Simply Put, I Just Don't Like Protestantism's View of Eternity

For the record, the traditional Protestant view of immortality just doesn't do it for me. I really do think I'd rather stop existing than to sit around forever telling someone how great they are, while stagnating eternally, just to avoid roasting in a lake of fire and brimstone (which, for what it's worth, is how we describe Lucifer's plan, in a nutshell).

For me, the difference in how Mormonism envisions eternity and how eternity is described in so many other denominations is the single, biggest difference imaginable. I want to believe in the Mormon vision; I have no desire whatsoever to believe the other view. To me, Protestant Heaven is a perfect description of damnation - and, frankly, the view held by too many Mormons that the Celestial Kingdom will be a place for people who, essentially, are copies of each other is one more way I would describe Hell.

I like the laboratory view - even though I don't like studying science all that much, comparatively. I'll be one of the gods reading jokes to everyone and playing a musical instrument to lessen the stress as they work out the physical creation stuff - one of the ones who breaks up potential fights when things get tense and someone is tempted to blow up someone else's experiment.

That's who I am now, and that's who I want to be then. I like who I have become over the decades learning how to be authentically me.

Analyzing Scripture: Joseph Smith History 1:19 - "They Were All Wrong"

[NOTE: This post is longer than normal, since I am commenting on multiple phrases and words throughout the verse in question. Please pardon the length; I couldn't shorten it any more than I did - except to delete this disclaimer.]

Perhaps the most reviled verse among non-Mormon Christians in the entire Mormon scriptural canon is Joseph Smith History 1:19 – the words of Jesus to Joseph Smith at the beginning of the First Vision regarding why he should not join any church. This single verse encapsulates the reason why many call Mormonism arrogant and offensive and blind – and the misinterpretations of this verse by Mormons themselves only add fuel to this fire. So, in this post I am breaking out my parser’s pen and dissecting what Jesus actually said and did not say: word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence, concept-by-concept. It was a fascinating endeavor when I first undertook it, and it changed my perspective on The Restoration greatly.

First, the actual question Joesph asked (in verse 18) is:

I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right . . . and which I should join.

The entire passage (in verse 19) says:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

Now, let’s break this down concept-by-concept and focus on the key words in each concept, focusing on what the words themselves actually mean AT THEIR MOST BASIC LEVEL – rather than secondary definitions and other interpretations that have been postulated (both within and without the LDS Church):

“I was answered that I (Joseph) must join none of them,”

Joseph prayed explicitly about the Protestant sects of his area and which one HE should join. Perhaps this appears to be a minor point, but I believe it is important to put the prayer in context. Joseph was working from the core assumption that he should join a Protestant sect, and, looking back, it is clear from a faithful Mormon perspective that Joseph had a specific mission to perform in mortality within Christianity. Other religions weren’t a part of the equation, at all – and neither was Catholicism, according to his own writings. I wonder what response a Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim would get with that exact same prayer – or if others might have specific missions to perform in mortality and receive different answers that will help them fulfill those missions, perhaps like Mother Teresa performing a wonderful work among the poor of Calcutta that would have been impossible as a Mormon. I don’t know, but parsing the text leads to interesting questions like these.

“for they were all wrong;”

At its most basic level, “wrong” simply means “not right” / “not correct” – or “out of order; awry; amiss”. Also, like with school tests, it often applies to answers that contain one or more elements that are not correct – even when most elements are correct. Thus “wrong” can mean 100% wrong or 1% wrong – or everything between those extremes. What “wrong” DOES NOT mean is “bad, evil, terrible, worthy of scorn, useless, etc.”

“and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds”

A “creed” is “an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief.” The most common creeds referenced by those discussing this verse are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, but these creeds essentially were the Catholic Creeds of the early centuries. The Athanasian Creed had a strong impact on much of the Protestant theology that existed in Joseph Smith’s time, but there were other “Protestant creeds” (like the Westminster Confession of Faith) that rarely are considered in the context of this verse – and those Protestant creeds are every bit as relevant as the early Catholic Creeds. (I believe, more so) [The closest thing in Mormonism to "creeds" are The Articles of Faith.] What “creeds” DOES NOT mean is “general teachings, statements, beliefs, general principles, etc.” This means that much of what actually is taught in other sects is not addressed in this verse, only “their creeds”.

