• Jesus taught a doctrine of optimism, faith, hope, Charity, and love, and so do his modern prophets. I feel very little love, hope, faith, etc, in most of the posts that I’ve seen coming from many of my conservative Mormon friends. In fact (I hate to use these words, but I don’t know how else to describe it), I feel mostly fear, hatred, doubt, despair, and even a lot of fear-mongering. As such, I feel that regardless of the validity of concerns, Satan is using them to make us into anything but the hopeful, loving follower’s Christ asks us to be.
• God is still on his throne, and my testimony isn’t based on who is President or whether this country leans right or left.
• Communism is evil, we’re clear on that, however it’s not the only evil in the world, nor is it the only threat to the constitution of the US. I’m amazed at how completely focused so many can become on things with Socialist tendencies, and completely ignore all the other threats to the Constitution that are out there. For example Obama continued (and congress supported) Patriot Act policies that allow Law Enforcement officials to grab a US Citizen on US Soil and lock them up indefinitely, without trial. This clearly violates the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. Yet Romney said he supported the President and would continue the same. If Romney had won, this shredding of the Constitution would not have changed in the least. No reparations would have been done. Some of our most basic rights are shredded, but “it’s okay because Romney’s a Mormon?” I don’t think so.
• The point is there’s too little difference between the political candidates of either party for election of one to really reverse the trend. The issue should be the moral decay of society as a whole, not simply a trend toward socialism. And elections don’t reverse that, preaching the gospel does.
• We must stop demonizing those who “lean-left” in their political beliefs. Well beloved Apostle N. Eldon Tanner worked in overtly-socialist programs in Canada and made them work very well. It seems fairly clear he believed in many socialist programs. Marion G. Romney (cousin of Mitt), also very loved, ran and was elected as a Democrat in local government. Even recent 1st Presidency member James E. Faust was a registered Democrat. If you’re going to cast hate upon those who differ from Elder Benson (he was an Apostle when he said all those things I keep seeing quoted, and stopped completely when he became the Prophet), you must includes at least those 3 fine Brethren. In fact, you’ll have to include most of the Apostles and Prophets who have served over the last 70+ years, as almost none of them completely agreed with him, and in fact many expressed much concern over his extreme positions.
• Follow the Prophets: our modern prophets just opened the floodgates to allow more missionaries to preach the gospel throughout the world than ever before. They’re not being timid, packing up and heading for the hills or preaching doom and gloom. They’re moving God’s work forward with unprecedented optimism and vigor. We should do the same.

One election matters very little in the eternal scheme of things, God is still on his Throne, and Jesus Christ is still our Lord, Master, and the Head of our Church.

UPDATE: the following quote was posted by a family friend on Facebook. I thought it applicable.

Men may fail in this country, earthquakes may come, seas may heave beyond their bounds, there may be great drought, disaster, and hardship, but this nation, founded on principles laid down by men whom God raised up, will never fail. This is the cradle of humanity, where life on this earth began in the Garden of Eden. This is the place of the new Jerusalem. This is the place that the Lord said is favored above all other nations in all the world. This is the place where the Savior will come to His temple. This is the favored land in all the world. Yes, I repeat, men may fail, but this nation won’t fail. I have faith in America; you and I must have faith in America, if we understand the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are living in a day when we must pay heed to these challenges.

I plead with you not to preach pessimism. Preach that this is the greatest country in all the world. This is the favored land. This is the land of our forefathers. It is the nation that will stand despite whatever trials or crises it may yet have to pass through.

—Harold B. Lee (Ye Are the Light of the World 350-51)

It’s somewhat philosophical, but still very logical, and makes a very powerful point about why we should stop expecting perfection in the Church, and not be the least bit surprised to find out that something is different than what we’d always thought. He follows it with a powerful point and illustrative story, about how we should approach the history of the church, the truthfullness of the Book of Mormon, etc. Here’s my summary of what he said, that struck me so strongly, with my thoughts and ideas added in italics.

* * *

Bro Christensen talks (at this particular part) a lot about the problem of people leaving the Church when they find out it’s flawed, or Joseph Smith was flawed, or perhaps even his revelations contain some mistakes or flaws. He says that many anti-Mormons prey upon this hugely, by only needing to point out a few supposed flaws or imperfections to get people to doubt the entire gospel.

