Latter-day Saint FAIR-Cast

What is Scripture? by Autumn Dickson The title page of The Book of Mormon has me pondering about a couple of things that have actually been on my mind over the past year as I read the New Testament – namely, what really is scripture? Why do certain things get counted as scripture? What does it mean to be a writer of scripture? As you read various books in the New Testament, you find that some of these men might not have even known they were writing what would be classified as scripture one day. We have the four gospels which are retellings of the life of Christ, replete with testimonies of who He is, but then we also have letters written by missionary-apostles. Lastly, we have a vision written by one of the apostles. In the same breath, we find the Doctrine and Covenants. These were a collection of blessings, visions, and dictations of the voice of God from a prophet. Apparently, the word “scripture” can be used to connote many different types of writing though I would still argue that there are a couple of criteria. The biggest criteria is that scripture is the “word of God.” How that chooses to manifest seems to include a wide array of options, but it all comes back to the idea that writing scripture is writing the word of God. Let’s also look at this concept of “scripture” in the context of the title page of The Book of Mormon. There are a couple of phrases found on the title page that originally caught my attention. Mormon is teaching us that The Book of Mormon is a record “Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation.” I do not believe this to be an exhaustive list of criteria required for canonized scripture, but I do believe it can give us a glimpse of what the Lord views as scripture as well as giving us ideas of personal application. Revelation Though it is listed last, I want to start with it first so that I can describe why you can find personal relevance in this message. Scripture is written by way of revelation. This is obvious and makes sense. If the Lord had left us alone here on earth, revealing nothing, we could have likely found a wide range of things to worship. We could have pondered and thought and believed and worked and formed theories and acted, but none of them would have likely been accurate. Writings about the true nature of God and His plan for His children had to be revealed to us, and we see that in any of the canonized books of scripture we read. He has to speak to us, and it gets written down. Scripture is the revealed word of God. All of the men who wrote the books of scripture had the Savior revealed to them by some measure of His power. But as I ponder this idea of revelation as well as the general concept of “word of God,” I also realize that we, as individuals, have the gift of revelation that enables us to receive the word of God directly. The Lord can reveal the mysteries of His kingdom to us, just as He did with other servants. That being said, that doesn’t make generalized scripture a free-for-all. Though we can all receive revelation, we also have limited jurisdiction with our revelation. I can receive revelation for my family and me and the actions we need to take in our own lives. I can receive revelation for myself about the mysteries of the kingdom, but I cannot receive an answer about where my friend should move or whether my brother should take a specific job he’s been offered. If I have a dear friend who is struggling with a question in the gospel, I may feel inspired to say something, but it has to be revealed to them in some manner by the Spirit. In the end, the true revelation will go to the person who has the right jurisdiction to receive such revelation. I believe it is the same with scripture. There have been countless times where I have felt the Lord speaking to me (cough cough word of God) as I’ve written in my journal. He has revealed new perspectives, specific life directions, and even knowledge I had never noticed. Does that mean my journal is scripture? Maybe for me. It’s the word of God directly to me. Like scripture, I can go back and read through old entries and feel the spirit anew. I make new connections about things I have written in the past while I was feeling inspired. On that same note, I feel as though I’ve caught a glimpse of what some of these scripture writers might have felt. The men who were commissioned to write scripture did have jurisdiction to write revelation for the entire church. They were apostles and prophets. The Lord had given them the authority to lead the church, and therefore, the word of God that they were receiving could come to us with authority. And even though some of these men were likely far more righteous than I am, they were still imperfect. There have also been times that I have gone back in my journal entries and found imperfect understandings, incomplete thoughts, or just the smallest fledglings of new knowledge. I think of Paul. If you read his epistles in chronological order, you see him grow in his own understanding of the Savior! His sermons describing grace become more eloquent and complete. Much of the world believes scripture to be final, infallible; there is nothing left to say. This is extremely limiting to a God who has never ceased wanting to speak to us. This is extremely limiting to a God who is trying to teach us more about who He is and His plan for us, but we’re not ready to receive everything immediately. That doesn’t even begin to touch the idea that our language isn’t even perfect enough to describe what heaven can reveal; don’t we want to get better and better at expressing it? What if Paul stopped progressing after writing his final letter before his death? That was it. There was nothing else to learn or be said. What if we had only been given the first letter written by Paul? Having an understanding that scripture is the inspired writings of holy (imperfect) men means that the Lord can continue to reveal His will to us! Scripture is the revealed word of God given to men, and it has not ceased. By way of commandment According to the title page of The Book of Mormon, this record was also written by way of commandment. The men who kept the records of the Nephites (as well as the men who abridged those records) were doing so because they were commanded. To be totally honest, I don’t have a ton of commentary on this particular principle other than this: we have been commanded to keep a journal (even though we don’t always like to think about it), and I don’t think it’s because the Lord wants our posterity to hear all about our crush in the seventh grade. I think the Lord knows the power that can come from writing while being guided by the Spirit, and He wants us to find that power. Perhaps you have a hard time writing; try recording your thoughts. Most of us have phones with voice memo capabilities. I don’t believe it’s the writing so much as the expansion of inspired promptings. If you come across a thought in scripture or a feeling about a question you’ve been asking for a while, pause long enough to speak or write about it for a little bit. I can promise you from personal experience that the Lord has more to tell you if you’ll pause to hear it. The word of God continues on, and the commandment to write it down (or record it some manner) only furthers that process. Spirit of prophecy This section is like the commandment section; I don’t necessarily have a ton of commentary, but I still think it’s worth being brought to attention specifically. The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ; the testimony of Christ enables the writing of scripture. Once again, we do not have authority to write scripture for the entire church, but we do have a testimony of Christ, and it can lead us to write the word of God for our own lives as well as our circles of revelatory jurisdiction. I should also mention that my most powerful moments of writing what the Lord is trying to tell me often comes when I write about Christ. It’s not easy to just sit down and start writing about Christ spontaneously, at least not for me. Rather, I usually write about what’s going on in my life, I get it all out there on paper, and then I start to write it again with the perspective of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I reconsider what’s going on in my life through the lens of His promises, love, and power. These are definitely the times when I feel like He is revealing the most to me. Interpretation by the gift of God The Book of Mormon was written in reformed Egyptian, and it came to us by “the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof.” This is honestly a pretty significant claim that we lean on in the church. We testify that Joseph Smith, a simple farm boy, was able to translate this book in record timing through the power of God. Perhaps we do not need to “translate” the word of God into our language, but there is personal and general relevance in this message. Whenever we seek to read the word of God, it needs to be interpreted by His power to the best of our ability. This has two implications. It means having a healthy understanding of our own imperfection and a willingness to be corrected as we mature in the gospel, but it also means pushing a significant portion of our energy towards having a communion experience with God as we read His word. If we want to get the most out of it and truly hear His word for us, it will require hearing from Him again. It is not enough to simply just read what’s already been written. God has not stopped giving His word, and this extends to the circumstances of reading what’s been written. When we read, He has more to say about His own mysteries as well as direct relevance to our own lives. Seeking that interpretation brings more of His word directly to you; it brings more “scripture.” I testify of a Savior who is not finished speaking with His people and leading them. I testify that He continues to reveal His word, both on a church wide scale and an individual level. I testify that we can receive and write the word of God for our own lives and our own posterity. I testify of that because I feel and experience it all the time. It is through this process of recording (not just writing) His word that I have been able to experience the gospel in a way that has brought so many of the promises that have been made by the Savior. And if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. They are the frailties and mortal limitations of men who are trying to receive something heavenly into broken vessels. I testify that even some of these mistakes can be turned for our benefit because they push us to seek His word for ourselves. If we knew the word was completely written and perfect, we would not have to struggle to receive it for ourselves and develop the relationship with the Savior that He desires. I am so grateful for a Savior who continues to reveal His word because there is no way we can catch it all the first time.   Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Introductory Pages of the Book of Mormon – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

