Monday, April 11, 2011

Non-Mormon Prophets


Mormonism defines "prophecy" loosely as "what is revealed through the Holy Ghost". That is my own definition, but it comes from the Bible Dictionary that is included as a part of the scriptural helps that are in the KJV Bible that the Church publishes. Under "Prophet", it says:
"In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in Num. 11: 25-29; Rev. 19: 10."
and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease ... (and Moses said) would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!
I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Given this definition, Mormonism has no problem accepting non-Mormons as "prophets" in that most expansive sense - as someone through whom God chooses to speak through the Holy Ghost. In fact, this is very consistent with the OT perspective, when numerous "prophets" lived at the same time and seemed to come out of the woodwork prior to great calamities. There is a difference between that, however, and the "calling" of someone to the "Priesthood office" of prophet. 

Those who have been called and ordained as prophets and apostles are "set apart" to prophecy (to share the word of God as moved upon by the Holy Ghost). They aren't "perfect" (complete and whole and fully developed) in this responsibility (meaning they aren't infallible), but they do "read the signs of the times" and share their inspiration with the world as a result. That also is why, frankly, we should have little problem letting go of things that were said in a different time than our own (or even in a different culture concurrent to our own) - since what God communicates with his children can change according to the needs of the people at any given time or in any given culture. He also communicates according to their willingness to listen. 

For example, if highly addictive substances are unknown in one society, there is little reason to expect God to prompt a prophet to speak of them; if, however, those substances exist or will be introduced shortly in another society, there is every reason to expect prophets in that society to mention them. This also explains why the Jewish priests in Jerusalem at the birth of Jesus had no idea about the prophecy regarding the star, while "wise men" from the east did know of it. One group was open to being told about it; the other group was not - so, apparently, God simply didn't inspire any prophets from that area to mention that upcoming sign. 

Was Muhammad a prophet? Given the totality of what he taught, I have no problem believing he might have been. I feel the same way about Confucius, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, and any number of other seemingly inspired preachers. I don't view them as Prophets or as having been called and ordained through the Priesthood as prophets and apostles, but I have no problem with them proclaiming the word of God through inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Frankly, I include many rabbis in this category, despite their lack of faith in Jesus Christ - since they do have faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom we believe to have been the pre-mortal Jesus.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

To Walk More Blamelessly before God

My New Year's Resolution for the month of April is "to walk more blamelessly before God" - taken from the first sentence of Alma 5:27, which reads:

Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? 

As I began to contemplate this question and how to internalize it a little more fully this month, I separated it instinctively into three core concepts:

1) We must walk our life's journey; we cannot sit, nor can we run.

2) We must walk "before God". 

3) We must strive to be blameless in "how" we walk.

I will attempt to address each of these points each Saturday this month and try to wrap them together on the final Saturday of the month.


1) We must walk; we cannot sit, nor can we run.

A number of scriptures come to mind immediately when I consider walking - not sitting or running.  Among them are the following:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. 


I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. 

The central idea in these and other passages is that all things must be done with patience at a proper pace - that "enduring to the end" most often is a case of continuing to walk a long journey steadily and humbly rather than sprint to a near finish line.  The interesting thing, to me, is the differing imagery that is employed in these three passages to address the same general topic.  

The first passage (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8) presents an image of someone walking through life at a pace that allows him to look around and see each "time" and "season" for what it is.  There is no rushing around in such a hurry that he misses the signs that tell what he should be doing at that moment.  He literally is strolling and observing - and, thus, acting according to what he observes in relation to his own life.  

I believe the person who walks thus is tune with the things that he sees, is more likely to see all that is put before him and, thus, less prone to miss what God wants of him.   

The second passage (Mosiah 4:27) adds an element of stamina to the first image.  In this verse, the person not only is in tune with what is placed before her, but she also walks at a pace that does not exhaust herself - that allows her to continue to walk without needing to take long pauses but at the maximum pace that she is capable of accomplishing.  She does not walk faster than she is able, but she does walk as quickly as she is able to do consistently for the length of her journey.  Thus, she covers the maximum distance possible for her - regardless of how that distance compares to the distance walked by anyone else.  

