it would be inconvinient to guys like us to repeat what Jesus actually said. For instance, if someone wants your coat, give them your cloak as well, or rich people should sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor. Plus, the fact is, Jesus was way beyond self-destructive. He was self-sacrificial. I mean, the guy was God. He could have floated off that cross like Chris Angel Mindfreak.

And I love, I love, how Bill closes with “The Lord helps those who help themselves,” kind of implying that Jesus said that… when it was actually Ben Franklin… who I believe belched out that proverb between mouthfulls of French whore.

But as much as I’m a fan of Bill’s willfully ignorant borderline heretical self-justification, I gotta tip my hat to Burnie Goldberg, who came on the “Factor” to call Jesus like he seesus (sic). Jim:

“As a matter of fact, you know, Jesus probably would be, except for one or two issues, a liberal democrat if he were around today.”

Yes. Jesus was a liberal democrat. It’s right there in his name – Jesus H. Christ. That “H” clearly stands for “Hussien.” Plus, Jesus was always flapping his gums about the poor, but not once did he call for tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Romans, even though they create all the good slave jobs. And don’t forget – Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes. No good conservative would be caught dead with tax collectors.

What fightens me, really, what really frightens me about this, is now we know we got a liberal Jesus seated at the right hand of the Father. He’s basically Yawhew’s Joe Biden. Anything happens to the big guy, we could end up with a socialist deity redistributing my loaves and fishes.

Well, it hurts me to say this, folks, but if Jesus really is a liberal, it’s time to get the Christ out of Christmas. Now listen, you know me, I’m no fan of the term “X-mas,” of “X” anything – I make my kids play “Christbox 360″, and if they break a bone they get “Christ-rays” – but it is time to take baby Jesus out of the manger and replace him with something that’s easier to swallow. How ’bout a honey baked ham?

Because if this is gonna be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don’t wanna do it.”

Mormon Observations on “The Book of Mormon” the Musical – Joseph Smith American Moses

For a list of all the posts in this series, see here.

In the interest of giving you a fair warning, there is a lot of offensive language in this song. I’m going to censor some of the language, but it’s not difficult to get it from the context.

Background

Elder Price’s attempt to convert the warlord is unsuccessful. Very discouraged, he goes to a cafe and drowns his sorrows with cups of coffee. Elder Cunningham comes to find him, and tells Elder Price that they at least need to act like missionary companions since the Mission President is coming for a visit soon. The president and other leaders are coming to congratulate the missionaries on their incredible success.

When the leaders come, Elder Price and Elder Cunningham are singled out as the most successful missionaries in Africa. Then, Nabulungi and the other villagers come to perform a pageant for the leaders. This pageant reflects the distorted version of Mormonism that Elder Cunningham had taught them.

Church History

Hopefully I don’t have to tell you that this retelling is completely inaccurate. For more on Church history, see the post “All-American Prophet”.

Full Lyrics – “Joseph Smith American Moses”

Nabulungi: And now we wish to honor you with the story of Joseph Smith, the American Moses

Mission President: Well, this is very good, praise Christ

Nabulungi and Villagers: Mormon

I’m going to take you back in time
(Mormon)
To the United States, 1823
(Mormon)
A small and odd village called Oopstate New York
(Oopstate)
There was disease and famine
(So sick)

But also in this village lived a simple farmer who would change everything. His name was Joseph Smith.

Hiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiya

Joseph Smith, American Moses
Praise be to Joseph, American prophet man

Village Joseph Smith: Aye, my name is Joseph Smith and I’m going to **** this baby

Mission President: What?

Nabulungi and Villagers: No no Joseph, don’t **** the baby
Joseph Smith, don’t **** the baby

Suddenly the clouds parted and Joseph Smith was visited by God.

Villager God: Joseph Smith, do not **** a baby
I will get rid of your AIDS, if you **** this frog

Nabulungi and Villagers: Hiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiya

Joseph Smith ****** the frog God gave him and his AIDS went away. Then a great wizard named Moroni came down from the Starship Enterprise.

Villager Moroni: Joseph Smith, your village is ****
You shall lead the villagers to a new village
Take these ******* golden plates

Nabulungi and Villagers: (Away)

And on the plates were written the directions to a new land - Sal Tlay Ka Siti
(Sal Tlay Ka Siti)
Joseph tried to convince all the villagers to follow him and his golden plates

Villager Joseph Smith: Liberation, equality, no more slavery for Oopstate Mormon people

I got the golden plates
(Gold plates)
I’m gonna lead the people
(We head West)

We gotta stick together
(Mormons)
We gotta help each other
(We’re Mormons)

And so we climb the mountain
(We head West)
And we cross the river
(We head West)

And we fight the oppression
(Mormons)
By being nice to everyone
(We are Mormons)

Villager Brigham Young: Not so fast Mormons, you shall not pass my mountain

Nabulungi and Villagers: Down from the mountain look who comes
The American warlord Brigham Young

Villager Brigham Young: Yes, I am Brigham Young
I cut off my daughter’s ********
That made God angry so he turned my nose
Into a **** for punishment

Nabulungi and Villagers: Brigham Young, his nose was a ********
What will you do Joseph, will you fight the ******** man

Villager Joseph Smith: Not fight him, help him

Nabulungi and Villagers: Joseph Smith took his magical **** frog
And rubbed it upon Brigham Young’s **** face
And behold Brigham was cured

Joseph Smith, magical AIDS frog
Brigham Young, frog on his **** face

Brigham Young was so grateful
He decided to join the Mormons on their journey

Villager Brigham Young: Compassion, courtesy, let’s be really ******* polite to everyone

I got the golden plates
(Gold plates)
I’m gonna lead the people
(We head West)
We gotta stick together
(Mormons)

Nabulungi and Villagers: Now comes the part of our story that gets a little bit sad. After traveling for so long, the Mormons ran out of fresh water and become sick with dysentery.

Water go to the water, water go to the cup
Cup go to the stomach, **** come out the butt
**** go in the water, water go in the cup
**** go down the stomach, **** come out the butt

Oh no, the prophet Joseph Smith is now getting sick

**** go in the water, water go in the cup
Cup go to the thirsty, **** go to the stomach
Blood come out the butt, blood go in the water
Water go in the cup, cup go to the tongue
**** blood in the stomach, **** blood in the mouth
**** blood on the insides, water come out the butt

Villager Joseph Smith: Brigham Young, you must take the golden plates and lead the Mormons to the Promised Land. Blarg.

Villager Brigham Young: Desperation, mortality, loss of faith

I got the golden plates
(Gold plates)
I’m got to lead the people
(We head West)

Nabulungi and Villagers: Even though their prophet had died, the Mormons stuck together and helped each other and were really nice to everyone they came across. And then one day the Mormons finally found Sal Tlay Ka Siti
(Sal Tlay Ka Siti)
And there, the Mormons danced with Ewoks and were greeted by Jesus

Villager Jesus: Welcome Mormons. Now, let’s all have as many babies as we can and make big Mormon families.

**** your woman, **** your man
It is all part of God’s plan
Mormons **** all that they can
He’re in Salt Lake City land

Thank you, thank you, but now we are *******
Thank you, thank you, but God wants us *******
Thank you, thank you, but get back to *******
Thank you, thank you, God

Nabulungi and Villagers: Joseph Smith **** frog
Brigham Young **** face
**** come out the butt
Jesus says ****, ****
Mormons