by Zachary Wright As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we often run into people who criticize us for our beliefs.  I served my mission in a place where the Church was often criticized by General Christians who wanted me to abandon my faith and accept what they believed to be “the true Jesus”.  While they may seem confusing at first, it’s a common phenomenon for many Christians to believe that we, as members of the church, aren’t true Christians, and that we consequently, will be going to Hell.  However, in my experience, I’ve found that many Christian antagonists of the church often bring a number of ideas that have questionable reality.  This is what I want to focus on today. In order to explore the dangers of some presuppositions those who oppose the Restoration often present, I wanted to focus this episode on Apologia Church in Arizona, specifically their pastors, Jeff Durbin and James White.  They are a Denominational Baptist church, with a Reformed or Calvinist view of Salvation or Soteriology. Their pastors frequently level attacks against LDS Theology based on the presupposition we are not saved. Their claim is largely focused on three main areas of contention, which included: We worship a God who is not the “God of the Bible”.  We believe in a “different” or “false” Jesus not depicted in the Biblical texts which can therefore not “save” as they define that term.  They believe we reject the “free grace” of God offered through Jesus as a result of our belief in “works” as a necessary evidence of our Covenant relationship with God.  From these ideas, they state that we as members of the church cannot be saved.  They’ve produced many tracts and pamphlets explaining why they label us in this way. I will address a common one entitled: ‘The Gospel for Mormons’. As we discuss the issues, I will also share clips from a discussion a fellow Latter-day Saint had with members of the Apologia Church based in Utah to highlight some of the issues we face and the dangers of the presuppositions which form the foundation of their attacks. By using some of the skills we’ve learned throughout this series, we’re going to address the complaints found therein. The pamphlet’s text will be in red. My references will be scattered throughout the response (as opposed to the end as they have been in previous articles), and I’ve added parentheticals in some instances to help clarify words that most people don’t know about, such as “soteriology” previously mentioned. If there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of men. Let’s get into it. THE GOSPEL FOR MORMONS The Mormon church teaches a message that sounds so similar to Christianity, but it is fundamentally a different Gospel that cannot save. Apologia Studios It is a common misunderstanding, if an intentional misrepresentation, of those associated with Apologia to call the Church, “The Mormon Church”. Many who are hostile to the Church similarly refuse to call the church by its proper name.  (Kylie clip #1) We are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which I will shorten to “The Church of Jesus Christ”. I don’t care as much about how people first hear our names (Jesus himself was known by many names) and the Church he founded was called “The Way” as in Acts and its members “Saints” as we do today. This pamphlet however, reiterates the same hostility as those who labeled the Saints at Antioch “Christians” or “Christ Worshippers” in derision. Interesting those who claim allegiance with Christ adopt the tactics of His opposition.  The idea that these pastors refuse the basic requests of what the church wishes to be called already indicates a lack of respect The “gospel” is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.  It’s the fact that Jesus came, died for us, and then rose again so that all may return to His presence.  The LDS scriptures support that fully and completely as well (See D&C 76:40-42, 3 Nephi 27:13-14, 3rd article of faith, etc).  There is no “Contrary Gospel” taught in The Church of Jesus Christ today.  Joseph Smith is said to have taught: The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121, link here). When asked by those not of our Faith, this should be our response to “what is ‘The Gospel’?” MORMONISM BEGAN WITH A LIE The lie was that the Heavenly Father came to Joseph Smith and told him not to join any church because they had it all wrong. All their creeds were an abomination, and all denominations were corrupt. So Joseph told the world that God had told him that the Christian church had fallen away, and it needed to be restored. This is an interesting claim which presupposes religious claims are subject to some objective criteria which would identify them as “true” and a person might “lie”.  This claim could not be other than an opinion based on perspective. Unless those associated with Apologia have some way to affirmatively disprove Joseph’s claim made on The Joseph Smith History respecting his interactions with God, I’m not sure how this could be a “lie”? Additionally, the claim “all churches” that existed then were “wrong” is (objectively speaking) an opinion, not a misstatement of fact that could form the basis of a lie. Representing as “a lie” someone’s admitted religious beliefs cannot be other than a product of deceit lacking context.  Considering the substance of Joseph’s claim to a restoration as a way to overcome a rejection of Prophets as seen in Matthew 23, is an objective claim for example, just ask Apologia if they accept the possibility of living Prophets and additional scripture consistent with the claims of Jesus and Paul. Other churches chose to reject the concept of divine messengers, a hallmark of the original church established by God.  Our belief is that such practices, and others, needed to be restored.  Are they claiming this wasn’t the case?  If so, why?  They never explain. One might initially point to Hebrews 1:1-2, which many General Christians will use to show that God doesn’t call messengers anymore. ​ However, this is a self-defeating idea…The Book of Hebrews was (allegedly) written by an apostle/prophet, and future books were written by apostles/prophets. This is a lie because two thousand years before Joseph came along with this revelation, God said that he would build his church, and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”  This interpretation causes some problems for their position, not only logically because of their reliance on the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation (more on that in a moment), but also because what this tract is extrapolating is a translation variation that doesn’t match the true meaning of the Biblical Greek. In the original Greek, this passage in Matthew 16:18 does not say “the gates of hell” as this argument claims, but rather “καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου” (pronounced Keh Pee-leh Ah-thoo) or “the gates of hades”.  Most modern translations render this passage this way, and the fact that Pastor Durbin “reads Greek” and neglects to mention this important nuance is equally disconcerting.  Hades was universally understood then as the place where spirits go after this life, making this phrase here a direct reference to physical death.  Even Bible lexicons as old as Thayer’s refer to this place as the “the realm of the dead” (link here).  If you don’t believe me, consider the following reference that links death with Hades from the Wisdom of Solomon (written about a century earlier): 12 For neither herb nor poultice cured them, but it was your word, O Lord, that heals all people. 13 For you have power over life and death; you lead mortals down to the gates of Hades and back again. (Wisdom of Solomon 16:12-13 NRSV, updated edition) As we can see, even in ancient sources, there is a connection between “Hades” and “death”.  We can even consult this elementary commentary on the verse; [The Gates of Hades is] a familiar ancient expression for the realm of the dead (both in Greek literature, and in the Greek translation of the biblical gates of Sheol or death, e.g. Job 38:17, Isaiah 38:10); even martyrdom (vv. 21,24) cannot stop God’s plan (NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, pg 1659, online version can be bought here) The NET Bible commentary also suggests that “Gates of Hades” be understood as the “power of death” (link here, best accessed on computer).  Did physical death conquer the church?  Did death defeat or conquer Jesus upon His own fate on the Cross?  Theologically speaking, no, because thanks to Jesus Christ, all will be resurrected as He was.  Already, this passage is being stripped from its context and exegetical meaning by the presented argument. Let me turn the question back onto Apologia Church:  What is (or which is) the church that the gates of Hades would not prevail against?  What were its structure and teachings?  Are these pastors claiming that the protestants (and especially those who are Calvinist or Reformed) adheres completely to those structures and teachings, including, but not limited to, Baptismal regeneration, Apostolic leadership, Salvation, Scriptural Interpretation, etc?  Can these pastors demonstrate that Protestant theology (e.g. Sola Fide, Optional baptism, etc.) has existed as far back as Christ’s ministry?  Who would they consider to be a “proto-Protestant” before the 15th or 16th centuries? In Jude 3 we are told to earnestly contend for the faith, which was once for all delivered to the saints–already. Where are they getting “already” from?  I could be mistaken, but I don’t see that word in this verse.   (Kylie video #3) As seen here, the usage of this passage is absurd in this context. Not only would their interpretation presume to close the canon with these verses in Jude, but another problem arises. LDS scholar John Tvedtnes makes an excellent point that Abraham was taught the gospel (Gal 3:8), so is Jude correct in saying that the gospel was only delivered once and for all?  If the Gospel is never to be revealed again, what use is there for the angel in Revelation 14:6-7 to come to deliver the gospel? Understanding the verse the way the pamphlet is using it provides conflicts and contradictions in the Bible.  Is the idea that the Bible has contradictions a position Pastor White and Pastor Durbin are willing to concede? The promise given to us in Daniel 7:13-14 is that the Messiah would come and that he would have a kingdom that would never be destroyed. Speaking of that promised Kingdom, Jesus said in Mark 1 that, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” Let’s pretend that this interpretation regarding apostasy is what the author of the Book of Daniel meant for a minute.  Seeing as Daniel 7:16-22 seems to indicate that this time of “spreading the gospel” occurs before “the judgment”, who is to say that the kingdom of God would be done “rolling forth” until that time?  That alleged apostasy wouldn’t even really affect this interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy, seeing as all God would have to do is ensure that the gospel was done rolling forth by that time.  With this in mind, where do these passages exclude a chance of apostasy? Scripture tells us that the Messiah has been seated on his throne; he is King of kings and Lord of lords. He brought the kingdom already. Joseph was two thousand years behind. Jesus brought it, the people rejected it, and Jesus restored it again the same way he did it all the other times in scriptural history: by calling a messenger.  Seeing as God called messengers in both the Old and the New Testaments, why would God just stop doing that in our day?  The burden of proof would be on those using this argument against the Church to demonstrate why this is no longer the case if they are using the Biblical texts.  (Kylie clip #4) That’s why this really is about God and His gospel. We are told, “Before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6) Putting aside for the moment the fact that historically the Jews believed in the existence of other Gods, let’s break down the wording for these verses. The phrase “None else besides me” is a Hebrew figure of speech to mean “the best of them all”. The linked verses below are where the phrase is used in a boasting sense.  Consider how Isaiah 47:8 used this phrase: 8 Therefore [Babylon] hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children: (Emphasis added) Or even Zephaniah 2:15, which states: 15 This is the rejoicing city [Nineveh] that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand. (Emphasis added) Are these anthropomorphized cities claiming to be the only cities in existence?  Not at all, rather these cities of Babylon or Nineveh are just claiming they’re the best or the most powerful.  Therefore, this would entail that Isaiah’s claim about God is not that He was the only one, but rather that He was the most powerful. To support this argument further, we can turn to other ancient documents.  The Thanksgiving Scroll, numbered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, affirms this point, and offers clarification to the nature of the ancient Israelite belief (and accurately reflects the grammatical argument I’m making in this section): See, you are the prince of the Gods and the king of the glorious ones, lord of every spirit ruler of every creature.  