He says that if Joseph, the BoM or any of it  were, in fact perfect, we (being imperfect) wouldn’t really know, because we can’t judge what perfection is. As long as we are flawed and have no experience with perfection, we can’t judge or know what it is. Therefore, to assume that it 1) exists in Joseph or the BoM or whatever, and 2) that we would know what it looks like, is totally flawed logic. Even if one, or all of it, were in-fact perfect, we wouldn’t be able to recognize it, because it wouldn’t fit our imperfect idea of what perfection looks like. Besides, no language on the Earth is perfect, so the mere fact that the Book of Mormon, D&C, etc are in English (or any other language) makes them inherently imperfect.

BUT, Kevin Christensen points out, we can know what is real. We can ask “were Joseph’s revelations real?” We can’t ask if it was perfect, because we wouldn’t know, but we can ask if it’s real. If it’s real, then that solves it. There’s no concern over whether it’s perfect, because that’s an unanswerable question anyway. We can’t ask if the BoM is perfect or the D&C or even the gospel as we understand it. But what we can ask is if they are real. If the answer is yes, then I’d argue, that’s all that matters. Not that we can’t explore it’s flaws, depths, etc, but we always come back to: it is real, it is from God, and it is what should guide our lives.

A Brontosaurus US Postage Stamp 1989

To drive home his point, Bro Christensen gave an excellent illustrative example: he said that when he was a child he got to go to a dinosaur dig site. He saw the paleontologists uncovering the bones, but more importantly he saw the bones. So he read up on dinosaurs a lot over the years. One thing he learned a lot about was the “Brontosaurus.” Everyone learned about them (I know I did). Turns out a paleontologist put the wrong skull on the wrong neck, or some such thing, and it was an accidental fabrication of a species (I’ve wondered why I’ve never heard more about them). So some of what he was taught about dinosaurs was imperfect. It was flat-out untrue. But that doesn’t mean dinosaurs aren’t real. It doesn’t disprove the fact that dinosaurs existed, or mean that the paleontologist who made the mistake, got everything wrong. It simply meant that human knowledge of dinosaurs is imperfect, and always will be in this life. We can still ask “are dinosaurs real?” And Kevin Christensen’s answer is “yes, I’ve seen the bones.”

* * *

The FAIR podcasts are awesome. Through it I’ve been taught by great minds like Bro. Christensen’s, as well as those of Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Claudia Bushman, Brian Hauglid, and many others. You can find out more about the FAIR Podcast here, or subscribe to it via iTunes or other podcast service by putting in this URL:  http://www.fairblog.org/feed/podcast/. The “FAIR Conversations” is the podcast that interviews all these incredible minds.

John (Jack) Welch

An overarching theme and focus of the works published by FARMS was that of faithful believers in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. As such, many articles addressed accusations by anti-Mormons and showed how either the claim was just plain false, or that there was plenty of room for a more reasonable approach that didn’t undermine the truthfulness of the Church. Information published by FARMS saved the testimonies of many, many people over the years. A common idea in the church seems to be to “just avoid that stuff.” Faithful FARMS scholars often tackled Anti-Mormon attacks head-on, both quieting the critics and successfully defending our Church’s doctrine, scripture, and history. Of course critics of the Church grew to hate FARMS, even as many members grew to love and appreciate it, because it’s research strengthened their understanding of the doctrine, and helped save their testimony, or the faith of people they loved, by presenting a faith-based perspective on the attacks and supposed expose’s.

As time went on, and for reasons we don’t totally understand, President Hinckley thought it would good to bring FARMS into BYU as a part of the University, rather than have it continue to operate independently outside. He invited FARMS to become a part of the University in, but promised it would continue it’s mission:

[FARMS] began modestly many years ago and represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. This has had important salutary effects both in addressing the Church’s critics and in bolstering members who might be wavering. Today FARMS has risen to a high stature and has won credibility and recognition for its work both inside and outside the LDS community. I wish to express my strong congratulations and appreciation for those who started this effort and who have shepherded it to this point. I see a bright future for this effort now through the University.

—President Gordon B. Hinckley

Neal A. Maxwell was also a big supporter of FARMS and suggested that bringing them into the University was a move to ensure that anti-Mormons would no longer benefit from any “uncontested slam-dunks.”

As time went on, FARMS was merged with several other organizations at BYU that had related missions. Eventually the new conglomeration was renamed The Maxwell Institute for Religious Studies. Sometime prior to that there began a slow but steady decline in the amount of publications of the type that had originally been done by FARMS. In other words, it seems now that those with the power to do so, were slowly trying to weed out everything that FARMS had been, and all that remained of it’s legacy.