“were an abomination in his sight”

Abomination means “anything greatly disliked, abhorred or loathed”. It is this word that is most “abominable, abhorred or loathed” by other Christians. However, when focused on the “creeds” [particularly in statements like the Westminster Confession], it is much easier to understand. Just a few examples are: hardcore Calvinist pre-destination that eliminates agency in all practical ways, the complete elimination of the Father as a separate being from Jesus, the incorporeal nature of God that led to a real and harmful loathing of the body and all things physical, the loss of all concept of eternal progression and exaltation, etc. There are more examples of creeds that truly would be abominable when viewed by Jesus ["in his sight"]. What this DOES NOT say is that everything taught by the other sects was an abomination. It leaves the door wide open for truth and beauty and goodness to be taught.

[Just as an aside, I find it fascinating to watch mainstream Protestantism move inexorably away from many of these creeds that were so strongly taught in Joseph's day toward what is taught in Mormonism - and the natural tendency of some Mormons to want creedal certainty.]

“that THOSE professors” 

 “Professors” means “those who profess” – nothing more and nothing less. “Profess” means “claim, allege, purport, avow” – and there is a strong association with making claims as part of a “profession” from a position of authority. The critical distinction in this verse, however, is that “professors” is tied directly to the “creeds” – NOT even implicitly to other teachings that are not creedal. What this means is that “those professors” DOES NOT mean ALL “ministers, preachers, pastors, priests, members, believers, etc.” Rather, it means anyone who “professes those creeds” – who teaches the creeds from a position of authority – who teaches things that are abominations in Jesus’ sight – who teaches them as “creeds” [as unalterable, immutable, unquestionable]. It places as much weight on the intractability of the profession as it does on what is being professed – meaning it focuses on those who are closed to continuing revelation and stuck on abominable creeds of the past.

[In a very real way, but not exactly analogous due to not being "creeds", it is like those who continue to espouse views from past Mormon leaders that have been abandoned or refuted by current leaders - like the justifications for the Priesthood ban that were repudiated by Elder McConkie shortly after the 1978 revelation lifting the ban or the continued practice of polygamy in the 21st Century.]

“were all corrupt;”

At its most basic level, corrupt simply means “tainted; not pure”. If someone professes abominable creeds, those creeds inevitably will taint those who profess them. To me, this is perhaps the most logical assertion of all the statements in this verse. What this DOES NOT say is that these people are “evil, bad, insincere, conniving, manipulative, worthy of scorn, etc.” It actually says nothing about their motivation or desires; it only addresses the inherent stain of abominable creeds.

“that:” 

The following statements are the only ones that are attributed as a quote directly to Jesus – rather than Joseph’s summary in the first part of the verse.

“they draw near to me with their lips,” 

“They” refers back to the “professors of the creeds”, who speak of Jesus. There is no other implication and no insult, condemnation or criticism inherent in this phrase.

“but their hearts are far from me,” 

This is a painful statement for many, but “heart” in this case does not mean the actual physical organ – and it does not have to mean “intent or desire”. The “heart” in this context is defined as the “vital or essential part” of something – what lies at the very core. In other words, the “essential part” of the “professors of the creeds” is far from Jesus. For example, the essential parts of the creeds melds Jesus into the Father, prays to Jesus (instead of to the Father in the name of the Son), refuses to accept His oft-repeated request to show their love through their acceptance of His commandments (“by their fruits”) and rejects individual agency and will by preaching predestination, etc. In summary, they use and preach his name but don’t promulgate his teachings. What this DOES NOT say is that ALL Christians fit this description. It is pointed ONLY at those who profess the creeds, and it is pointed only at their “hearts” [what they believe deep down as bedrock doctrine], not their lips [much of what they say and teach].

“they teach for doctrines the commandments of men,”

This phrase equates those who profess the creeds with those who substitute human commands for doctrine. It DOES NOT apply to regular members of other sects, at all – OR to ministers, preachers, pastors or priests who teach doctrine from the scriptures themselves and don’t preach the creeds.

“having a form of godliness,”

“Form” means “structure, appearance, shape, etc.” Thus, those who profess the creeds teach something that is shaped like and appears to be godly.

“but they deny the power thereof.”