I also love the inclusion of the phrase "in wisdom and order" - as it implies, to me, an active and conscious prioritization on the part of the walker.  She acts as an "agent unto herself" - using her wisdom to "order" her life appropriately - again, regardless of how others order and prioritize their own lives.  

The final verse (Ecclesiastes 9:11) adds a truly unique and important element to the discussion.  The first part is a nice restatement of the others. However, the last part is a reminder that there really is enough time for ALL to accomplish what is set before them, if they but continue to walk - AND it emphasized an important disclaimer, if you will.  It is not just "time" that happens to all; "chance" happens to all, as well.  

"Chance" can be nothing more than "luck or fortune" - and that might be a legitimate reading of this verse.  However, given what is stated in the first part of the verse, I prefer to define "chance" as "opportunity or possibility".  With this interpretation, the last part of this verse would read: 

but all have time and opportunity

[In stating it this way, I believe it also is important to recognize directly that, when comparing life to a race of some sort, ALL can "walk" figuratively (since "walk" when juxtaposed with "run" connotes a difference in "pace or speed" rather than "manner") - while all cannot run.]

In summary, my resolution this month includes the commitment to strive to walk with my eyes open, seeking to see and recognize this "time" for what it is - to see the Lord's purpose for my life this specific and unique month.  It includes the need to use wisdom to order / prioritize the activities of this month.  It includes the faith that, if  I strive to walk in this manner, that there really will be time for me to accomplish whatever the Lord wants me to accomplish, that I really will have the chance to do so - that I truly may be more than I am now when I finish my mortal journey. 

Friday, April 8, 2011

When Someone Challenges My Christianity


Whenever someone asks me if I am Christian (or claims that I'm not), I try to say something like:
"That term ('Christian') means different things to different people. I believe I am a Christian, but I'm not sure if you would or not. Do you have a few minutes to listen to me explain my beliefs and see if you think I am?"
If they are serious and really want to know, they will listen - or pick a different time to do so. If they aren't interested in making that decision for themselves (or have made it already), they will turn me down - and that will be it. No debates, no hard feelings, no arguments, no change from before the question was asked. Nothing gained, but nothing lost. 

We had a training meeting for the bishops in our stake a few years ago, and one of the points that was made to them was to invite in such a way that it is easy for the other person to say, "No." Don't challenge; rather, invite - but give them a dignified and easily accessible way out in the invitation itself.  

That's what I try to do when someone questions my Christianity.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Blessings Include the Prayer of Faith

This is a very personal topic for me, since some of my most intense and enlightening experiences have been associated with Priesthood blessings. I have had at least three experiences that simply can't be explained in any way other than the opening of the heavens and having divine messages delivered through my mouth. (I really mean that, and I guarantee that nobody could construct a reasonable argument with that conclusion if I did share the details.)

Having said that, I also believe strongly that there is a "gift" associated with healings. I don't mean a gift to be able to heal everyone of everything, and I don't even mean a "gift of healing power". What I mean is a gift to be able to ascertain the will of God in situations where the person will be healed or not healed - but where God has something He wants said regardless. I’m not certain it is a permanent and constant gift, but I am sure it is a targeted gift in those circumstances when He really does want to speak directly to the person (or even those listening). I really don't know how to describe it properly, but I do believe in it.

In my own case, there have been lots of times when I simply have not felt any particular inspiration - where I have not felt like a conduit for His words. In those cases, I simply have stated that I am the one blessing the person as a Priesthood holder ("I bless you . . .") and hoped that my sincere hope would be granted - and I have avoided making specific promises about healing. However, there have been lots of times when I have felt prompted to make certain clear and astounding statements - and often I have seen them fulfilled. Those instances could be explained away as just the natural healing process, and perhaps they were, but I take comfort in them, nonetheless. That, in and of itself, makes giving blessings worthwhile - and the possibility that God will, for whatever reason, rend the veil once every few hundred blessings makes the concept and the practice sublime to me.