Apart from you, nothing happens, and nothing is known without your will.  There is no-one besides you, no-one matches your strength, nothing equals your glory, there is no price on your might. -1QHa XVIII 8-10 (Emphasis Added) As we can read here, we have God being represented as being the greatest among all the Elohim, and yet being told that “There is no-one besides you”.  Again, even if we were to reject these passages as being “non-biblical”, the grammatical argument still stands.  With this information in mind, how do these verses demonstrate a belief that God is the only God in existence? But Joseph Smith disagreed. He said “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see… you have got to learn how to be God’s yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 6 pgs. 3-4). The historical best practice here is to go back to the original sources, that is, the original documents given by Willard Richards, William Clayton, Wilford Woodruff, and Thomas Bullock.  None of them say verbatim what they claim was said (link here) Let’s put aside the fact that the LDS belief system doesn’t condemn anyone from believing in eternal regression or not, and even a notable few general authorities have seemed to view the King Follett Discourse differently than what is implied from the contextually butchered passage cited above.  This concern is still predicated on the idea that teaching the existence of multiple gods/elohim is wrong, when that, of course, still needs to be demonstrated. HE IS NOT A CREATED BEING This goes against everything God says who he is. In Deuteronomy 6 he tells us that He’s the only God and the only God that has ever been.  See previous, but to prove the point I made before about this strict monotheistic belief of the Israelites being anachronistic, consider this quote made by a study bible brought up by the Jewish Publication Society: Many modern readers regard the Shema [Deut 6:4] as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a quantitative argument (about the number of deities) but a qualitative one, about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly, the original force of the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to demand that Israel show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH–but not thereby to deny the existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective as the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the worship of other gods, presupposes their existence. (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361, link here) This makes sense.  After all, didn’t God just finish saying that they shouldn’t put any other gods before him (Exodus 20:3), again implying that the Israelites believed in the existence of other gods?  I challenge Pastor Durbin and White to refute the argument itself instead of dismissing it as “liberal scholarship”.  Why would this interpretation of the OT here be incorrect? Also, consider another refutation to this argument by Paula Frederiksen, in Bible Review 19:01 (February 2003): In antiquity, all monotheists were polytheists….No ancient monotheist was a modern monotheist. Divinity expressed itself along a gradient, and the High God—be he pagan, Jewish or Christian—hardly stood alone. Lesser divinities filled in the gap, cosmic and metaphysical, between humans and God (link here) These quotes should do for now, but there are plenty more.   The Bible teaches plainly that there is only one God and he eternally exists as three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where does it plainly say He exists as one God in three persons?  No text of the Bible states this (Kylie clip #5)  When John 1 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” it is speaking of Jesus. Yes.  We are told that Jesus created everything in existence and without him, nothing has come in to being that came into being (John 1:3).  Jesus is God who took on flesh, John 1:14 goes on to tell us that God took on flesh and He dwelt among us. The one and only true God, in the person of Jesus Christ, the creator of all things, came into his own creation and took on flesh. He is not a created being.  A common mistake in claiming Latter-day Saints believe in a “different Jesus” is this: (Kylie clip #6) The LDS church does not teach that Christ was a created being.  God and all of God’s spirit children are eternal and have always existed (see D&C 93).  Even the King Follett Sermon they cited earlier (from the version they cited earlier) affirms this fact when it says “I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits [has] no beginning, neither will it have an end.” (link here)  With this in mind, how does this aspect of LDS theology contradict John 1:3, and other creation passages regarding Jesus?  After all, John 1:3 (in most translations) is rendered as God creating everything that was made.  If we were not “made” then how does this passage contradict LDS theology? It is true that God is our Father.  He organized and formed our spirit bodies, and I would rightfully classify that as a type of creation.  That being said, that tenet of our beliefs does not counteract the idea that our intelligences have always existed.  In this manner, we both have been created, and have also always existed.  They would need to unequivocally prove Creatio Ex-Nihilo (Creation from nothing) to counteract the LDS position on this. He is not the spirit offspring of heavenly father and one of his goddess wives, which is what Mormonism teaches (see: Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 4:327ff). Their source is interesting.  Anyone can look at a photocopy of the source in question here.  It does, in fact, refer to the concept that Jesus Christ is the literal son of Heavenly Father (it cites Brigham Young’s comments on the matter to support this).  It does not, however, affirm any kind of polygamy in the heavens, nor does it imply that Jesus is the offspring of said polygamy. Charles Harrell aptly points out that a notable few cautioned against inferences that involved any kind of sexual intimacy between God and Mary (See This Is My Doctrine, pg 182, link here), and the church publicly condemned Orson Pratt’s magazine The Seer when he tried to propagate the idea (among other things) that God had multiple wives (link here).  More can be said about this, but with these sources in mind, does that sound like a resounding affirmation among the leaders (or even the church as a whole) regarding this doctrine? “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.  He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” -Colossians 1:16-17 Jesus created all things.  He is not Lucifer’s brother—He is the creator of Lucifer.   Doesn’t this verse contradict the argument they were trying to make with Isaiah 43:10?  As they state, if Satan was created by Jesus Christ, and if Paul is correct in calling him a θεός (pronounced “theos” the Greek term meaning “god”, and is the exact term used to describe Satan in 2 Cor 4:4.  It’s how the term Elohim is rendered in the LXX), wouldn’t that contradict the argument they just made that God is the only true deity in existence that no other one exists? And before anyone tells me that this isn’t what Paul meant, I’ll remind the reader that even older sources like Thayer’s Bible Lexicon states that “θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way” (link here), and that the same Greek term using the same conjugation is used in reference to God a few verses later.  “Elohim” is used in a similar way in the OT, and I’ve already discussed in part the ancient Israelite understanding that there are multiple upper-tier Elohim.  The argument here is that Satan is a lesser god, one that isn’t ultimately sovereign, but a god nonetheless, which actually lines up closer to the original conception of Satan in the Hebrew Bible. Consider how non-LDS scholar Cory Baugher puts it: The sons of God (bene ’elohim) are divine, spiritual beings that rule on Yahweh’s behalf (Gen. 6:4; Deut. 32:8; Ps. 29:1; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). The Hebrew phrase “son(s) of x” means the son(s) is the same essence as x, so son(s)= x…These sons of God are a part of the divine council of Yahweh. They serve as His council, representatives, and host (army). (link here) In other words, the members of the divine Council, were the same essence as God, and acted on his behalf.  He then cites Job Chapter 1 to prove his point, saying that the figure “Satan” used to be a member of the Divine Council.  I’ll use a translation that I think shows his point better, and will likely be more acceptable to the reader, and to Pastor White and Pastor Durbin. Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. (Job 1:6 ESV) After citing this scripture, this scholar continues: The Hebrew word the satan [or “Satan”] means “adversary” and is always translated as “adversary” except in Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; and Zech. 3:1-2 with no real contextual or theological evidence for it. All other times the Hebrew word the satan appears it is translated as the noun “adversary” (Num. 22:22, 32; 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kgs. 5:4; 1 Kgs. 11:14, 23; 1 Chr. 21:1; Ps. 109:6) or the verb “accuser” (Ps. 38:20; Ps. 71:13; Ps. 109:4; Ps. 109:20; Ps. 109:29; Zech. 3:1).” (link here; Minor edits in brackets made for ease of reading) This is a little technical, but this scholar is basically saying that Satan, or “the accuser” on God’s behalf, was initially understood in Hebrew thought as being a member of the “sons of God”, who were of the “same essence” as God.  They were given authority by God to rule over nations, but ultimately were under God’s power.  The ways that the concept of “satan” have developed over history are complicated, but the reader can analyze the cited article if they don’t believe me.  When we take these ideas for what they were, any historical argument that Paul is only metaphorically referring to Satan as being “like a god, but not really one in essence”, would be based on assumptions in light of the previously cited sources I mentioned.  And yet, this doesn’t contradict any claims the Bible makes about God’s superiority.  Baugher continues: Though the Bible clearly teaches that other gods do exist, it all makes it clear that Yahweh is absolutely sovereign over these gods as totally unique and incomparable. (ibid) (Kyle clip #7) Therefore, under the line of logic here in the pamphlet’s argument, either Pastor Durbin and Pastor White must accept that the Bible contradicts itself, or accept that this verse is saying something else.  There’s more that can be said about this passage NOT being monotheistic, but this tangent is long enough already. Going back to the “Jesus and Lucifer are brothers” thing, in case anyone wanted some other quotes to think about, let’s consider what some of these earlier Christians had to say when commenting on the Septuagint (The Greek translation of the Old Testament) rendering of what is now known as Psalm 110.  Note whom they refer to as coming out of the womb after Jesus Christ: The womb of the Lord – the hidden recess of Deity out of which He brought forth His Son. In the Psalm: Out of the womb, before Lucifer, have I borne Thee [the Son]. (Melito, Bishop of Sardis, link here) Listen to the voice of the Father to the Son: ‘Before Lucifer I have begotten Thee.’ He who was begotten before Lucifer Himself illuminates all. A certain one was named Lucifer, who fell; for he was an angel and became a devil; and concerning him the Scripture said, “Lucifer, who did arise in the morning, fell.”And why was he Lucifer? Because, being enlightened, he gave forth light. But for what reason did he become dark! Because he abode not in the truth. (Augustine, Homilies and Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate III, Chapter 1, 15-18, 7, link here) Therefore wilt thou give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. For in thee was born the prince begotten before Lucifer, whose birth from the Father is before all time. (Jerome, Epistle to Eustochium, Letter 108, 10, link here) The tradition behind these texts is tricky, I understand that.  