This is the clinching argument against the creeds – that they reject the power of godliness. That phrase alone deserves its own post, but suffice it to say here that the creed professors are not accused of denying Jesus; rather, they are accused of denying His power – what He, through his Atonement, is capable of doing. They are accused of claiming that He can’t do what He has said He will do, which is the most basic abomination of all.


In summary, JSH 1:19 is a direct attack on the creeds of Joseph’s day (more so the newer Protestant ones than the older Catholic ones), defining the primary reason why he was told not to join any of them as being their profession of those creeds. The only people who are mentioned directly in any way are those who profess those creeds, and even these people are only described in terms of their acceptance of those creeds by which they are tainted. It says absolutely nothing about anyone or anything else, and it says nothing about the salvation of even the professors whose creeds it condemns.

At the most basic level, this verse has one message and only one message:

“The Protestant CREEDS are an abomination, and they taint all those who profess them.”

That certainly is harsh to those who profess the creeds, but it also says much, much, less than too many Mormons (and others) assume.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Prophecy and Revelation - Instutional and Individual

We talked first about what an institution is: an officially recognized, formal organization granted a high degree of legitimacy and power within a society.  We talked about the practical difference between an institution and an organization from a societal standpoint - an organization being anything that is organized (including our individual bodies, from purely a scientific perspective) but an institution being a larger organization of social importance.  Institutions tend to be universities, churches, governments, prisons, hospitals, etc.  Someone mentioned the family, so we talked about marriage and family being institutions only when we give them extra importance and "honor" them in the same way as the other institutions we mentioned. 

We then talked briefly about what an individual is, and I focused primarily on the fact that individuals exist almost always within the larger scope of society - that an individual is a part of multiple organizations and institutions. 

I gave them a very general summary of the issue of authority and institutional revelation relative to Catholicism and Protestantism, stating clearly that it was a bit stereotypical in its simplicity.  I emphasized the Catholic emphasis on institutional revelation to all through the Pope (whom I labeled the "Presiding Cardinal" to make a comparison to our structure) and the Protestant emphasis on the priesthood of believers and the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to all. 

I told them that Mormonism is a composite of Catholicism and Protestantism in regard to revelation.  We looked again at the Bible Dictionary description of revelation, emphasizing that we believe in BOTH institutional revelation for all (including for the Church as a whole, presiding over by the President of the Church) AND individual, personal revelation to each member.  I wrote "Prophet" and "prophet" on the board and talked about the significance of the capitalization within Mormonism: "Prophet" being the presiding prophet among the Twelve Apostles and "prophet" being anyone who speaks the word of God under the influence of the Holy Ghost. (I also pointed out how, in those terms, Lehi was a prophet without being "The Prophet".)  We talked about a High Priest Group Leader and his responsibility concerning revelation - that he communicates revelation (and other stuff) as a representative of the Stake President (the presiding High Priest in the area), receives revelation for his local group (but not the individuals in the group), his family (with his wife, as an equal partner and participant) and himself. 

When we talked about the HPGL and his responsibility to receive revelation for his own family, I emphasized that he had no more authority or responsibility for that kind of revelation than his wife - that, ideally, they two act as one and receive revelation jointly, honoring each other in that process.  We read directly from the Proclamation to the World, and I emphasized that each sentence about primary responsibilities would read very differently if either was the only relative sentence.  I read the sentence about each parent being "obligated" to help in "these" sacred responsibilities as "equal partners" and the open-ended, non-restrictive "other circumstances" that require "individual adaptation".  We talked about how lots of members think the only righteous model for providing a living is a father working outside the home and a stay-at-home mother but that the Proclamation leaves it entirely up to each couple to make the decision about how they will provide and nurture.  It was interesting to see that they all understood that without any difficulty (even the ones with parents in the traditional model) - and it reinforced my belief that this generation will change the Church naturally and radically.   

We focused the last ten minutes on the inherent tension between institutional and individual revelation.  I used Nephi and his beheading of Laban as an extreme example - and I worded it that way, as an extreme.  I asked them if Nephi followed immediately and gladly what he perceived to be revelation from the Lord to kill Laban.  After their responses, I asked them why Nephi struggled to accept it - and how he came to accept it.  I pointed out that Nephi eventually had acted in the way that he believed was consistent with what God was asking him to do - and that, whether or not I would have done what Nephi did, the point is that Nephi had to own his decision and act according to the dictates of his own conscience. 