Only a few weeks ago, M. Gerald Bradford, Executive Director of the Maxwell Institute, fired Daniel C. Peterson, and all his supporting staff, who represented all that remained of the original FARMS in it’s intent and purpose. Bro. Bradford did so in a very under-handed way, and even tried to suggest that Bro. Peterson was required to continue his fundraising activities, on behalf of the Maxwell Institute, even though he’d been fired from his formal position as Editor of what was once the FARMS Review.

Needless to say, Anti-Mormons and the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” are rejoicing. If you were in the business of attacking the Church and destroying people’s faith, wouldn’t you be glad to see one of it’s chief defending organizations dissolved?

Because of all this, myself and Bryce Haymond, friend and creator of the amazing TempleStudy.com blog (which inspired me to start this one), have created Restore FARMS. Right now it’s 2 things: 1st it’s a grassroots movement to restore FARMS in some way (we haven’t clearly defined this yet), and 2nd it’s a website and Facebook page where you can discuss what it will mean to “Restore FARMS” and also learn what you can do to help reverse it’s gradual dissolution over the past decade or so.

Please head over to RestoreFARMS.com and go through the list of things we suggest, and do them. Also, make sure to sign up for the email list (in the sidebar of that site) so we can reach you to enlist your help when we have a clear plan. We’re currently waiting to see if 1. BYU will do anything to reverse this sad decision on the part of Bro. Bradford and 2. what the original founders of FARMS and those closest to the situation feel is best.

Finally, those who may have heard bad things about Daniel C. Peterson, or dislike the idea of Apologetics, please watch this video:

Note from Tevya: this is another guest post from Curtis Ross. Curtis is an amazing web developer who’s put together an incredible webapp that makes scheduling home teaching and visiting teaching, super easy. He also likes to study the doctrines of the gospel and has kindly volunteered to post some of his thinking and the results of his study here.

Saturdayswarrioritis is a very common disease among members of the church. And by definition those who have it, don’t know they have it. The worst part about this disease is that it is hereditary; so many latter-day saints have been affected by it because their parents initially contracted the disease.

Before you stop reading this let me explain. Saturdayswarrioritis is when a member of the church believes in a romanticized, false version of Gods plan. This disease is an epidemic; a very large portion of the membership of the church is affected.

I chose the name Saturdayswarrioritis because this play/movie is one of the most massive scale false doctrinizations (if that is a word) in the history of the church. It is in many cases the source of the disease, and if it was not the source it definitely fueled the flame. You may be thinking “well I never saw that play/movie it was before my time,” it doesn’t matter most likely someone in your circle of influence has, so you may have been affected.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not faulting the play/movie. It would have been great in fact if people would have taken it for what it was, entertainment and nothing more. The disease comes by the choice of the member who believes the false doctrine without questioning its source. There are plenty of sources of false doctrine written by imperfect members of the church and it is up to us to recognize those cases and gain truth through the spirit.

Here are a couple of the symptoms (beliefs) associated with Saturdayswarrioritis. I’m not going to source these, so I challenge those of you who have the disease to prove me wrong.

In the pre-mortal world we knew our spouse and committed to finding them and marrying them here on earth.

False, it has been said on many occasions, there is not just one person for you. However it has also been said that there are some select cases where the couple was foreordained to be together. Some of these include Adam and Eve, Mary and Joseph, and Joseph and Emma. This list of couples represents the exception rather than the rule. The reason for those exceptions seems obvious. For the vast majority of us we do not have this foreordination. If you think your marriage warrants making that list, your disease state is more than likely incurable, sorry.

In the pre-mortal world we chose who our parents would be in this life.

False, this belief is absurd. Our life on earth is a very important part of our progression to becoming like our heavenly father. Who our parents are affects that more than just a little bit. You think our Heavenly Father would put a decision so crucial into our inexperienced hands. Even if he did let us choose, there are some less than stellar parents out there why would someone choose them. Did we play rock paper scissors to see who got the good ones and the loser was stuck with the drug addicts? I imagine the decision of who our parents would be was very thought out and included things such as what our strengths and weaknesses were, and what situations would best help us gain the knowledge we needed. We did not have the capacity to make such decisions.

There are more symptoms than these of Saturdayswarrioritis but I believe I’ve made my point. Part of the problem with Saturdayswarrioritis is that it shows our ability to act, believe, and teach out of a response to culture rather than a will to fulfill God’s plan. By “out of a response to culture” I mean that often we just accept what others do and say as right because it seems that is how it has always been done and said. I’m not saying all of our culture is bad or wrong. What I am saying is that it is bad when we blindly do things without thinking about them first.