However, these quotes clearly indicate that they believed that Jesus and Lucifer were begotten from the same womb.  Would they deny that these early bishops, leaders, and apologists were Christians for believing that Lucifer was begotten of the Father after Jesus Christ was?  How would their teachings differ from the LDS conceptualization of how Jesus and Lucifer were “brothers” so to speak? This is important because the Mormon church teaches a message that sounds so similar to Christianity, but is fundamentally a gospel that cannot save.  It teaches another Christ, and that is a Christ that cannot save you. (Kyle clip #8) With all due respect, according to their soteriology (i.e. the understanding of how to be saved), the only person ultimately responsible for the people who aren’t saved is God.  Why?  Because according to them, God created every aspect of us, including our desires and abilities, and controls and wills the occurrences leading up to everything that happened/happens to us.  The burden of proof is on them to explain why God created people in such a way where they would almost have no choice but to disobey (or as John Calvin taught, be willed to disobey), and then punish the people for doing exactly what He designed and willed them to do. Again, if I am, or anyone else is, misunderstanding their positions, I openly invite correction, but the natural conclusions that are drawn from Calvinism, Creation Ex-Nihilo, and an Unknowable God are rather disconcerting.  End Part #1 It’s a Christ that is not found in scripture, and Jesus says in John 14:6 that He is the way, the truth, the life, and no man comes to the Father except through Him. The Trinity is a concept that is foreign to biblical texts as well.  For example, Greek terms like “Homoousios” (found in the Nicene creed meaning “one in substance”, which later creeds developed to mean “Consubstantial”) are not found describing God in the Bible (sources indicate that more of it came from influences of Greek philosophy, link here).  You can’t find the concepts of these words either when it comes to describing God.  This argument about something being absent from scripture may come across as hypocritical. HOW CAN WE HAVE PEACE WITH GOD Jesus is the only way we can have peace with God, Yes. Mormonism teaches of a different Christ. Different than what version of Christ? The Bible’s version?  With all due respect, that’s the version I’ve been working off of so far.  I’ve demonstrated that the verses they’ve cited don’t support their arguments when scrutinized on a historical and/or exegetical level.  I don’t blame them, that’s a problem with the arguments they present and their interpretation of the Bible.  I have nothing against them personally.  Still, they have yet to demonstrate how our “Christ” stands contradictory to anything that the biblical texts teach about him. It actually tells people that you can, through obedience to the laws and principles of the gospel, move your way through exaltation to become a god or goddess of your own planet, like the god of this earth did, and hardly anything could be further from the truth.   This argument grossly misrepresented LDS belief.  I already talked about how we’re under no obligation to assume that God the Father was a human being like us.  The LDS church has never taught that strict obedience earns our salvation.  Instead, verses of the contextual LDS scripture teach: I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. (Mosiah 2:21) And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses. (Mosiah 13:28) Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come. (Alma 25:16, emphasis added) Ultimately, exaltation is given by God’s grace as we prove our loyalty to him.  Do these LDS scriptures say that we earn our way to heaven?  If not, why would they be included in our modern-day scriptures?  Why wouldn’t modern prophets (or even Joseph Smith) just edit them out? One may initially bring up Moroni 10:32 to claim that grace saves us only after we serve God with all our “heart, might, mind and strength”.  However, one need only read the next verse to see that Moroni clarifies his point by saying: And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. (Moroni 10:33) Furthermore, regarding their assertion that we as LDS believe that we can become a “god or goddess of their own planet”, I assert that this is a gross oversimplification of our belief.  Here is what I think can be clearly said about the matter. We believe in the concept of Exaltation, wherein we will become like God (See D&C 76:58), even so, claims about us getting our own planet are not found in the scriptural canon Many Latter-day Saints are partial to a belief in a “creative potential in the eternities” (link here) Some leaders of the church have provided commentary as to what they believe that creative potential entails.  For example, Spencer W. Kimball stated that “We educate ourselves in the secular field and in the spiritual field so that we may one day create worlds, people and govern them.” (link here, but it’s originally found in Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball). With this in mind, church leaders have consistently leaned away from the idea that we “get planets” as some kind of reward for us and our posterity to live on (link here) I think this is where people get confused about the church’s dialogue on this.  This doctrine isn’t the equivalent of God patting us on the back, and giving us a lollipop at the end of a doctor’s visit.  Such sentiments of creating worlds reflect the idea that we are participating in the activities that God does, and they would need to demonstrate how this is a theologically problematic doctrine.   The bible teaches that there is only one God eternal, and we will never be a God one day. It’s worth mentioning that many of the early church fathers believed in a concept of deification.  However, it’s worth noting that some differences exist between their concept of deification and ours (which chiefly had to do with how they viewed our relationship to God due to the convergence of Greek Philosophy with Christianity).  These discrepancies pose no threat to LDS theology for a few reasons, mostly due to the relationship prophets have with scripture intertwined with the concept of modern revelation.   Why would it be a problem to believe in the LDS concept of deification in light of modern revelation?  We don’t believe that we will replace God anymore than we believe that Jesus Christ replaces God the Father in our theology.  They would need to demonstrate how this understanding of deification is incorrect (after, of course, proving Sola Scriptura due to its relationship to my argument about modern revelation). So the important question is this: how can we know this God?  It’s not about minor differences, musical style, color of carpet in church, or whether or not you drink coffee.  It’s really a question of how we can be reconciled to God and have peace with Him?  How can we be reconciled to God?  Through Jesus Christ.  That is what the LDS scriptures and leaders universally teach.  The Bible says in Romans 3 that there is none righteous, no not one.  There are none who seek after God, that there is no fear of God before our eyes.  Paul goes on to say that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works of law.  He says that the Law, and our inability to fulfill it, can only reveal our sin to us and shut our mouths before a Holy God. I’m going to assume that they’re referring to the Law of Moses here, seeing as that is what Paul is referring to in his epistle to the Romans.  See the above-stated Book of Mormon scriptures about how the Law doesn’t save us, rather it is “faith unto salvation”.  It is clear that the Book of Mormon and the Bible are united at least in that regard. The only question to reconcile at this point is what Paul meant here when he talked about faith.  We’ve talked about faith previously, back when I talked about logical fallacies, but to recap it’s likely that being “saved by faith,” doesn’t mean “Salvation for a mere intellectual acceptance of Jesus”; rather it is a loyalty that saves us or a belief that leads to action (Note again that this is a linguistic and historical argument, not a theological one). This is affirmed by LDS and Non-LDS scholars alike (link here and here), but think about how this interpretation resembles the LDS position on faith and salvation.  Would anyone who affirms the idea that “faith” mean “faithfulness or loyalty”, be labeled as “non-Christian”?  Would these pastors, with equal ferocity, label their fellow Evangelical scholars as being “non-Christian”? Since what Jesus says is true, and he said the wrath of God abides on us, how can we hope to have eternal life? Through Jesus Christ. THE ONE TRUE GOD IN THE FLESH Our hope is in the gospel because of what he did.  Yes.  Jesus is the one true God in the flesh, Who went to the cross to take full punishment for his people. What they deserved, He took.  He was buried, and he rose again.  This was not so you could have His work in addition to your good works.   See my comments above on faith and loyalty.  On top of that, James seems to indicate that good works/actions are an important aspect of faith.   What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:14-17 NRSV) How should we understand these verses?  Is there any conflict here between what I’ve demonstrated about the LDS concept of faith, and what is discussed in the Book of James? The Bible says that our good works are nothing but filthy rags to God.  Consider this: Galatians 5 tells us that we are severed from Christ if we seek to be justified by the Law. “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law;” (Galatians 5:4) “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) As stated previously, the Book of Mormon teaches the same thing.  The church just holds a deeper understanding of faith thanks to historical context and modern revelation. Compare that to the Mormon Teaching: “for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23) We’ve talked about this verse already back in my Logical Fallacies video, but to recap, the phrase “after all you can do” likely means “in spite of all we do”, and one can read more about this claim in the link here.  It’s basically the same way we use the phrase “after all I’ve done”, If I was to say “Can you forgive me…after all I’ve done?” I’m not asking for forgiveness because of what I’ve done, rather, I’m asking for forgiveness in spite of what I’ve done. The beauty and freedom found in the gospel is this: Christ became a curse to His people.  There is no work that you can do to help establish your own righteousness.  Galatians 3 actually tells us that if you try to establish that righteousness for yourself, the Law will become a curse to you.  But instead, Christ became a curse for God’s people by taking the punishment they deserved and giving them a righteousness that’s not their own. The beauty of the restored Gospel is that Jesus saves us, and we can understand and strengthen our faithful relationship with Jesus Christ in a more profound way thanks to modern scripture, and divine revelation.  We can have an assurance of our good standing with him.  Jesus Christ is the way to return to the Father.  On top of that, we continue to receive modern revelation from chosen messengers of God, who provide increased insight into what He wants for us today.  While I understand their position, I fundamentally reject it, because to do otherwise would be to reject the truths that God has revealed today.  The heavens are opened, and the Lord God Almighty speaks. He lives, and He guides his people.  I think I speak for most, if not all, of us when I say that we want all people to come and see it for themselves, and appreciate what we have to offer.  If these pastors refuse to do so, I respect their decision but cordially ask that they cease their unwarranted assault on His true and living church. Yours, Zachary Wright zwright@fairlatterdaysaints.org   Now, if anyone from Apologia church is hearing, reading, or watching this, I want to reinforce this idea right now that I’m trying to act in good faith here.  