I shared the example of when I lived in Missouri and had to commute 40 minutes each way to church, while starting over again in my new career and being quite poor.  We attended church almost every Sunday and youth activities most Wednesdays - but we attended almost no other church activities.  It was a choice my wife and I had to make, even though other members might have decided differently and might have judged or criticized us for it - claiming we weren't faithful enough.  I told them explicitly that I have said "no" to some requests from leaders and spoken up in some meetings and privately when I felt like something that was being said was too incorrect and/or damaging to remain silent.

I told them that I almost could guarantee that each and every one of them would face something, at some point, in their lives when the direction they get from a leader ("institutional revelation" in at least someone's eyes) would conflict with their own personal beliefs ("individual revelation" in their own mind) - and that, in the end, even if hopefully it never rose to the level of Nephi's situation in any way, they also would have to decide between the dictates of their own consciences and the organizational / institutional rules.  I told them that, as my default, I accept institutional rules - but that, ultimately, I honor personal revelation whenever the conflict is such that I feel I must do so in order to look God in the eye and say:

"I did my best to do what I believed you wanted me to do and any revelation I believe I received from you."

The Most Fundamental Reason Mormons Are Christian: Sets and Sub-Sets

Someone once asked the following question in a group discussion in which I was involved: 

"If Christians aren't Mormons, why is it OK for Mormons to want to be called Christians?"

My response was: 

Let me re-phrase your question in terms of another set and sub-set - one that has direct and obvious historical precedent:

"If humans aren't African-American, why is it OK for African-Americans to want to be called humans?" 

This is a simple question of sets and sub-sets.  It's not any more complicated than that.

If it's OK for people to disagree about some doctrines (and Protestants of different denominations have disagreed VIOLENTLY over lots of "foundational" doctrines over the centuries) and still be considered Christians - and if the only immutable concept which everyone within Protestantism must confess in order to be considered Christian is that Jesus is the Christ and Savior and Redeemer (which, in a nutshell, is the standard for Protestants who disagree vehemently about lots of other things) - and if, in fact, Mormons actually do confess this required concept (which, in fact, they do) - then the only way to exclude them from being Christian is to change the rules explicitly for them - to hold them to a different standard and definition than that to which others are held.

That's hypocrisy, pure and simple - since, just as African-Americans are humans no matter how others might have excluded them in the past from that category, Mormons are Christian no matter how others still exclude them from that category.  It's a simple concept made complex by people who simply are unwilling to let go of the incorrect biases and prejudices of the past, just like White Supremists who still won't admit that African-Americans really are fully human.

Some Protestant Complaints about Mormonism Actually Are Protestant Doctrine - Not Mormon

It's funny to me how some of the most strident complaints Protestants have about Mormonism actually are more in line with their own doctrines than with Mormon theology. 

For example, there is a fundamental difference in how Mormonism posits exaltation as a "shared" reward and how pretty much everyone else in Christianity posits the highest end as an individual reward. Too often, "others" interpret our focus as exclusionary (saying, "only married Mormons are saved"), since they don't have the vocabulary to translate temple ordinances as anything but "making everyone Mormon". They don't see the universalism of the theology - and they don't see the exclusionary nature of their own theologies, which consign innumerable children of God to burn in Hell forever because, in their theologies, only Christians are saved (and, most ironically, not even all Christians are saved, since they don't accept some Christians denominations as true Christians).

It's one of the greatest ironies of Christian theology, in my opinion - the disconnect between what people assume we teach and how those assumptions often match what they teach far more closely.

Mormonism's God Really Isn't the God of Mainstream, Protestant Christianity

Frankly, I see more similarities in the "big picture" theology of Mormonism to Buddhism than to most of Christianity - and I really can understand why other Christians say we aren't Christian. When I use the standard LDS Church vocabulary, I call it a restoration of ALL things - not just all things Christian.

(Just as quick examples: There is a strong strain of reincarnation [multiple life stages of growth and development culminating in oneness with the divine] in our theology - even though it is not the classic Buddhist version. There is a strong sense of focus on finding and creating ancestral ties - even though it is not the classic Shinto, Buddhist or Catholic version. It's much more of a combination - a melding of theologies, if you will. There are MANY examples of this within Mormonism.)