For example, often church functions are followed by refreshments. I can’t even count the number of times someone in prayer has blessed the brownies that they will “nourish and strengthen our bodies.” This is a perfect example of just doing something because that is what everyone else does. But if you stop and think about it, it doesn’t make sense. On the subject of praying before meals, I think it is a great practice to pray at meal time when the place and time are appropriate. Because we have to eat on a regular basis it is a great way to remind ourselves it is important to give thanks. Having said that, why do parents get mad when children sneak a bite before the prayer? I’m sure it’s because that is what their parents did, but why? Is the food bad if we don’t bless it?

Some of these types of actions sound very much like the problems the Pharisees had. Of course I don’t think those who want to bless their food before they eat it are like the Pharisees. I don’t even think those who bless the brownies are, but I do think that following rules for cultures sake is getting to close.

Something else that contributes to the problem of acting out of a response to culture is our desensitization due to repetition. There are many true things about our church that are repetitive. After years of repeating something it can lose its meaning for us. For example in church meetings I have heard many people end a talk or lesson with “In the name of thy son…” I can’t help but try to find who they are looking at so that I know whose son they are closing in the name of. I know they didn’t mean it that way and it’s not a big deal. The point is, that person is just quoting words which at that moment have no meaning other than they know what they are suppose to say to end. I have also heard people start to say the same thing but then correct themselves; they are the ones who still see meaning behind the words.

The answer to this problem is to simply think about things when we do or say them. Don’t be afraid to ask why. Our generation is blessed with the ability to find answers to questions by prophets and apostles in our time by simply typing it in a search box. The topics spoken of in this article are not issues that are going to keep us out of the Celestial Kingdom but they are things that hold us back from having a better understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When we stop mindlessly acting out of response to culture we can step out of the trees and see the principles behind the true organization of Christ Church. We can also develop a relationship with our Heavenly Father where we rely on him for answers, just as a child would. Anything that can help us do that is something we should pursue.

Bertel Thorvaldsen's Christus

I posted the following today on Facebook & Google Plus. But because Facebook won’t allow people to reshare a post, I’ve decided to post it here, so people can reshare it, and hopefully to get the message outside of my circles of friends & followers.

I’m saddened & troubled today by ignorance.

On the one hand the ignorance and un-Christian attitudes of some members of my LDS faith troubles me deeply. If people leave our Church, are gay, or otherwise live in a way we don’t believe is right, we should still treat them with complete respect and love. It’s what Christ would want us to do.

On the other hand, I’m saddened by the ignorance that seems to surround Mormon scholarship. This recent article, written by somebody who left the Church states “While many faiths’ irrational claims are obscured by centuries of myth and rubble, the LDS church lacks the moderation and scholarship of its older peers.” This is simply untrue! When it comes to historical research, apologetics, etc, Mormons are at the very top.

In fact LDS scholars have so outstripped their peers in other Christian religions, it led to a scathing rebuke of anti-Mormon “scholars” by two Evangelical experts. The title included the words “losing the battle and not knowing it?” They basically said, “all our [Evangelical scholarly anti-Mormon] work is pond-scum by comparison to what top LDS minds are doing. They’ve proven wrong or rebutted almost all the garbage we keep regurgitating. If we don’t start coming up with some real scholarship in this area, we’re doomed to be exposed as self-possessed, hyper-critical, illogical fools.” Read it here: http://goo.gl/M3kLU

Additionally, there are Mormons who rank among the top minds in all fields of science and the arts including genetics, physics, chemistry, medicine, history of various ages, and mathematics, to name a few generalized categories. These people are faithful and see little or none of the “evidences” that supposedly prove Mormonism wrong. It’s amazing that somehow anti-Mormons are winning the public perception war. People are led away by stupid arguments proved wrong decades (and sometimes over a century) ago. I don’t know how this happens, but all the evidences are there. Things that prove these stupid, worn out, and illogical attacks to be completely false. In fact, so blatantly false, they should immediately call into question the credibility of whatever source they come from. And don’t even get me started on what science has “proven.” Conclusive proof today is often a laughed-at misconception tomorrow. Any scientist will admit this, even if they don’t act accordingly. It would be sad to lose your faith based on something that turns out to be untrue.

If you’re LDS (even a “strong” member), investigating the Church, or considering leaving it, please, please please take the time to study up on the LDS scholarship that has been done. I think you’ll be surprised to find out just how weak most supposed “evidences” that “prove” the Church untrue, are. I think you’ll find your faith strengthened, but hope you’ll end up going back to the scriptures, the words of Christ, that should be the foundation of your faith.

