When to Follow a Fallible Prophet

Q1: If prophets are fallible (as I believe they are, same as every other imperfect mortal in this world) then how can people trust in their EVERY word as if from God?

A1:

This very question is why it is so important to learn how to gain a confirming witness of the truth via the personal witness of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost will bear witness of truth, especially the truth of prophetic counsel. However, sometimes that witness doesn't come until after the trial of your faith. Following the prophet is not blind obedience. It's acting in faith, as informed by the spirit.

“We listen to the Lord’s prophet with the faith that his words are “from [the Lord’s] own mouth.” Is this blind faith? No, it is not. We each have a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. By our own will and choice, we raised our hand this morning, declaring our desire to sustain the Lord’s prophet with our “confidence, faith, and prayer[s]” and to follow his counsel. We have the privilege as Latter-day Saints to receive a personal witness that President Nelson’s call is from God” (Neil L. Andersen, The Prophet of God,” Ensign, May 2018, 25).

“We can tell when the speakers are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’ only when we, ourselves, are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.” (J. Reuben Clark, When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture? [address delivered to seminary and institute of religion personnel, 7 July 1954], p. 7).

It is true that not every word a prophet speaks comes directly from God, but their counsel and opinions often have great value. A Prophet's human failings do not mean that they do not have authority and keys that make them worth listening to and heeding. God will always use imperfect servants, because we are all He has to work with. A Prophet's fallibility does not negate the importance or the truth of his teachings.

Q2: But what a prophet teaches isn't always true...In that case, is it still wise to heed their words?

A2: Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because there have been instances in which prophets have made mistakes, that doesn't automatically make it unwise "to heed their words." Fallibility does not equal or imply deception, intent to deceive, or even simple unreliability.

How Can I Get My Testimony Back?

Q:  I was baptized a little over a year ago. I was baptized because I knew for a fact all of the things most people do: Jesus Christ is our Savior, Thomas S. Monson is a prophet, the church is true, etc... But now, I just don't. I'm no longer sure if the Book of Mormon is true. I can't read any scriptures. I don't even know if they are true. I'm not sure Thomas S. Monson is a prophet. But I want to be sure. I want to be like I was a year ago. But I don't know how.

A:  When you first got baptized no doubt you were on a spiritual high, and your emotions were probably running high as well. Now that time has passed, your emotions have cooled somewhat, and you have had to face the relatively mundane task of maintaining (and nurturing) your testimony from day to day. C. S. Lewis declared that such a change in mood is natural, and that it is precisely in moments such as these that faith is most useful:

"Now faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods “where they get off,” you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith.

The first step is to recognize [sic] the fact that your moods change. The next is to make sure that, if you have once accepted Christianity, then some of its main doctrines shall be deliberately held before your mind for some time every day. That is why daily prayers and religious reading and church-going are necessary parts of the Christian life. We have to be continually reminded of what we believe. Neither this belief nor any other will automatically remain alive in the mind. It must be fed. And as a matter of fact, if you examined a hundred people who had lost their faith in Christianity, I wonder how many of them would turn out to have been reasoned out of it by honest argument? Do not most people simply drift away?" (Mere Christianity, 140-141)

C. S. Lewis lists three things which he tells us are "necessary parts of Christian life," if we are to keep our faith "fed" and nurtured. I call these things "the three pillars of personal testimony," because they are essential in the maintenance and development of a healthy testimony and a robust faith.

*Daily prayers (Constant prayer)

*Religious readings (Consistent scripture study)

*Church-going (Regular & worthy observance of the sacrament)

"If There Is No God Why Be Good?" Secular Morality Vs. Christian Morality and The Dangers of Moral Relativism

In this post I examine some of the faults and flaws inherent to atheism and moral relativism, and I also examine the real reasons why Christians elect to do what they do.  I wrote this post as a general response to many things that I have heard and seen concerning morality, moral relativism, and the respective immorality of atheism and Christianity as viewed by either side of the morality debate.  More particularly, I wrote my post in direct response to a selection from Richard Dawkin's book The God Delusion.  While I do attempt to refute some of his conclusions, I find that he raises several valid points which are worth considering by religious people, agnostics, and atheists alike.

I have deliberately avoided addressing the arguments of atheists in the past, as I do not consider it to be a productive use of my time, especially since I think that atheists and religious people should agree to disagree and get on with making the world a better place.  I chose to address this quote from Mr. Dawkins in this post in part because I think that he promotes some false assumptions that even some Christians may think that they believe, but I wrote it mainly because I believe his argument opens the door for the discussion of an important Christian principle.

"If there is no God why be good?  Posed like that, the question sounds positively ignoble.  When a religious person puts it to me this way (and many of them do), my immediate temptation is to issue the following challenge: "Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment?  that's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap in your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base thought. As Einstein said, "if people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.'  Michael Shermer, in The Science of Good and Evil, calls it a debate stopper.  If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would 'commit robbery, rape, and murder', you reveal yourself as an immoral person, 'and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you'.  If, on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.  I suspect that quite a lot of religious people do think religion is what motivates them to be good, especially if they belong to one of those faiths that systematically exploits personal guilt.