I’m not deliberately trying to mislead, and I’m willing to engage with you on this.  If you have any questions, I urge you to reach out to me so we can have further discussion.  I am more than happy to edit my article, revise my position, and even delete these videos if you can unequivocally prove that my position is wrong.  Even so, I think that the points I have presented here pose a serious problem for the conclusions you’re trying to reach, and I plead with you to not dismiss them. As for everyone else, I want you to consider what principles I employed from previous videos to help me arrive at my conclusions.  What questions did I ask?  How did I evaluate my sources?  What logical arguments did I present?  What epistemic sources did I pull from to establish my points?  What misinformation did I try to correct, and how did I try to correct it?  If you look hard enough, you’ll be able to see my methodology, and you can decide for yourself whether you find my points to be convincing.  As you do so, I hope you’re able to recognize how asking these questions pertains to critical thinking, and I hope that being able to use these skills can teach you to be the kinds of thinkers and believers God wants us all to be.   Zachary Wright was born in American Fork, UT.  He served his mission speaking Spanish in North Carolina and the Dominican Republic.  He currently attends BYU studying psychology, but loves writing, and studying LDS theology and history.  His biggest desire is to help other people bring them closer to each other, and ultimately bring people closer to God. The post By Study and By Faith – Episode 10: Response to “The Gospel for Mormons” appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: The Book of Revelation by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Oh my goodness, we have made it to Week 50. And we’re almost done with this project. The whole goal this year has been to give you a peek into how your Evangelical friends and family see things differently – and how we can approach conversation a little bit differently with them and perhaps have more success sharing the goodness of our faith with them. And it’s been an amazing year for me – I’ve clarified some of my own thinking on this topic and hopefully helped some of you too. I’ve received so many kind and thoughtful notes from some of you that I never could have met any other way, so I’m incredibly grateful for this project. However, and I’ve alluded to this before, trying to same format with the Book of Mormon just doesn’t make sense. It’s worked this year because we’re doing the New Testament, and maybe we’ll do it again when Old Testament year comes around, but for now we’ve got 3 episodes left in this series. Today the topic is on the Book of Revelation, next week it’s about Christmas, and what I’d like to do the week after that, our final week, is to do quick question-and-answer for anything you would like to know that we haven’t covered yet, that you were hoping to have addressed, or that you’re still wondering about. You can either put questions in the comments below, or email me at jroach@fairlatterdaysaints.org. I’d like to fit in as many questions as possible so hit me up if you’ve got something. And, just a tiny bit more business before we start, I’ve teased you already about what will happen next, and it’s 2 things. First, there will be a new concept taking over this weekly format that relates closely to the Book of Mormon, and it has to do with helping your loved ones who are in a faith crisis. I will not be hosting that one, but I know who is and I’m very excited for you to get to hear a lifetime of wisdom on this topic from them. AND, we have a new show with a new format coming out. The idea is that we’ll do 5-6 episodes on specific topics in scripture or church history analyzing them from multiple perspectives – historical, cultural, textual, psychological, and more. I am one of 3 hosts on that show and it’s been so fun to plan it out with our team. The other two hosts are 1) Sarah Allen – who is basically everyone’s research hero – she wrote that incredibly comprehensive response to the CES Letter that is something like 70 parts. There simply is not a more comprehensive collection of research on that than what Sarah has done…. 2) Zach Wright who is the young scholar who hosts the By Study and By Faith podcast. He’s so bright and so quick, if you don’t know Zach yet I think you will really enjoy his energy and perspective. Yesterday we filmed a couple of trailers for this new show that will come out later this month. Last thing….this week I got to film episodes with two of our partners – Scripture Central’s show Let’s Get Real with Stephen Jones; and the Saints Unscripted show. Both were on my other research area which is sexual abuse in the church and they were great fun to do. You can check those videos out on their respective channels. Okay, let’s get started for today. We’re going to talk about the Book of Revelation. The reality is that Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals alike are confused by this book, kind of afraid of it, and often prone to taking it out of context. Why? Well, frankly because it’s a weird book. It’s a vision, it’s a dream, and just like your dreams, sometimes symbols intermix in weird ways and then morph and mix again. Another way to say the same thing is to say that it’s a book that has been mostly treated as a subjective text – that is, a reading the reader brings meaning to based on their own culture, perspective, time in history, personality, and life details. You know a Roarsch test is – the ink blot pictures a psychologist holds up and asks the client to say what they see – well, many of the treatments of Revelation have been little more than that. It’s a subjective text that the reader brings his or her own meaning to. Think about a scenario where you’re telling a group of friends about a dream you had, and each one offers a slightly different interpretation. Who’s right? Well, who is to say? But this gets complicated for us, Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals alike, and honestly, for every other group out there. Revelation is a difficult-to-understand book. And we’re not going to dive into explaining it here today – that’s the task for plenty of other shows – but I do want to talk about the different ways we approach a text like this that is just so weird. And really, the differences here come down to our beliefs about prophecy, covenants, and dispensations. But let me back up and tell you why that’s important. So, the book of Revelation is a very specific type of prophecy called apocalyptic literature. A regular prophecy foretells something in the future – but not necessarily on an epic global scale. For example, in the Old Testament book of Jeremiah, we get a prophecy that Babylon Will Rule Over Judah for 70 Years. Now, that’s a pretty earth-shaking prophecy if you happen to live in that time, especially if you’re living in Judah. But this type of prophecy is very specific to the people living in a certain time and place. Your life, and my life, are not significantly impacted by the face that Babylon ruled over Judah for 70 years. However, what we call apocalyptic literature is about events that will impact all of humanity. There is no way for the events of the Book of Revelation to unfold without it impacting every human being forever. And all of this applies to both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. Where we have differences has to do with how our understanding of covenant theology and dispensationalism intersect. In the Evangelical world a person’s beliefs are either formed by the idea that God makes covenants with humanity OR the belief that God deals differently with humanity in different dispensations. But you generally can’t have both. It’s an either/or situation. You can find lots of Evangelicals, especially of the Calvinistic persuasion, who very much believe in covenants in a similar way to how we do. But those Evangelicals would absolutely cringe at the idea of talking about the different dispensations. And vice-versa, the Evangelicals who think about how God works in the various dispensations are very unlikely to see him also working through Covenants. But Latter-day Saints don’t have this problem. We easily talk about how God deals with groups and individuals through covenant, and we also see how God works differently in different dispensations. It wasn’t until after I joined the church that I even put that together. Like, wait, they’re integrating both?!? It sort of blew my mind because in the Evangelical world those 2 are water and oil. So how does this impact how we read Revelation? Well, an Evangelical dispensationalist is very likely to read Revelation literally. They try to see a one-to-one correspondence between the symbols in Revelation and the unfolding events of history. For example, “This symbol in the book of Revelation represents that nation of the Soviet Union, and this one represents the United States…” There is a lot of concern for making sure every person knows the saving message of Jesus before the Book of Revelation unfolds. They really deeply want everyone to hear about Christ. Meanwhile, the Evangelicals who think of their relationship with God as part of a covenant tend to think through Revelation really differently. They believe that certain human events can trigger the end times – primarily meaning here that every human being who is supposed to be saved, has been saved. Evangelicals in this camp – roughly 60% of all Evangelicals – believe that only some humans are able to be saved. The problem is that no one knows which humans are to be saved, and which aren’t. Only God knows if he made you for salvation or damnation. So the end times begin when the final person God has chosen for salvation is saved. And Latter-day Saints kind of combine these two views. We believe that all are God’s children and he would like all of his children back and this promotes our entire missionary enterprise. This is our thinking about all of humanity as a whole. But at the same time, we believe in covenants and that God will keep his end of the covenant with us as individuals. We would agree with them that “God will save who he will save,” We just happen to believe he wants to save everyone. In addition, our views about prophecy are different. Evangelicals don’t buy into the idea that God has further light and knowledge to give. So they have no modern teaching about what to do with Revelation, they’re kind of left on their own here. While the leaders in our church have given clarity on how to understand many things from the Bible, including this confusing book. So, all of this to say, the Book of Revelation is rather confusing to most people, and having a conversation with an Evangelical friend might leave you both more confused than when you began! What to do? Here is my advice….The glorious end of the book is that God puts everything right and a place exists where his people can be with him forever. That part could certainly lead you to a good conversation. Okay, 2 weeks left. Please let me know if you have questions specific to Evangelicals that I haven’t been able to answer yet, I’d be glad to use them in my wrap up episode in a couple weeks. See you next time. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – The Book of Revelation appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Do You Have the Holy Ghost? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Hi friends, and welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. If you wondered if you missed last week’s episode, it wasn’t you, it was me. And sometimes life is like that. Several of you reached out with kind notes asking if I was okay and I’m grateful for your caring. And here we are, back on track now. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. I also wanted to tell you….I got to run up to Salt Lake this last week and participate in a preview of Come Follow Me for next year. There are some structural changes in the manual that will likely make it easier for families as well as new material that was not in the manual last time we went through it 4 years ago. I got to take home a physical copy and honestly, if you have kids I recommend getting a physical copy. The digital copies have access to all of the children’s activities, but you will have to print things out and the physical copy has everything in one place. So, I’m behind a week and here is how I’m going to solve that problem. Today you’re going to get the content from last week, and I’m going to combine the text for this week and next into my episode for next week – they’re both in Revelation and it’s easy enough to cover in the same talk. Okay, today we’re going to talk about the Holy Ghost from last week’s readings. One of the questions I’ve received at least a couple of times in the last year goes something like: How can Evangelicals claim to have the Holy Ghost, I thought our church was the only church with authority to give the gift of the Holy Ghost. And it’s a good question, you can see why it would be confusing because Evangelicals absolutely do claim to have the Holy Ghost, though they’re much more likely to refer to him as the Holy Spirit. So, what is that like for them? We’ve talked about this a bit before on this show regarding the “charismatic” or “pentecostal” side of the Evangelical world, but what about the rest of them? Because here is their dilemma: There is no possibility for new authoritative revelation. So anything they feel from the Spirit does not have the same idea underpinning it that God can reveal new things. In fact, they are warned against believing that God might reveal something new to a person through subjective means. Whatever they hear from the Spirit will be echoed in the Scriptures, and that is now they know it’s true. The problem, of course, is that there are millions of choices a person has to make over the course of their lifetime that the Bible does not address, and can not address specifically. They have to take broad principles from the scriptures, apply them to what they feel the Spirit is saying, and only move forward if they see a match. Some of this is a very good safeguard – they have a good understanding that the Spirit is not going to tell them to do something wicked. If you boil the whole endeavor down to it’s most basic parts the idea you’re left with is that the Spirit can remind them of things that the Bible has already said, He can contextualize things the Bible has already said, but not much more. And in some ways, dear Latter-day Saint friends, they have it easier. They view the scriptures as a check-and-balance against the subjective experience of hearing the Spirit. It’s a cleaner process, far less messy. There is another way they have it easier, but it doesn’t always work out fo them very well – that is they have no one above themselves telling them what the scriptures or Spirit are actually saying. The vast majority of them are going to make an honest attempt to listen to both scripture and spirit in an open way that allows God to guide them. But we little humans are excellent at self-deception, even when it comes to spiritual things. It’s very easy to mistake one’s own desires for the Spirit. We have this problem too – all humans do – but our risk is mitigated a tiny bit because we have a Prophet who can give a final word on big things. We don’t need – or want – to have a Prophet giving us exact directions on every single thing. But there is some rest available in the fact that we’re not left alone to figure it all out by ourselves. The difference here for Evangelicals is that they do accept pastors and others to teach them, but those teachers are employed by the will of the listener. If the Evangelical person does not want to listen to a particular teacher or pastor, they don’t. And they feel no compulsion to see that person in authority. While Latter-day Saints are much more likely to see the goodness of having someone with authority being able to teach us. So, do Evangelicals have the Holy Spirit? I will speak for me, not the church, not FAIR, just myself. Long before I knew very much about our church at all, I know that I had the influence of the Holy Ghost in my life -guiding me, teaching me, leading me. At the most basic definition, that is the gift of the Holy Ghost. So, what’s different now that I’ve joined this church, been baptized and confirmed? Well, honestly, it’s not a lot different in terms of feeling the Spirit and allowing him to lead me. The difference is the presence of covenants. In the Evangelical church someone can hear the Spirit, and as long as it confirms basically what is in scripture, then it’s considered a good thing. For me, now as a Latter-day Saint, the Spirit’s role is to provide a broader kind of guidance that allows me to do the things I’ve already been asked to do, or promised to do. It’s not about confirming the scriptures – it’s about how do I live out the covenants I’ve made. Now, there are Evangelicals who believe in covenant theology, but the role o the Spirit is still kind of stuck just being able to confirm what scripture says. And I’m sure other people’s experience is different than mine, I can only tell you my experience. Okay, that’s about all I’ve got to say on that. Next week we’ll do Revelation – which is always weird, but that will be fun. See you then. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1–3 John; Jude appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Priesthood of all Believers by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about priesthood of all believers. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. It is Thanksgiving week here in the US, so happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate. We got snow on the mountains here in Utah County, so there is plenty to be thankful for in these parts. I hope it’s a week of gratitude for you too, no matter where you live. Okay, today we’re going to talk about one of the most misunderstood verses in the New Testament when it comes to conversation between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints: The priesthood of all believers. We’ll start with 1 Peter 2:5: You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Now, no Latter-day Saint that I know of would disagree with that verse or verses like it. There is no quibble as to if this is a good verse translated properly or not. The question becomes what does it mean by “priesthood”? And as with most things, digging down a little into history and language helps us clear up the confusion. Let’s start with history. So, rewind all the way back to before the Protestant Reformation. In 1517 Martin Luther has had it with the corrupt practices of the Catholic church and nails his 95 thesis to the door of the Wittenburg Chapel. Luther had 95 complaints and social media hadn’t been invented yet, so nailing something to the door of the church was what he had available to him. A lot of that document has to do with the concept of purgatory and the paying of indulgences. Indulgences were purchased for money by living people in essence to shave off some of the time a dead person would have to serve in purgatory. Sometimes they’ve been wrongly thought of as purchasing a free pass to commit some sin, and there may have been some of that happening, but what Luther was really upset about was the idea that a living person could impact the experience of a dead person- without that person having to accept the work. Luther wasn’t even primarily mad at the idea that a living person could do some proxy work for dead people – he was mad that indulgences discouraged the purchaser from doing works of mercy in a way that would cause growth in their own soul. His logic was: How could people who were not pious give any assistance toward the piety of dead people? It would be as if we were baptizing people for the dead but there were no requirements on the righteous living of the person doing the work. Luther saw this issue really clearly. By the end of the 95 Thesis Luther makes it clear that he’s not trying to do away with proxy work altogether, he just wants to have it be done in such a way that requires righteousness from living people. And what Luther was trying to do, he states this very clearly, is to begin a conversation among the religious scholars of the day. But by 1520 (just 3 years later) the whole thing spins a bit out of control for him as the conversation morphs into, “what is the role of the priest in forgiveness – are they actually the ones deciding if you get forgiven? Or are they the ones who pronounce forgiveness upon you but that forgiveness is granted from Christ, not the priest.” And that’s where we’ll pick up the thread. So things are not going well for our boy Martin, at least in terms of debate among his academic peers. He wanted to be having this as an academic conversation, and he got some of that, but the people are starting to understand at least a bit of what he’s talking about when they see the implications for them. And Luther himself sees this to. In 1520 he puts out a document that has a very unfortunate name if you’re standing on this side of history. “The Christian Nobility of the German Nation.” But this is the document where he really lays out his growing ideas on the priesthood of all believers. And what he’s trying to do is react against the pre-Reformation idea that humans are divided into 2 categories – the secular and the sacred. So before this, if you lived in some little German town, there would be the regular people living their lives, mostly just trying to feed themselves and their families. These were the secular people. Even if they were followers of Christ, they were considered secular. The sacred people were the priests and those who had taken holy orders to live in monastic communities. And how it played out was that the secular people who believed in Christ didn’t have much access to materials that would help them learn the scripture or grow on their own – so they kind of gave up and let the sacred people take on that burden. It was sort of the attitude of, “I’m just a regular person, I don’t need to spend my day praying because those monks up in the monastery on the hill are spending their days doing that on my behalf.” And you can see where Luther gets upset at this – he’s not mad about the “proxy-ness” of it, he’s mad that the secular people side-step their own responsibility to grow and outsource most spiritual tasks to the priests, monks, and nuns. In the monasteries, the system was set up so that they prayed at fixed points throughout the day, including the middle of the night. And this system of prayer became more and more elaborate, requiring more and more time. The regular folks just trying to live their lives and feed their families couldn’t live under a schedule like that, so instead of modifying it for their own use in ways that were workable, they mostly just let the monks and nuns take care of the prayers for them. And Luther is upset at this because it leaves the regular people spiritually immature. And he wants to correct this situation, so he writes about it in “Nobility of the German Nation.” And so one of Luther’s goals becomes the emptying of the monasteries. He wants everyone – secular people and sacred people – to know how to do the work of prayer and Christian living. The term “liturgy” has its origins here – liturgy means, “the work of the people.” And you can see how Luther is using this term in particular – he wants the regular people to do spiritual work too. But in order to do that, he has to help them break out of the system they have going that separates secular and sacred. So he spends a lot of time and energy teaching that the regular people also have a priesthood to which they belong, the priesthood of all believers, and there are responsibilities in that priesthood. So far, Latter-day Saint friends, I don’t think there is much for you to disagree with. What Luther was doing is very reasonable in lots of ways. But let’s flip contexts out of Luther’s German world, and into our English-speaking world. And you’ll easily see how the problems develop. Very often when translating from Biblical Greek to English we have more English words to choose from. But in some instances it works the other way around – Greek has more words for something while English only has 1. Probably the best example