A few great places to get started:
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html
http://fairlds.org/

When we chose to follow the plan of our Heavenly Father we then started on a path which has two goals: a physical body and knowledge. Here on earth we can learn in the most effective way possible, experience. When we experience pain, pleasure, temptation, and righteousness we gain a reference where we can access true knowledge. The problem is, that is not all it takes. In order for it to be true knowledge in the sense I am referring to, it has to have been provided by or testified of by a member of the Godhead. Because of the veil we do not have the ability to gain true knowledge on our own.

Why is that? Why didn’t our Father give us the ability of finding true knowledge on our own? The answer is, because He loves us. The gaining of knowledge also brings more accountability. He loves us too much to let us have control over our own level of accountability.

Our level of accountability is how responsible we are for our actions in the eyes of God. For example, on a scale of 1 to 10 (oversimplification) if a person’s knowledge is a 3 they would be less accountable than a person who’s knowledge is a 5. Personally I don’t want to be any more accountable than I am ready to be. Although being accountable seems like a bad thing, it can’t be avoided; gaining knowledge is essential to our salvation.

So if God is in control of our level of accountability and therefore our knowledge level, how does he determine when we are ready for a higher level?

In Ether 3:

6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

In this moment the veil was lifted from the brother of Jared and he was given knowledge, why?

9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger.
15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast.

Because the brother of Jared had perfect faith, he was blessed with a perfect knowledge. This is a great example of how our level of faith is a direct determiner of the level of knowledge we are given. I propose that the ultimate purpose of faith is a measurement or tool God uses to know how much accountability we are ready for before giving us the knowledge. When we show a certain level of faith we are automatically blessed with an equal level of knowledge.

We can see this process in many places including Alma 32 where we learn that in order to gain a testimony, we should start with at least a small amount of faith which will be followed by a small amount of knowledge. From there we can take that small amount of knowledge and facilitate a little more faith which will also be matched with knowledge and so on.

We also see the idea of faith as a measurement in the concept faith proceeds the miracle. Miracles can have the purpose of producing knowledge; for example, receiving revelation. Miracles can also have the result of producing knowledge; for example, healing the sick. In the case of healing the sick, the purpose may be the healing itself, but the result is the recipient gains knowledge of the reality of God. No matter if the miracle has the purpose or merely the result of producing knowledge, there is still knowledge gained. If this is the case, then it would mean an act of faith would be needed in order to prove that person is ready for the accountability that will follow the knowledge received.

If true knowledge is our only goal and faith is the prerequisite, how do we let God know how much faith we have? Faith can only be truly expressed through our actions. When a person simply believes, that is what it stays: a belief. It does not become faith until we act on those beliefs. It is the intensity and consistency with which we act on those beliefs that shows the level of our faith that will lead to knowledge.

How better to get us started than to ask my first question. Why and how could Adam have lived for ever in his sins after partaking of the Tree of Life? This is a very specific question and sounds like it would have a very straight forward answer, nope. This is the question that after getting an answer completely changed the way I see the story of Adam and Eve and many of the basic principles of the gospel.

I’m going to start my proposed answer to this question by bursting a few bubbles. The book of Genesis was written as the words of Moses spoken to the children of Israel. These are the same children of Israel who started worshiping a golden calf while Moses was getting the Ten Commandments. I’m guessing he was asking himself how exactly he was going to explain the beginning of man to a people who couldn’t even remember who their God was. This is a story where the principles of the gospel are so intertwined it is hard to navigate through them and explain the events.

Since the beginning God has used figurative expressions to teach principles of the gospel. Christ constantly spoke in parables or figurative expressions so that all those who were meant to understand would. This story is no different, the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life are both figurative expressions.

As to the Fall itself we are told that the Lord planted “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” in the midst of the garden (Moses 3:9). To Adam and Eve the command came: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Moses 3:16–17). Again, the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality.
June Ensign 1982 “Christ and the Creation” Bruce R. McConkie

I guess technically there could have been a tree with fruit on it which Adam was not supposed to take. The truth is we do not know what happened which caused Adam and Eve to fall. What we do know is that it was a choice that Eve consciously made. What they did does not matter. What does matter is the concept that it was the choice of Adam and Eve which brought about the fall of man, not any magical fruit.

So here is another question, “why did Adam and Eve have to choose to fall; why couldn’t God just have gotten it started in a fallen state?”

I know I haven’t even answered the first question yet, don’t worry I will.