I think ALL worthy individuals (inside or outside the Church) have the right and ability to bless others and pronounce promises of hope and faith, dependent on the will of God (whether through the Priesthood or not), but I am deeply thankful for my own experiences where the heavens opened and I spoke the word of God. It's hard to explain what that feels like, but I'm glad I waded through the "common" ones enough to experience the "uncommon" ones.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Monday, April 4, 2011

The Difference Between Organizational Priesthood Authority and the Authority of God


I was really glad to hear Elder Bednar's discussion of light and revelation in General Conference yesterday.  I've thought a lot over the years about the Priesthood power and authority - and revelation - and how it is available to so many people outside of our modern Priesthood structure, and I loved the way Elder Bednar addressed that issue - even though it wasn't direct but more tangential.  


Let me try to explain what I mean:

For as long as I can remember I have agreed with the classic definitions of the Priesthood as "the power and authority of God" and "the authority to act in the name of God" - but I have disagreed that such a definition is limited to men who have been ordained to offices within the administrative Priesthood structure. I have believed that there is a huge difference between "the comprehensive power and authority of God" and the implementation of organizational Priesthood authority. 

I believe ALL who covenant to take the name of God upon them (inside or outside the Church, irrespective of sex or age and no matter what specific name they use) have the authority to act in His name in some way and to some degree (unless they lose it through the type of abuse described in Doctrine & Covenants 121) and all who have access to the Holy Ghost can exercise His power (to some degree). In fact, I believe that is inherent in the very words of the sacramental prayer, the way that the Priesthood is exercised in the temple and our beliefs concerning revelation that can be received by all.

Given this fundamental belief, I define "the formal, organizational Priesthood" as it currently is implemented in the LDS Church in administrative terms - since that is how our own Article of Faith presents it. Therefore, I would tweak the definition of that Priesthood as follows:

"the authority to administer (oversee the performance of) eternal ordinances and to administer (oversee the performance of) the activities related to those ordinances, including preaching the Gospel"


I'm not arguing against the current structure of the organizational Priesthood responsibilities; not at all.  I'm just saying that there is a difference between the fullest definition of the power and authority of God and how the Priesthood is exercised currently within the Church - and I'm OK with that. 

Also, I'm not sure that everyone will understand what I am saying in this post (and I am concerned a bit that some will misunderstand), but I really don't think what I'm saying is controversial in any real way. 
The definition above allows for MANY actions to be performed without organizational Priesthood authority but still through the more general authority of God - and, I believe, it is much truer to the actual way the Priesthood is used in the Church than the more common definition. I believe this is part of what Elder Bednar was saying in his talk about light and revelation, even though he didn't address the specific application I am making in this post.  

[Also, in the interest of full disclosure, my belief that women who have been endowed in the temple by the administrative Priesthood leave the temple with real power and authority as a result of that endowment also influences how I have tweaked the organizational, formal definition to focus more narrowly on "administrative rights" (as assigned responsibilities) rather than the more comprehensive "power and authority of God".] 

Saturday, April 2, 2011

No New Year's Resolution Post This Weekend - So Stop By and Read an Old Post or Two

I have been traveling with my job this month, and I am exhausted.  I also have extended family in town visiting, and I need to spend time with them.  Therefore, I am not writing a New Year's resolution post tonight. 

If the title brought you here, go ahead and browse in whatever way you want.  I'd hate to have you visit and not read something that took some thought and contemplation, as this post certainly did not.  *grin*

Friday, April 1, 2011

Spiritual Time Thieves

When I speak, I don't like to waste any time - mostly because I believe in the importance of what I am saying. Every second I spend not dealing with the topic and my own take on it is a second I spend wasting the listeners' time - and I don't have the right to waste anyone else's time.

Introductions, jokes, sappy analogies, visual aids, long quotes, even scriptures - all of these things are not important when compared to the insights I can offer. My own life is far more important and interesting and enlightening than these other things that make me a spiritual time thief if I let them take precious moments from my allotted time.

This is true especially if Sunday falls on April Fool's Day.
*GRIN* I hope I gotcha with this one!