How does that affect my view of Jesus?

It really doesn't affect the core of how I view him and his mission, but it does expand his role for me.

Whether I view his life and death as having a literal saving component or as being purely symbolic (and by "purely" I mean "fully" not "merely"), I see "Jesus" as a universal Savior and his life and death as a universal model. (much like the name "Elias" means simply one who is sent to represent, leading to someone being "an Elias" - and much like "Adam" being a universal designator of "man" and "Eve" being "mother" - and much like we speak of individuals being "Saviors on Mount Zion") In this view, the terms Savior, Redeemer, Creator, Judge - and even God - become conditions and roles rather than unique titles for only one Being - with Jesus becoming the one who is the Exemplar of all these conditions and roles to bring us toward Godhood, not just God. He is the Model of one who became man to become God again - and, in so doing, bridged the previously unbridgeable chasm that lay between GOD and his children. He "marked the path and led the way" not just to God, but to Godhood. He is not just God, but rather he also is me - and you and all.

To me, pure Mormonism isn't about Christianity; rather, it's about Christ and Father as emulative goals for all. It's not about a chosen people; it's about humanity being chosen. It's not about us OR God; it's about a real, binding relationship between us AND God, our Father (and, beautifully, Mother). It's not about individual salvation; it's about inter-connected unity and exaltation.

I know that gets lost often in the clash between theology ("Mormonism") and organization ("LDS Church"), but this post is about Mormonism, not the LDS Church - and the transcendent nature of Mormonism largely keeps me aligned "faithfully" to the LDS Church. It's what makes that "duck" a unique and singular "swan" for me, to a large degree - or, more precisely, it's the venue in which we are taught that we ducks actually are created to become swans and that the same is true of all around us.

Finally, Christianity, as it is conceived and presented and believed by many, many Christians, isn't truly a universal theology. (It is for some, most notably many Catholics, but it is not for many, most notably the vast majority of Protestants.) It's a world-wide religion, but it's not a universal theology - nor even universal for this world. It doesn't posit that even the majority will be saved, much less that all will be saved and an unknown number exalted. (a larger number, in my opinion, than even most Mormons believe) Mormonism really is a world-wide religion with a universal theology - and it posits Jesus as the great mediator / savior / redeemer of all creation (even in "other worlds"). Again, whether or not that is taken literally or figuratively / symbolically, it is a transcendent concept that is fundamentally different than the view of Jesus within the rest of Christianity.

Jesus really is different in Mormonism than in Christianity - primarily because he isn't limited to being a "Christian" Savior / Redeemer / God within Mormonism.

Mormonism's View of Authority Is a Combination of Protestant and Catholic

The following is a simplified generalization, but I think it is a useful and reasonably accurate one:

Martin Luther and other Protestant leaders of the Reformation realized very clearly that they did not have "The Priesthood" as it was understood at that time within Catholicism. In rejecting Catholicism, they also rejected the idea that God's authority was vested exclusively and totally in a few people through an ordination process (who were the only people required to read and know the word of God, and, therefore, stood as intermediaries between the people and God) - replacing that concept with the idea that God's authority was vested purely in His word (The Bible) and all true believers had the ability to read His word and act according to their own understanding of it ("the priesthood of believers").

Of course, this has been limited over time to be only those understandings of the Bible that don't contradict their own interpretations - which is ironic, given the foundation of the Reformation. Thus, in their construction, all who are "true believers" (not Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and other deluded cultists) have the right to act in God's name (as true Christians), but God's actual authority lies only in the Bible.

So, the overall Mormon view of authority is kind of a combination of Catholic and Protestant views - since we maintain a formal, capital "P" Priesthood for the performance of binding ordinances but couple it with the general idea of a lower case "p" priesthood of believers who can read and act according to God's universal word, even though we don't talk about it in those terms. The "additional" aspect within Mormonism is that it posits that "His universal word" includes more than just the Bible - that it includes whatever he has said to all (truly universally) - and that individual believers actually can receive His unique word to them, even if it contradicts, occasionally, His universal word to all.

