This continues my series on the homework assignment Elder Uchtdorf gave us during the priesthood session of General Conference, to read sections 20, 84, 107, and 121. After my write up on these four sections, I may return with some thoughts and additional areas of study.

First, a test: What is the oath and covenant of the priesthood? Don’t peek anywhere, just think of it in your own words and if you have something, post it in the comments before reading any further. (I say this because I admit I had no recollection of what it was, and not as some sort of “gotcha”.)

Context:
Context here is very important. It was revealed in September 1832, 2 and ½ years after Section 20 was received. The Prophet was very active in translating the bible at this time, and there is a lot of connection here between his understanding of the work he did with the book of genesis, particularly. It was received while Joseph was meeting with six Elders, freshly returned from missions, and in a time when the Prophet’s mind was pregnant with the proposed temple in Missouri, and the Zion to come forth from its successful construction and dedication. It was in this context that Joseph framed this revelation. It is basically impossible, and very fitting, to disconnect the priesthood here described from the woven tapestry of missionary work, temple work, and the building of Zion.

A brief overview of the first 42 verses:
1. After establishing that the temple would be built and the glory of the Lord would rest there, the revelation begins to discuss explicitly priesthood as a thing which can be transferred from person to person. (vs. 1-17)
2. There are two priesthoods. The greater priesthood has two functions: To Administer the Gospel, and second to unlock the knowledge of God. The Power of Godliness is made visible in the ordinances of the priesthood, and would not be visible without these ordinances. This is because you cannot see God without the ordinances. (vs 18-22)
3. From Moses to John the greater priesthood was denied the people due to unwillingness. The lesser priesthood included baptism and repentance and faith and the Carnal Law. Also, offices of the priesthood are explained and separated between the two priesthoods (vs. 23-31)
4. Vs. 6-31 were a giant aside, like a tv show recap for anyone jumping in at the middle. “Previously in the revealed word of God….”, In a lot of ways, this covers a lot of ground Joseph Covered in his translation of Genesis. Anyway, when you get to verse 31, It is good to think back to the earliest verses where the temple is established and God’s glory is resting there.
5. In this temple, those holders of the two priesthoods will make an offering to God, and because of this are filled with glory. For whoever obtains the two priesthoods and magnifies their calling is sanctified by the spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become heirs to the promises made to Moses, Aaron, Abraham, the church and kingdom, and the elect of God. (vs 31-34)
6. All those who receive the priesthood, receive Christ. All those who receive Christ’s servants, receive Christ. Those who receive Christ receive the Father, and those who receive the Father receive all that he has. This is according to the oath and covenant of the priesthood. If you receive the priesthood, you receive the oath and covenant. And if you break the covenant, you’re in trouble. You are also in trouble if you don’t receive the covenant. (35-42)

Thoughts:
1. The accepted understanding of the oath and covenant of the priesthood is that we receive/obtain the priesthood and then magnify it, and in doing so, God ultimately will give us all that he has. I think this is one of those situations similar to the Word of Wisdom, where what the scripture literally says and means has become less important than the accepted understanding of it., because to me, the scripture itself is less clear than the accepted understanding.
2. The Oath in the Oath and Covenant is most plausibly explained by reading the JST vs. around Abraham in Genesis 14:25-40, where Melchizedek is ordained to the priesthood, after the order of Enoch, where God makes an Oath by himself to grant power to those ordained to the priesthood, according to their faith.

Questions:
1. Where does this leave faithful women?
2. What does it mean to magnify the priesthood?

In General Conference- President Uchtdorf asked that we study the scriptures and handbooks and become experts on the doctrine of the priesthood. He told us this would help us to live up to our privileges as priesthood holders. He told us to start with Doctrine and Covenants chapters 20, 84, 107, and 121. In an effort to do that, I will be posting basic impressions I get from each of the four D&C sections he mentions, then further my study as time goes on. I’d love your thoughts and input as well.

D&C 20-
Context- This was the original articles and covenants of the Church, prepared for the organization of the Church on April 6, 1830 (though not completed until later). The greatest current reading I am aware of for the context from which this revelation came is in BYU Studies 43:4 (2006)- having to do with how Oliver Cowdery put together a fore-runner to this document. It cannot be said Joseph used Oliver’s document (which he was commanded to prepare in another revelation) as the foundation of his revelation, as they are very different in several regards, but it can be said that Oliver provided revelatory input of his own from his previous revelation into the Articles and Covenants (As all evidence indicates that Oliver helped write D&C 20). I don’t have the Joseph Smith Papers to check what stance they take on this.