So the question about why they had to choose is a great one and the answer reveals some interesting concepts about the nature of God. God is a perfect and exalted being and as such could not have created anything imperfect. Because of this we are left with a situation where man needs to find imperfection but God could not do it for us. Man needed to choose imperfection independent of the actions of God in order for God to continue being God. This is a part of the nature of God and salvation that we can’t forget. God can not make our decisions for us no matter how much we want him to. The purpose of this life is that we make our own decisions which provide us with the knowledge we need to become like God.

So God created a perfect world and put a perfect man and a perfect woman on it. The only thing he could offer was a choice. He provided Adam and Eve the opportunity to choose between two options:

One of the options was to fall from his presence by choosing to disobey him in some way, this is represented by the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and eve chose to fall from the presence of the father by disobeying him. By becoming imperfect they were unable to stay in the presence of perfection.

The second option included staying in the presence of God and Jesus Christ, this option is represented by the tree of life. Adam was able to partake of the fruit of the tree of life while in the Garden of Eden just as he was able to be in the presence of God at any time. Adam and Eve of course chose to fall from the presence of God knowing that this was the only way they would be able to gain the knowledge necessary to become like their father.

After Adam became imperfect God placed a cherubim and flaming sword to protect Adam so that he would not again partake of the fruit of the tree of life and live forever in his sins. How is this possible, how could Adam live forever in his sins? The only way we know that a man or woman can live forever in his sins is by becoming a son of perdition. A person can not just choose to become a son of perdition, its actually pretty difficult. You have to have a perfect knowledge of Jesus Christ and then sin against him. So how could Adam have chosen to become a son of perdition?

The answer is that he couldn’t, just as we can’t. God uses the same thing to protect us from his presence (the tree of life) that he used to protect Adam, the veil. The cherubim and flaming sword is the veil. God placed the veil (cherubim and flaming sword) between Adam and himself (the tree of life) in order to protect Adam. If Adam would have come back into the presence of God before he had the opportunity to repent and be baptized he would have become a son of perdition and lived for ever in his sins.

This is why God places the veil when we come into this earth, so that we only gain the knowledge we are ready to be accountable for.

To back up my belief that the cherubim and flaming sword is the veil here is a scripture:

“And he made the vail of blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubims thereon.”
Chronicles 3:14

This scripture states that in the Old Testament the cherubim was actually stitched onto the veil in the temple.

Check out LDSplan.com to help with your Home Teaching or Visiting Teaching.

Thanks to YouTube allowing longer videos, it’s now far easier for me to post videos like this. So now you can watch and see my cousin Jolene, her husband Jace, and their cute boy Jefferson (Grandpa calls him “Jefferey” for some reason, maybe he wrote it wrong in his notes).

Our (You & Your Sweetheart’s) Mission in Life

J Ballard Washburn – BYU-Idaho Devotional 9 Feb. 2010

Luke 15:11–32 contains the longest of the 3 parables recorded in Luke 15, and perhaps Jesus’ most famous parable (at least one of the top few): the parable of the Prodigal Son. The parable is often seen quite literally as a not much of a parable at all, but rather an example story about forgiveness. But as we will see, it definitely contains deeper, symbolic meaning, fits well the label of “parable,” and also goes very nicely with the previous two parables from this chapter. Make sure to read parts 1, 2, and 3 of this series of articles first, if you have not already read them.

Definition of a Parable

First let’s briefly look at what a parable is. Dictionary.com defines the word like this: “A statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.” So a parable is essentially a story of some sort that parallels the actual meaning of the story. Thus the common root between “parable” and “parallel.” Based on that, if we take the “parable” quite literally as merely a fictional moral example, then it’s no longer a parable at all. However, if there’s deeper meaning understood through “comparison, analogy, or the like” then suddenly it’s both a parable, and something of a mystery to be studied and understood in new ways.

First Clues: The Target Audience

The first clue in my reading, is one we discussed in a previous post in this series, and that is the setting. Since it’s taken me so long to write this concluding article, let’s review those verses:

1. Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
2. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. (Luke 15:1–2)

Christ initially is teaching publicans and sinners. Then the Pharisees and scribes come along and criticize him for doing so. That was the original context for all 3 of these parables. The first told of a lost sheep and a shepherd who leaves the flock to find it. As we learned already, the shepherd is not meant to represent Christ, but rather the priesthood leadership of the church. In the second story a woman, representative of the general membership of the church, looses a coin. Now we’re starting a 3rd story. Who is this one intended for?