Therefore, in a nutshell, the Great Apostasy, as it is defined within Mormonism, began when the apostles no longer were able to gather and replace those who were being killed (to continue the ordinance-performing Priesthood) and was further entrenched when the priesthood of believers was eliminated by the Catholic Priesthood organization that removed from them the right and ability to read God's word and interact with God directly within their own spheres. The Reformation addressed the foundation of the second of these issues (allowing regular believers to interact directly with God through exposure to His word), while the Restoration addressed the extension of the second issue (re-establishing truly personal revelation as a universal right) and the first issue (re-establishing binding Priesthood ordinances).

A Personal Relationship with Christ Is NOT the Ultimate Objective

Many non-Mormons with whom I've talked over the decades talk about the need to have a DIRECT relationship with Christ as the ultimate objective of life - not one "filtered" through prophets and tradition and buttressed by doctrines of institutionalism. They see a "no-intermediary relationship" as more "personal" and, therefore, more "pure".

I appreciate that stance (truly), and I agree with part of it (truly), but, as a total goal, it simply is too anti-Biblical for me, ironically. Jesus taught that He was the Way, the Truth and the Light - in bringing people to His Father. I believe taking the Father out of the picture and focusing solely on Jesus destroys much of the Gospel he taught. 

He preached an intermediary Gospel, and, if the New Testament is to be believed, He established (through the earliest disciples), an intermediary church structure with prophets and apostles as the leaders or guides in the journey to the Father through the Christ.

Again, I appreciate the need for a personal connection to the divine, and I'm not advocating that we view prophets and apostles and religious leaders as surrogates in any way, shape or form.  When it comes right down to it, I'm not even saying that they are absolutely necessary to "come unto Christ".  I do believe, however, that they play a vital role in the type of religion Jesus accepted and generated - and I just can't see the wisdom of eliminating everything Jesus and the earliest disciples appear to have established in favor of something it appears He and they never advocated.

That Actually is Protestant, not Mormon, Theology

There are a number of common assertions about Mormons and our beliefs that actually fit orthodox Protestant theology much better. For example, the following is one of those assertions:

Many Christians claim that Mormons believe in a God who creates this mortal experience for the purpose of sifting through his children to find the “best” ones with whom he can live eternally, shutting the rest of humanity out because they aren't good enough. They believe that is the Mormon viewpoint - that only Mormons are saved. They claim that God’s work and glory then becomes “immortality and eternal life for only the cream of the crop”.

This actually is much closer to orthodox Protestant theology than to Mormon doctrine.

Mormonism allows for VERY few true "losers" (the Sons of Perdition), because everyone else "wins" in the sense that they are rewarded with higher glory than they had prior to mortality and everlasting life in the presence of a God. Orthodox Protestantism, on the other hand, condemns billions to everlasting separation from God.

Also, Mormonism claims that everything possible will be done to provide salvation and exaltation to all of God's children, regardless of their religious or denominational affiliation in this life - that eternal rewards will be based individually on sincerity of heart and effort to follow what we know and believe personally. Many Protestants claim that salvation is available only to those who hear of and accept Jesus in this life - and many others take the Calvinist extreme position of pre-destination that posits God has chosen who will be saved and who will be damned, and that the ultimate end of our souls has nothing to do with our agency or choice at all.

Which of these theologies posits "eternal life for only the cream of the crop"?

The Power of Jesus as Brother

I think perhaps the greatest abomination of the apostasy was the distortion of the duality of Jesus' nature - the denial that He was fully God but also fully human. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent," (John 17:3) goes way beyond knowing about Him, but it also does include knowing about Him.

My wife's favorite part of the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 4, specifically because it gives us a glimpse into the self-critical nature of a prophet that we rarely see. It makes Nephi more than a caricature; it makes him fully human. One of the things that makes Isaiah's description of the future Lord so compelling is that it shows His trials and pains and suffering; it makes Him more fully human. "Knowing" Jesus in this sense - allowing Him to be fully human in ALL ways except the actual commission of sin - opens up the possibility of such a deeper, more personal connection than knowing Him "only as God" ever can.