Impressions- (more…)

Recently, Dr. Terryl Givens has published a two part series via Meridian Magazine dealing with the problem of evil. Being a long time reader of Givens’ frankly excellent books on Mormonism, and being aware of his forthcoming volumes on theology, I was very excited to read these. Part 1 was excellent, with its reference to the Brothers Karamazov, and adeptly setting up an adequate description of what the problem portion of the problem of evil is. Givens doesn’t call it that, focusing instead on “the problem of God’s justice”, perhaps intent on limiting his focus, but he does promise “to reconcile the understanding of a God who weeps over pain but does not prevent the pain–how to reconcile that understanding with the reality of a world drenched in pain and suffering?” So, I’d say this puts forward the promise of a theodicy.
(more…)

Today at 1:30, I’ll be teaching this in Elder’s Quorum. Last week, Elder Ballard taught us in Regional Conference to not “over complicate” the Gospel. I’m trying.

Defining Sacrifice in LDS theology

Sacrifice can and has meant a variety of different things. The definition I like the best in the context of LDS theology comes from our concise little manual “True to the Faith” published in 2004. It says, “To sacrifice is to give up something valuable or precious, often with the intent of accomplishing a greater purpose or goal”. In a way, this definition is very similar to the use of the term in the game of Chess, where the pawn may sacrifice itself for the benefit of the entirety of the team. The pawn is killed for a greater purpose, but does not necessarily receive any direct benefit for itself. I sometimes hear people say sacrifice is giving up something good now for something better later. Thus we end up with sacrifice sounding like investing in a 401k plan. This doesn’t ring true to me. While it may be true that we give something up for something of higher value, the “something of higher value” may not directly have benefit for ourselves, and does not necessitate that benefit. The manual asks, “Why is it important to sacrifice as the Lord asks without expecting anything in return?” I think it is because the greater purpose or goal we are to give up is greater than ourselves. It is the glory of God and all mankind. Anyway, I think this concept of sacrifice as giving up for a greater good is useful as we think about religious sacrifice before Christ, of Christ, and in our lives as Christians.
(more…)

I am not really sure I should be posting this. Names have been changed to protect the innocent. Please excuse my grammar errors.

I don’t really know what to do. It is the sort of situation I’ve never really thought about. But let me start from the beginning. Lightning moved here years ago, following his sister and parents. Lightning has never been diagnosed, mainly due to parents who have issues that are similar to his, but his sister believes him to have some form of high functioning autism. I am not sure that matches his symptoms, but I have no medical expertise in this area. Lightning spent years in the singles ward here, variously leering at girls until they became uncomfortable, or telling girls they were fat, or bearing his testimony of how he had to beat someone up for on his mission to teach them humility. Eventually, Lightning’s brother-in-law got a job far away and moved, taking sister and eventually parents away. Lightning chose to stay, being over thirty, and moved into our ward, having reached “the age”. Having known Lightning’s sister, I tried to keep an eye on Lightning. I helped him do his taxes, occasionally took him food, and let him do laundry at my home. Lightning meanwhile got a permit to carry a gun and became a security guard, and perpetually asked me if he could write my sister-in-law, “since she’d lost weight”. Lightning was a little odd, making inappropriate comments in Sunday School about teaching other missionaries humility on his mission to the slums of salt lake city, where he taught the gangs. (He did actually serve a mission to SLC. I don’t know about the rest.) Occasionally he would tell me things like God gave him super strength, and this would worry me, but not as much as his owning a gun did. Also a worry to me is Lightning’s engagement to a girl in the Philippines, whom he has flown over to see once. (Using the money from his tax return I helped him to get, and being unable to pay his bills for months afterward)
(more…)

D&C 89:12-13 reads:

Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

Recently I heard that the comma after “used” is a later insertion done by James E. Talmage, so this verse should actually be:

Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

Is there any truth to this? I could find very few references to such a change via the usual googling but all of them are pretty questionable in terms of veracity.

Interestingly, I’d say the norm is to practice the second reading, although the scriptures currently state the first.

While many posts have been dedicated to the new CHI, I am quite surprised that this major doctrinal shift has been overlooked. To my mind, this is probably the most important “micro-mormon” (Thanks, Scott B.) level change to occur in the handbook.
(more…)

This is not intended to be a position piece, but as I have had a couple conversations regarding LDS theology and Human Sexuality in the past 24 hours, I thought it would be best to articulate what I see as some of the theological issues that are repeatedly coming up. I am also trying to link to either good sources I am aware of that relate to these issues, or at least more fully articulate the issues.