It seems to me to require quite a low self-regard to think that, should belief in God suddenly vanish from the world, we would all become callous and selfish hedonists, with no kindness, no charity, no generosity, nothing that would deserve the name of goodness."  (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 259)

The Three Pillars of Personal Testimony

We live in a world in which we are constantly assailed by the trials, temptations, opinions, philosophies, creeds, heartache, betrayal, and grief that are a part of this life.  Some of these things are incidental to a life lived in a fallen world, and some of these afflictions can be attributed to the determined assault of Satan.  In light of the fierce trials and temptations that we are called upon every day to face, it is crucial that we learn to build ourselves "upon the rock of our Redeemer".

Is it a sin if I don’t go to church? Am I a bad person if I do not attend church regularly?

We have been commanded to attend church and to worship God on the Lord’s day in many places throughout the scriptures. One of the Big Ten is to keep the Sabbath day holy. The author of Hebrews (v. Hebrews 10:23-25) enjoins us as Christians to:

...Hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Paul goes on to exhort us to: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. (Colossians 3:16)

A more specific set of instructions is contained in Doctrine and Covenants section 59:7-12 where the Lord commands:

Thou shalt thank the Lord thy God in all things. Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day; For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times; But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord.

Just because we have been commanded to attend church doesn’t mean that you should attend church just because you are afraid that you will be punished for skipping church. Compulsory church attendance defeats the purpose of going to church in the first place. I have found that there is a tendency among members of the LDS church to equate regular attendance with righteousness. This is often accompanied by the implicit conclusion that those who do not attend church regularly must therefore be wicked in some way. While it is assuredly true that those who are truly converted (and who therefore are striving to be as righteous as a flawed mortal can be) tend to attend church as regularly as is within their power (out of a sincere love and devotion to God), it does not necessarily follow that those who attend church regularly are, by default association, righteous by virtue of their regular attendance alone.

"Some have come to think of activity in the Church as the ultimate goal. Therein lies a danger. It is possible to be active in the Church and less active in the gospel. Let me stress: activity in the Church is a highly desirable goal; however, it is insufficient. Activity in the Church is an outward indication of our spiritual desire. If we attend our meetings, hold and fulfill Church responsibilities, and serve others, it is publicly observed. By contrast, the things of the gospel are usually less visible and more difficult to measure, but they are of greater eternal importance. For example, how much faith do we really have? How repentant are we? How meaningful are the ordinances in our lives? How focused are we on our covenants?" (Donald L. Hallstrom, "Converted to His Gospel through His Church", Ensign May 2012)

He is Risen! The Case For the Resurrection of Christ

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith (1976), 121.)

I recently had a conversation with a friend who did not seem entirely convinced of the reliability of the accounts given by the apostles (and/or the writers of the gospels) concerning the literal reality and veracity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. More to the point this person did not seem to have a clear grasp of the function and consequences of the resurrection itself. Unfortunately he is not alone, nor is he unique, among Americans. According to Newsweek magazine: “The number of Americans who say they believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ has dropped 10 points since 2003 to 70 percent, according to the most recent Harris poll; only 26 percent of Americans think that they'll have bodies in heaven, according to a 1997 Time/CNN poll.” (Lisa Miller, “Far from Heaven,” Newsweek, Mar 25, 2010).

My friend is at least nominally a member of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and so his skepticism puzzles me somewhat since, like Paul, I feel that "if Christ be not raised...we are of all men most miserable."  The resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the hope that it brings, is the central message of the New Testament and it is the principal doctrine of the restored gospel.  The resurrection and its consequences are firmly established  by the Bible, as well as by the scriptures of the restoration, and so there is no reason for a Christian of any stripe to doubt the reality of the living Christ, and it makes no sense that so few people believe that (thanks to Christ) we ourselves will rise in the resurrection with glorified physical bodies.  Given that ignorance and disbelief in a doctrine as fundamental as the resurrection of Jesus Christ seems to run rampant even through the ranks of Christianity, I feel that it is my duty to make a case for the veracity of Christ's resurrection and to explain the effects and mechanics of the resurrection itself.  Such knowledge is crucial for anyone who claims to be a Christian and who wishes to obtain understanding in this life and salvation in the world to come.

2 Nephi 2:8  Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

It may be that resorting to the Biblical account may do little to convince someone of the fact and reality of the resurrection when they are already somewhat doubtful of the veracity of the Bible record itself. However I hope to establish the doctrinal and historical veracity of the Biblical account of the resurrection through scriptural sources outside of the Bible, and in so doing clarify the exact effects that resurrection has upon an individual (both in the physiological as well as in the redemptive sense) and perhaps explain the reasons behind those effects. I also hope to explore some aspects of the doctrine of resurrection contained in the scriptures that seem to be poorly understood by my peers. It is my hope that in gaining more knowledge about the details of the resurrection we can all gain a stronger testimony of the wondrous (and wondrously simple) fact that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again after three days, and that he lives even to this day and forevermore.