Well, it’s probably for the Pharisees, or the publicans/sinners, or both. The earlier parables were very instructive for Jesus’ Apostles, as well as the other disciples who were surely there. They’ve been taught a lot about bringing these “lost sheep and/or coins” back into the fold. But it’s also very instructive for the Pharisees, who also represent church leadership under the law of Moses. So if they were listening they should have realized that it’s not wrong for Christ to be among the sinners, and that they should be going out of their way to bring these individuals back into the fold, rather than shunning them. This is where Jesus really comes down on them, driving the point home with a final parable that’s much longer and more reaching in it’s symbolism.

The Characters

Where there was essentially only 1 character in the first 2 parables, now there are at least 3 major players in this third parable: the father and his 2 sons. There appears a clue about who the father is, almost immediately, when Jesus starts the story by saying “a certain man had two sons.” While the phrase “a certain man” can be found elsewhere in the New Testament, referring to real people, in Christ’s parables, it often refers to God, or Adam (representative of all of us). The story that follows indicates that it’s most likely representative of Heavenly Father. Stephen L. Richards (1st councilor to President David O. McKay), said “I have always felt that the Savior intended the father in the parable to typify the Eternal Father of all of us”.¹

If we go with that assumption, suddenly we see the younger son in a new light: he takes his inheritance and goes to “a far country.” The inheritance would be godlike attributes he inherited from his Heavenly Father: a physical body, a spirit, intelligence, the desire to do what is right, potential to become like God, and all good elements we each receive from being descendants of a Heavenly Father.

The Far Country

This son then “took his journey into a far country.” What is the mysterious place that he went to? The fact that it is far away is one clue. If it’s far away from the holy land, they’re not likely to be Israelites, or believers of any sort. In Luke 15:15 he “went and joined himself to a citizen of that country.” It was probably more like indentured servitude (the kinder form of slavery) than a job in the way we think of it. But we get another clue about what kind of a place this is, by his task: feed the pigs. Under Mosaic law, swine are unclean, and so is their meat. Jews don’t eat pork, so they have no purpose to keep pigs, feed them, etc. Now it’s clear that this is an unholy place filled with pagans who worship sinful things.  The prodigal has left the presence of Heavenly Father and went to earth, mortal life.

Notice two other other things about this part of the story: 1) he “joined himself to a citizen of that country”; and 2) he is assigned to feed swine. So if this is a land of sinners, and he’s a slave to one of the people of that land, Jesus is telling us that he’s a slave to his sins. Then again, his job–the only opportunity he has to survive in the famine–is to feed swine, an animal that is unclean and unholy. So Christ is reiterating the same point: he’s feeding his sinful appetites, his base desires. And he’s a slave to them, he has little power to do anything else. So it’s not just about going to earth, but also completely away from God.

That leads us to examine the famine. It’s obviously a famine of freedom to choose, happiness, blessings, and the love of God. His heart is set upon sinful things, and so he’s experiencing a spiritual famine of all this is good, beautiful, joyful, peaceful, and filled with love. The famine symbolizes the resulting destitution of the spirit that follows commitment to evil, to sin. The implication is that an individual could stay close to God, in this life, if he didn’t give-in to the natural man.

Squandering God-Given Talents

Isn’t that exactly what we do when we sin? Or if somebody chooses to live a sinful life, isn’t that exactly what they do? They “waste” their godlike attributes, talents, and gifts, on the things of the world. Instead of their mind, body, and physical intimacy being beautiful and sacred things, they’re squandered on mere pleasure, degraded by lack of control, and often worn out to the point of failing to function correctly. As C.S. Lewis put it:

We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.²

First Indications of Change

The fact that he finally is so hungry that he want’s to eat the pods that he’s feeding the pigs tells us something as well: he’s hit “rock bottom” as they say. He’s at a point where his sinful life can’t sustain him anymore. It’s that moment where the heroin addict realizes they’re about to kill themselves if they shoot-up one more time, or the sex addict realizes that their life is absolutely worthless and they’ve lost every thing that really mattered, because they won’t stop being pursuing sexual pleasures.

Jesus then throws in one other little detail: “and no man gave unto him.” Other translations of the Bible add the word “anything” on the end. So basically, Satan abandoned him. There’s no reward at the end of the path of darkness. He’s left completely alone, with nobody and nothing but his sinful nature. He doesn’t even have the means to really feed his sins anymore. There’s no money left to buy another dose, no strength left to even try to steal them. People he called friends are gone since the money has run out.

In Part 5 we’ll finish the parable, exploring it’s other meanings.