1. The Problem of Determinism- If a human being can be determined in something as fundamental to human behavior as sexual preference, how free are they really? One could argue that if we are not really free, then we are not really accountable. This argument is used in Mormonism and Many Legal communities to deny accountability for infractions do to lack of willful intent. Perhaps the best theological path here is to accept a concept of limited free will, as articulated by Geoff J here.

2. The Problem of Evil- Why would a loving God allow something so fundamental to life to be so fundamentally off as sexual preference. This is the question that was excised from Boyd K. Packer’s talk. This is, of course, the most challenging question in all of Christendom. An excellent articulation by Rosalynde Welch of the issue in this specific context is here and I do my best to give my theodicy of the problem here.

3. The Problem of Sentimentality- How much of romantic love is merely chemistry and biology playing out within us, rather than the profound experience our society has set it up to be. Must sexual preference override all other forms of relational compatibility? This question is tightly related to the problem of determinism above, and I have attempted to articulate it in the past here.

4. The Problem of Scriptural infallibility- The New Testament has numerous scriptures involving homosexuality as a non-allowed sin. Wikipedia has a very complete list. This is above and beyond the more blatant statements in the Old Testament. Of course, the New Testament also calls women the weaker vessel, and says they should not speak in church. Thus appeals to the authority of scripture alone truly do need prophetic clarification.

5. The Problem of Doctrinal Non-clarity- With pseudo-doctrinal teachings of our eternal existence and purpose ranging from eternal sexual procreation to the necessity of a male and female to create a whole deified person, there is much confusion on what our sexuality infers upon our eternal existence. Add to this non-clarified doctrines regarding Heavenly Mother, viviparous spirit birth, and questions around what Joseph meant in terms of our spirits being Eternal, and we are left with a wide range of possible theological world views to pick from. I find myself most in line with Jonathon Stapley on these issues while perhaps taking a more apologetic view in regards to Heavenly Mother.

6. The Problem of Prophetic Fallibility- Perhaps the greatest challenge in the modern LDS worldview that has been high lighted in terms of the church’s doctrine regarding human sexuality is that it has and does change. Up until the 1980s Birth Control was incredibly frowned upon, and then there was a major shift, with one statement from Gordon B. Hinckley. Polygamy ended with a prophetic proclamation, institutionalized racism like wise. These massive doctrinal statements make it more difficult for church members to solidly anchor themselves to any single teaching of the church, leaving them to reason out for themselves with mixed results what is best. The Narrator best articulated this issue for an article for the SMPT journal Element, which can be read here. I am told there will responses to this article in another issue of Element, but I am not aware if they have been published.

So there you have it, these are the issues I could think of which come into play when discussing the theology of the LDS position in regards to homosexuality. I am not aware how deeply these issues impact the reasoning for the LDS position, but they undeniably have all come up as a consequence to it.

Are there other issues that you think are coming up at a theological level? Are there other posts you’d recommend on these theological issues?

So my current calling is to teach Elder’s Quorum once a month. It’s been about 8 years since I’ve taught the Gospel to adults, so I am feeling a bit rusty. I’ve taught 3 times now, and I haven’t quite found my rhythm. Anyway, I am posting my notes here in hopes that some of you brilliant folks here can come by and give me some pointers on what I can do to make this lesson better. I have decided not to do a power point, but to just go through the lesson material on the board, if I feel like I need to use a visual aide. My biggest challenge in teaching these lessons has been that I have two gentlemen with disabilities who wander radically off topic that I don’t know how to handle, so any tips for dealing with people with Schizoaffective Disorder and/or Autism/Aspergers would be greatly appreciated.
(more…)

1. White shirts are cheaper than colored shirts, and thus more universally accessible

2. White shirts are easier to clean and maintain than colored shirts (just use bleach), so last longer and are therefore cheaper. They don’t fade. (They do become threadbare, but this is different)

3. White shirts go with any tie/suit/pants/shoes/belt.

4. A clean white shirt of any type (T-shirts in the Philippines) still can have a formal look to it in the right context.

5. Gandalf was more awesome when he wore white.

6. James Dean wore a white shirt.

7. Han Solo is more awesome than Luke Skywalker and he wore white shirts.

In all seriousness, if you are trying to be pseudo-rebellious by wearing a colored shirt to church, but are still wearing a tie, you are a schmuck. I’m not saying you can’t wear a colored shirt, as I don’t really care what color your shirt is, but if you think there is some sort of anti-establishment message there, you’ve got addled brains or are 12 (Is there a difference?) Did I really say “In all seriousness”?

That is all.