The Bible and The Book of Mormon in Latter-day Saint Practice and Belief

Do Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the word of God?  Do they regard it as scripture?

The answer is: yes, the Bible is revered as scripture by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  However many Mormons, like many other Christians, likely do not read and study the Bible as much or as diligently as perhaps they ought to do. To the end that I might foster a greater love for and familiarity with the Holy Bible among all Christians, and especially among my fellow Latter-day Saints, I have provided six suggestions to help make the Bible more approachable and enjoyable.

1)  Context is everything.  Find out who is speaking (or writing), and to whom it is that this person is speaking or writing. Find out when (roughly) the passage of scripture that you happen to be studying was written, and try to find out where it was written as well. It’s hard to understand anything when you take it out of context, and you might even enjoy the discoveries that you make as you delve into the ancient cultures and environments that formed the backdrop (and informed the writers) of the Bible.

"It will greatly help you to understand scripture if you note – not only what is spoken and written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goes before and what follows." --Miles Coverdale (1488-1569), in his introduction to his Bible translation (the first complete English translation of the Bible to be put into print).

2) Bring a dictionary to your study table. The language of the King James Bible, while deeply poetic and beautiful in the majesty of its prose, is written in a form of English that people today would doubtless consider archaic at best. Some people find it much too difficult to understand, though I would submit that it just takes some getting used to, and that the language of the King James is not so far removed from ours as one might think at first glance. Sometimes it might be helpful to use a modern language  translation of the Bible, but I would caution you to take care concerning which translation you decide to use, because some translations are better than others.  The New International Version is probably the most scholarly and reputable of the newer translations, and I often find additional insight into the meaning of certain verses by consulting this Bible as a supplement to my study in the King James Bible.  However, you should not assume that a simpler, more modern, translation alone will allow you to fully grasp the principles and doctrines of the Bible if you are not willing to engage in rigorous study and diligent application of the teachings you find therein.  The doctrines and concepts are no less complex just because the language is a little more contemporary, and so you should not view a more modern translation as a shortcut to understanding.  For that reason, even if you were to choose to read a modern language translation, you would probably still find it helpful to define words and terms (and concepts) that might be unfamiliar to you using a standard dictionary, a Bible dictionary, or a scripture encyclopedia.

3) Consult study guides and commentaries. Much has been written both inside and outside of the Church by way of Biblical analysis, and history.  Many of these books can be invaluable as aids to increase and enhance your understanding and appreciation of the Bible text, and the world that is chronicled within it. A note of caution, however. When consulting study guides that were produced by people who are not members of the Church, it is helpful to remember that they do not have modern revelation from which to draw, and therefore these authors must depend largely upon their own learning. This is true, to a slightly lesser degree, of those authors who may be members, but who are not ordained general authorities of the Church. In other words, these authors may not have all of the answers, and may in fact have erred in some of their analyses if the Bible and its doctrines. Accept what they write with a grain of salt, and as always follow the guidance of the spirit when studying these things.

4) Read the Book of Mormon. You heard me. The best study aid for the Bible is the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon testifies of the truth of the Bible, and helps to clarify and bear witness to many of the doctrines contained within it. These books were intended to be read together (see 2 Nephi 3:12, Ezekiel 37:15-20, and D&C 20:8-12). You will find that your understanding and enjoyment of the Bible will increase as you study the Book of Mormon, and that studying the Bible will do the same for your appreciation of the Book of Mormon. Heber J. Grant found this to be true, as he stated in a 1936 edition of The Improvement Era: "All my life I have been finding additional evidences that the Bible is the Book of books, and that the Book of Mormon is the greatest witness for the truth of the Bible that has ever been published" (IE 39 [Nov. 1936]:660).

Why Do We Need The Book of Mormon?

A friend of mine sent me this interesting question about the Book of Mormon last year, and I thought that I would share my response with you, my loyal readers.

Q:  J. and I were wondering what the purpose for the Book of Mormon is. We understand the Doctrine and Covenants, but are a bit lost otherwise. Figured we would ask you.

A:  A helpful way to look at it is to lose the artificial distinction between one piece of God's word and another. The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price all consist of God's word given to his Prophets who in turn were authoritatively commissioned to teach His laws and institute His ordinances, and keep records of God's dealings with his people. While the prophets in the Book of Mormon happen to be different men than the prophets in the Bible and other books of scripture, that doesn't change the fact that they were called by and ordained through the power of the same God.  It would be illogical to accept Isaiah, but reject Matthew, just because they came from different eras.