you’re familiar with is the various words for “love” in Greek describe important nuances between different forms of love. But in English, we use the same word for, “I love pizza” and “I love my child.” It’s the same situation with “priesthood.” We have 1 word, priesthood, while the New Testament has 2 words: One that means “sacred person” and the other that means “one with elderhood.” So when Luther says, “you are the priesthood of all believers” he means, “You are not just secular people who have nothing to do with the spirituality of those monks and nuns….you too are sacred people, even just living your normal lives of taking care of your families.” He never intended to say that there aren’t 2 different kinds of priesthoods. The one we are talking about right now, the priesthood of all believers, is a universal priesthood that everyone who claims the name of Christ has – the priesthood that asks us to do the spiritual work for ourselves and those over whom we have responsibility such as children. The other form of the word meaning, “the one who has eldership,” is not canceled because of this universal priesthood responsibility that the average believer also has. So, what about our Evangelical friends? What do they make of all of this? Well, as we’ve talked about here a number of times Evangelicals value 2 things above all else – independence and devotion to Christ. When I say “independence” what I mean is they do not want to be told what to believe by anyone who claims authority. To them, the very claim of authority is problematic. They want an absolute level playing field where no person has authority over any other. They want to do what is right in their own eyes – you get the appeal, I’m sure. But they also value devotion to Christ and the concern here is that they do not want anyone “standing between” them and Christ. Not monks and nuns up on a hill, not priests that help with confession and repentance, not even the body to which they are a church member. If they don’t like what is being taught they see no obligation to stay – they move on to another church. In practice what this means is that they each have to be their own Prophet. They don’t get – or want – guidance that comes with authority. They are the authorities. They also see Christ as being not just the “great High Priest” but also the only current priest of any type. And to be honest, we’re not too far apart from each other on this one – we would also say that the priesthood belongs to God. It is his power on the Earth. But Evangelicals worry that any claim to priesthood is an attempt to take the power away from God and give it to man. And this is part of the arc of development for them as people embedded into a particular time and place. The Evangelical movement grew up right alongside of the modern, hyper-modern, and post-modern era. The natural conclusion of this arc is that the concept of authority itself is invalid. Think of how people conceptualize books. It used to be that the author had a meaning in mind, she would write her thoughts, and people who wanted to understand what she’s on about would read the book. The author got the final say, as it were. But in the postmodern turn it is the reader who brings meaning to the book. The reader decides what it means, even if that meaning is wildly different from what the author intended. The reader gets the final word. There is an important philosophical concept that started back in the 1960’s that says, “the author is dead”….and by natural progression, the very concept of authority dies with him. Author-authority. We see this play out in our national debates – what is an authority anyway? Is a guy at home with an internet connection just as much of an authority as a guy with a PhD? Large parts of our current culture answer that question as: Yes. Authority has died. And this is the culture the Evangelical movement has grown up alongside. Any authority that comes with priesthood is bad, it’s nonexistent to them. Only the common authority anyone has over their own lives matters, the idea of, “you can say what you want as long as its true for you.” But, “history predicts the future” and these things are cyclical – at some point things change. If you look at last week’s Deseret News you will find an article titled: Want to fix education? Bring back authority.” (You also will find a piece in DN last week with my name on it – its a summary of the presentation I gave at the FAIR conference back in August if you’re curious.) But “Bring back authority” is essentially getting at this same thing – we’ve swung too far away from the idea that anyone, teacher/priest/researcher/anyone can have authority at all. And maybe these things correct themselves over time. This got to be a long episode, but I hope it helps you think though why your Evangelical friends get so worked up about the “priesthood of all believers” concept. Okay, we’ve got 5 episodes left. Next week we’re talking about the Holy Ghost and asking what does it mean when an Evangelical also experiences the Holy Ghost. I think you’ll be plenty fascinated with that one. See you then. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 and 2 Peter appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Perfection? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about perfection. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. We are on Week 46. This year of Come Follow Me is rapidly coming to a close which means that talking about how Evangelicals view things in the Bible doesn’t really make sense next year because we’ll be doing Book of Mormon year. And I know several of you have wondered what will happen next year. Fear not. Things will change for next year, this particular podcast needs to pivot a bit, but I will still be around. FAIR is working on a show in addition to this one where there will be fewer episodes, but higher quality. I have been working with 2 of the best researchers FAIR has and we’re putting something together I think you’re going to like. So you will still get to see me – Congratulations and I’m sorry. I don’t know exactly what to say about that. But it will be good and I will have much more to share with you after Thanksgiving. We have arrived at week 46 and we’re in James. 2 of the biggest verses in James that we could have talked about are James 1:5, “If any of you lacks wisdom let him ask God…” and James 2:14 and following talking about works. We’ve actually covered both of these topics pretty well in this series, so we’re going to back up a little and talk about James 1:2-4. This is in the ESV: 2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. There is some history here that will help put Evangelicals in the right context. And, as we’ve seen before many times here, even when an Evangelical church presents itself as a “community church” with no denominational tie, there is usually a tie somewhere in the background – and that might be a formal denomination that just isn’t put front and center (Lifeway Research says that over 60% of the cosmetically named churches, things like Vision Church, are Southern Baptist churches that simply do not name the SBC anywhere on their website or materials and they present themselves as if they are no ties with a larger group at all.) Or it can just show up in the education of the pastoral staff – if they all went to Dallas Theological, then you know something about where they’re coming from. So, the particular part of the Evangelical world a church comes from matters here. Churches that are informed by the Lutheran, Reformed or Calvinistic traditions are very unlikely to ever talk about the idea of becoming, “perfect as your father in Heaven is perfect.” It’s not a category for them, and their theology reveals why. Their position is sometimes called, “hyper-sovereignty” which is trying to get at the idea that God is so perfect, so complete, so good that it’s insulting to him for any human to have the audacity to say that they could be perfect as he is perfect. So, for them verses about perfection are part aspirational – they believe God is perfect and we should try for perfection even though we will never achieve it. But they’re also part of their system that says all humans are depraved and hated by God – only the power of Jesus Christ can heal the rift between us and God. So verses like this function as a sign to point out not only how good God is, but how bad we are. You know how Paul sometimes says that the law exists to point out our sin – these folks would likely say that these verses about perfection exist to point out how imperfect we actually are. In their way of thinking perfection is impossible, even thinking we could ever do it is hubris. Their interpretation is that God is so good he is perfect, and we are so bad that we could never obtain perfection. It doesn’t feel as grim in real time for them as it sounds to you. It sounds awful, I know, but they think of it more like: The stronger of a believer you are, the more willing you are to affirm God’s goodness and your own depravity. It’s a way for them to say that they are so committed to God that they’re willing to accept their own terribleness, and its a point of pride when they’re able to do so. All of this that I’ve just described is true for Evangelical churches that are influenced by Reformed theology, probably about 60% of current Evangelical churches. But there is another side. It started in the 1700’s with John and Charles Wesley, the brothers who begin the Methodist Church. Just for timeline, John dies about 15 years before Joseph Smith is born. The Wesleys are part of the 1st Great Awakening, and Joseph Smith is part of the 2nd Great Awakening. And what the Wesleys do is pull from the group in early Christianity known as the Church Fathers who lived in the couple hundred years after Christ. And there is plenty in their writings about the idea of perfection. But, things get weird around the 4th Century and that thinking about perfection turns into a very deep asceticism and monasticism – so life either in a cloistered monastery or life lived in public society but living with deliberate poverty and frankly, near starvation. Now, Christian history had to go that way – the fall of Rome happens right around this time and the governmental structure that had been holding Europe together disappears. And we get the dark ages. By this time Christian monastic communities were already well established in such a way that they could continue to exist. So, its not an entirely bad thing, but the Wesleys look at that and think its awful – that Christian life is intended to be lived out publicly in a way that nonbelievers can see and understand. Not cloistered away or taking vows of extreme poverty. So the Wesleys want to rewind time and go back to what the early Chruch Fathers were talking about with perfectionism. Over time, Methodists have moved away from the idea quite a bit, but it gets picked up by a group of churches known as the Holiness Movement. The Free Methodist Church (different from their much larger sibling the United Methodists), The Church of the Nazarene, the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), The Salvation Army, and the Wesleyan Methodist Church (the smallest of the Methodist groups.) And an awful lot of current Evangelical churches are influenced by this arc in all kinds of ways. But it gets weird. You can trace the influence of the Wesley brothers into modern Evangelicalism in about 100 different ways. But the idea that we might become like God is not one of them. Mostly what they do is take advantage of the wiggle room that exists in the Greek word used here for perfection. There is a legitimate nuance in that word that is something closer to “mature.” So you get translations like the NIV that say, “Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” The ESV still gives us, “that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” The ESV is considered a little bit more scholarly than the NIV, but the NIV has been around for decades longer and has had more influence on Evangelicals. So when they read a verse like this they hear, “be mature” and it doesn’t trigger the same response that, “be perfect” does. So some of them don’t