This is a guest post from Nick Galieti, the author of the new book Tree of Sacrament. I have not yet read the book but hope to soon. It explores deeply the symbolism of the sacrament and related doctrines, a topic we’ve explored previously on Sacred Symbolic. The following is an original article from Nick introducing some of the symbolism, doctrines, and ideas that he explores in-depth in his book. See the bottom of this post for information on how to get a free preview chapter of the book.

Throughout the scriptures there are many symbolic references to trees in a wide variety. “The Tree represents not only life, regeneration, and immortality, but also, “knowledge and wisdom” and “the world or universe.” It is “the most wide spread of symbols, and in considering Christian architecture it can be regarded as second only to the cross.”¹ In the Garden of Eden two trees are spoken of specifically: the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. In conjunction with these two trees is the fruit that each one bears. Both types of fruit had an effect on those who partook of it. That effect was dependent on, or in relation to, their current state or condition. Partaking of the fruit of the tree of life was offered freely as long as the partaker was clear of wrongdoing.

And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat, nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee. (Moses 3:16–17).

Many references to the tree of life can be interpreted as being a representation of Jesus Christ Himself. This use of a tree as a metaphor to teach and instruct man is revisited in many ways throughout the scriptures. The use of the symbolic fruit tree signifies that the tree is a central source of nourishment without which no life could be sustained.

From time to time as we study the scriptures, passages read previously take on new meanings. I read the stories surrounding Lehi and Nephi with respect to the visions they had of the tree of life about 12 years ago and saw these passages in a new light. In the vision was given multiple symbols. Nephi’s account gives additional insight as he was allowed to share with us certain interpretations of those symbols in the vision.

In 1 Nephi chapter 11 Nephi gives the following interpretations to the symbols of his father’s vision:

• The tree: the love of God (v. 21).
• The rod of iron: the word of God (v.25).
• The fountain of living waters: also a representation of the love of God (v. 25).
• The great and spacious building: the pride of the world and all its wisdom (vv. 35-36).

The Savior has described Himself as “living waters” (Jeremiah 2:13) on multiple occasions, with Christ Himself being the source. This was often accompanied by the promise that those who would partake of those waters would never thirst. Elder Neal A Maxwell stated,

The love of God for His children is most profoundly expressed in His gift of Jesus as our Redeemer: ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son’ (John 3:16). To partake of the love of God is to partake of Jesus’ Atonement and the emancipations and joys which it can bring.²

Therefore we can draw the parallel that the tree of life represented the love of God, as Nephi was taught, and the appearance of the fountain of living waters is also a symbolic representation of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

The Rod of Iron can be considered a variety of ways. On one level, “word” can mean the teachings of the prophets and apostles along with the words of eternal life found in scripture. The rod could also be a representation of Christ as is referred to in John 1:1–4, Revelation 19:13, and Mosiah 3:17. As John refers to Christ as the word made flesh; in Mosiah we read that no one is able to come to salvation but through Christ. This comes together in considering that no one was able to come to the tree of life accept by the rod of iron – another symbol representing Jesus Christ. Thus we see that all good natured symbols in the tree of life vision have some reference to Christ himself. Consequently, all symbols of our modern day sacrament have reference to the Savior and his atonement as well.

Alma seemed to be aware of some correlation between the tree of life and the sacrament. In Alma 5:34 we see this correlating invitation between the partaking of the sacrament and partaking of the fruit of the tree of life as taught in Lehi and Nephi’s vision; “Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely.”

As the partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Life brought about the blessings of the atonement, namely to be made clean and enjoy celestial glory, so the same has been said of the sacrament. In John 6:54 it reads, “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” The promises are the same, the warnings against improper partaking are the same, and in many ways historically, the two are a recognition and partaking of the blessings of Christ’s atonement. This parallel should elevate the value of the sacrament in the minds and hearts of the church of the first born.

This comparison as well as other historical and relevant principles surrounding our modern day Sacrament, as well as the correlation to Alma 32 and the Tree of Life born from a a faithful covenant “seed” are all discussed in my book, Tree of Sacrament. The LDS Sacrament is the central ordinance of what has been designated as “the most sacred meeting in the church of Christ,” with the Tree of Life, being a most sacred representation of the life and atonement of Jesus Christ. There is power in this sacred ordinance that I hope to help unlock as you read the book Tree of Sacrament by Nick Galieti – available from Eborn Books.

For more details on the book, visit www.treeofsacrament.com. Also, if you would like to preview the book before buying, email Nick: nick.galieti@gmail.com and he’ll send you a chapter from the book for free.