That's perhaps the biggest irony of the Restoration - that it emphasizes the way to have the deepest, most personal relationship with Jesus imaginable (ironically, outside of actual marriage) - that of "brother". Ideally, we know our siblings' faults and weaknesses but love them anyway. By removing all weaknesses and natural tendencies and temptations and spiritual growth, we literally create a chasm we can't cross - a creature we can't approximate - a Savior we can't truly know. Other religions preach the need for a personal relationship with deity, but they erase the principles that allow such a relationship actually to exist. There really is a chasm between their God and them, but it's a chasm of their own digging.

The Sermon on the Mount is One Eternal Round

My resolution for this month is to "seek for and do the will of the Father" - taken from Matthew 7:21-23, which says:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Two points only for now about what this passage means, then more throughout the month about my actual efforts to incorporate this message.

1) This passage is perhaps the best example in all of our recorded scriptures of a simple refutation of the concept of "confess his name and be saved". That concept lies at the heart of why many reject Mormonism as not being Christian (the erroneous idea that we believe we can work our way into heaven), and it is diametrically opposed to this passage.

This passage reads as if it was directly responding to that idea - the idea that all one needs to do is confess that Jesus is the Christ (or, in reality, that Jesus is the Christ in one particular, generally accepted codification). This even goes so far as to say that confessing his name AND doing "wonderful works" in that name is not enough. That ties in well with my posts from last month about the need to produce "fruit of the vine" rather than our own works - that it's not doing what we think we should do that is important, but that it's doing what HE wants us to do that is important.

2) This passage also is the ultimate definition of "taking the Lord's name in vain". This describes those people who claim to be representing the Lord but not doing what His Father wants them to do. "Vain" means "arrogantly and/or without effect". Therefore, those who use His name in order to justify their actions when those actions are not what God wants them to do are guilty of both definitions above - arrogance and ineffectiveness.

Using the Lord's name without effect (like the non-thinking, reflexive, blasphemous usage that is SO common even among those who profess to be Christian) is bad enough. Doing so to justify improper actions is even worse.

The important point to make is that NOBODY is immune from this temptation or tendency - except for those who follow the admonition earlier in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:33-37) to "swear not at all, but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." In that context, nothing should be done "in thy name" except for sacred ordinances that require such attribution (e.g., "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." [Matthew 28:19]) and prophetic statements that truly do express His will ("Thus saith the Lord.").

My understanding of the multiple statements in the Sermon on the Mount regarding claiming to speak and act for the Lord makes me very wary of doing so outside the parameters set in the these passages. I believe that it is important to be careful to give credit where credit is due and avoid arrogance, but also not to begin to claim reflexively to represent Him in all we do - thus embracing the opposite manifestation of the arrogance that occurs when we fail to credit him.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3)

Truly, it is fascinating that the final message of the Sermon on the Mount is the same as the first message of the Sermon on the Mount.

Truly a Restoration of ALL Things

The following is going to play to stereotypes slightly, but . . .

I see many similarities between Buddhism and Mormonism - far more than between Mormonism and most of Protestantism.

For example, the concept of becoming like God, the Eternal Father:

1) The Mormon phrasing would be, "Becoming perfect like God (complete, whole, fully developed)," while the Buddhist version would be "joining the divine (and no longer being born)." Compare that to the Protestant "living separately and spending eternity telling God how great He is."

Now consider the concept of the status of other religions:

2) Mormon: "All religions have truth in them, and a level of salvation/exaltation is available to all - regardless of religion - through the Atonement of Jesus Christ." Buddhist: "All roads lead to Fuji." (the concept, not the quote) Protestant: Accept exactly this doctrine (with special qualifications if we don't like you), or burn in never-ending anguish forever."

I'm not saying Buddhist teachings can be overlaid perfectly onto Mormon teachings, but many of them are much closer to each other than either is to mainstream Protestantism.

Look at the description of "eternal existence" from this viewpoint:

We begin as intelligences, become spirits, are born into mortality, move back into a spiritual state, eventually experience a judgment, change into an immortal state of perfect, physical body and immortal soul, continue to progress until we reach a status that can be described as "divine" - and then participate in unity with our own divine ideal by directing that repeated process of others. I count multiple "lives" - each with a distinctly different "form" - as part of a life-cycle that repeats forever.

If I explained that to a Buddhist, she at least would grasp the basic concept; if I explained that to almost any non-Mormon Christian, I would be labeled a heretic and/or asked what hallucinagenic I had been smoking.