even know, “perfect” is a possible translation here. So what do we do with all of this? Well, first, I can’t help myself…the mental health therapist in me needs to tell you that this conversation has nothing to do with perfectionism or the idea that today you must do all things perfectly in order to be loved or accepted by God or others. Part of the joy of having family and friends is that those are the people who can see your imperfections and love you anyway. So we’re not talking about some kind of scrupulosity or perfectionism. And to be fair, you do see a slightly lower incidence of these issues in an Evangelical population than you do in a Latter-day Saint population. But as far as how to talk with Evangelicals about this, let me offer you my experience when I was an Evangelical. I didn’t know a lot about Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I had picked up some things along the way, not as any kind of serious study, just part of being alive in the 20th century in America. And I can say from that perspective that there is some overlap for people outside our church on the concepts of “perfection” and “worthiness.” Before I knew better, I would have heard the phrase, “a worthy Latter-day Saint” as “a perfect Latter-day Saint.” I knew that didn’t make sense, but I also knew the reputation of people in the church as being good people, excellent mothers, and excellent people to have around in a crisis. So, my first thought is that if a conversation about the concept of perfection came up, you might want to make sure your friend is able to differentiate between the two concepts. Here is my second thought. There is a quote from President Nelson long before he was the president of the church. Back in 1995 he said, “We all need to remember: men are that they might have joy—not guilt trips!” And I love that because guilt is…kind of contagious. If you feel guilty about what you have and have not done, and you’re talking about the ideas of perfection, or even worthiness with an Evangelical friend, they will intuitively feel that guilt in you. The role of guilt in spiritual or personal development must be to point out something that has gone wrong – thus prompting us to make a change to address the issue. That’s the only reason you get the emotion of guilt. It doesn’t add to your holiness, it doesn’t add to the love you receive from God. It’s a big arrow pointing to a situation or event – not to make you feel worse about yourself, but for you to do some problem-solving around how to change. We humans don’t like to change, and sometimes barely know how to change, but that is the role of guilt – to point to where change needs to happen. In that sense its an empowering and problem-solving emotion. But what we do a lot of times is turn guilt to shame – instead of, “I did a bad thing” it becomes, “I am a bad thing.” That’s not growth or development, that’s self-pity. As much as you can, for your sake and the sake of those with whom you talk about gospel issues, let the feelings you have about your own lack of perfection be the things that makes you progress forward – not stay stuck on how awful you are for getting something wrong. So much overlap between this and mental health, forgive me for my soapbox. Okay, next week is Priesthood of all Belivers. Come back and we’ll have some fun. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – James appeared first on FAIR.

by Zachary Wright Introduction For today’s introduction, I’d like to share a story from my own faith journey with you.  In High School, I found myself in a dispute with a classmate who consistently challenged my faith.  He didn’t believe in God, and he was very argumentative and combative regarding why he was right.  I found myself thrown into a loop…it had been the first time I was forced to really consider my faith.  I had deeply spiritual experiences, but those didn’t seem to answer his questions.  I felt like I was on the defense, like my head was on fire.  Everything I had ever believed in seemed to flip upside-down.  I began poring over everything I had learned, trying desperately to find out what I could trust, and clinging to whatever truth I could find.  In psychology, this is referred to as “Cognitive Dissonance,” and it’s something that critical thinkers need to be aware of in order to be successful. Throughout this series, we’ve talked a lot about dealing with information, and processing it in a way that can help us to arrive at correct conclusions.  However, lots of the data (especially about people-centered topics such as politics, history, and religion) we have comes from differing worldviews, and is loaded with differing presuppositions about life.  This, naturally, will lead to some kind of conflict, because not all ideas are compatible with each other.  This is further complicated by the fact that sometimes people can be closed-minded, or otherwise are unwilling/unable to accept the points you bring across.  Critical thinkers need to learn how to deal with cognitive dissonance, because if you haven’t experienced cognitive dissonance yet, you will experience it eventually.  It’s important to learn how to effectively navigate your ideas being challenged in a way that doesn’t make you feel miserable all the time, but also doesn’t prevent you from continuously learning.  To do this, we’ll first explore what cognitive dissonance is.  We’ll then look at it from a more faith-based perspective, and then, we’ll discuss how to better resolve cognitive dissonance.  With our goals in mind, let’s get into it. Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance has been described as “the most influential and extensively studied theory in social psychology”(1)- and for good reason.  It was termed over 60 years ago (which in terms of modern psychology, is VERY old) by a psychologist named Leon Festinger.  He described it as “an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction” (2).  This is important to keep in mind, because unlike the common colloquial usage, cognitive dissonance is not “holding two contradictory ideas at once” (3).  Instead, as Festinger indicated, it’s the mental condition that prompts us to want to reconcile conflicts in our minds. A renowned fable may help illustrate this idea.  There was a fox walking through the forest, and he stumbled across some beautiful, delicious-looking grapes.  They were high up on a vine though, and so he tried jumping up and down to get them…to no avail.  He tried and tried again, eventually stating to himself “They’re probably just sour grapes anyway, I shouldn’t waste my time on this” or something to that effect.  He then gave up, having convinced himself to leave.  This actually explains this psychological phenomenon rather well.  The fox in this story was put into distress-cognitive dissonance-when he found that he was unable to get the grapes.  To resolve said dissonance, he convinced himself that the grapes were sour to “justify” himself giving up. There are also some very interesting, real-world examples of this occurring as well.  In a follow-up experiment, Leon Festinger once again took it upon himself to explore the concept of cognitive dissonance.  He took 71 psychology students (one at a time), and had them take 12 spools, and place them into a tray using only one hand.  Then, using the same hand, the students were to take all of the spools out of the tray, and repeat the process for about 30 minutes.  Then, they had to do a similar exercise where they had to turn wooden pegs a quarter turn for another 30 minutes.  Basically, it’s designed to be boring.  At the end of the experiment, an experimenter would pull them aside, and tell the participants that they needed help convincing others how exciting the experiment was.  To one group of students, the experimenters offered $20, to another group, they offered $1, and to another group of students, they offered no compensation.  Take a moment to guess which group reported the highest satisfaction with the experiment.  If you guessed the group that was offered $20 gave the best report of the boring experiment, I don’t blame you.  Interestingly enough, that’s not what happened.  Instead, the group that was offered $1 rated the experiment most positively. So, what happened?  Well, in the analysis, they explained the following. 1. If a person is induced to do or say something which is contrary to his private opinion, there will be a tendency for him to change his opinion so as to bring it into correspondence with what he has done or said. 2. The larger the pressure used to elicit the overt behavior (beyond the minimum needed to elicit it) the weaker will be the above mentioned tendency. (4) Put another way, the conclusion arrived at was that the participants changed how they viewed the experiment and that the participants who were most heavily rewarded were less likely to change their behavior.  This makes sense…the students who got rewarded $20 (an amount that was far larger back in the 60s) didn’t need to change their opinion.  They were already compensated for their time, and the dissonance has been resolved.  However, those who only received one dollar didn’t get that satisfaction, so they had to resolve it a different way.  This is the crux of what cognitive dissonance is. However, this still leaves us with questions like “What do you feel when you experience cognitive dissonance?” or “What specifically can cause cognitive dissonance?” Some writers indicate that a person suffering from cognitive dissonance experiences “anxiety, embarrassment, regret, sadness, shame, and regret” (5).  Some causes for cognitive dissonance include being forced to do something you believe is wrong, making decisions based on options that don’t seem appealing, or giving in to addictions (6).  Again, all of this goes back to the idea that something prompts us to feel “bad” about something that is happening that goes against what we believe, or challenges the presuppositions that we have. Dissonance in Faith Contexts Religious discussion, like many other topics, can prompt cognitive dissonance.  The example I used in the introduction is one of many stories wherein cognitive dissonance played a role in my behaviors and actions.  One author doing a qualitative study on the feelings behind these “faith crises” in Christianity noted the following: In the words of Durà-Vilà and Dein (2009), a Christian is susceptible to a period referred to as the, “Dark Night of the Soul,” which is described as a “loneliness and desolation in one’s life associated with a crisis of faith or profound spiritual concerns” (p. 544). This crisis of faith can cause great suffering and emotional distress and can even resemble symptoms of a depressive episode (e.g., feelings of guilt, loss of interest, anxiety). Efforts to participate in spiritual activities such as prayer, attending church, or fellowship with other believers can feel overwhelmingly difficult. Additionally, these spiritual practices can lack the meaning they once held for the believer. These crises of faith can be short-term, or last years, and can potentially become as severe as an individual abandoning his or her faith altogether. (7) Those feelings sound familiar, don’t they?  Basically, the argument being made is that those who are experiencing these feelings are having what many have called a “crisis of faith,” which prompts them to make decisions to resolve the negative feelings.  These “Faith Crises” are often described by both members and former members as being among the most difficult parts of their lives.  Remember, when someone begins to question the nature of their faith, they’re questioning the very nature of reality as we understand it.  The negative feelings that come along with such questions are very real, and should not be ignored. As we’ve learned though, those feelings are only part of the story, seeing as how cognitive dissonance is manifested not by the feelings alone, but also how people set out to “resolve” those feelings.  Many members of the church who experience a “faith crisis” may have questions about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet, and so they might peruse the Joseph Smith Papers to help gain insight into who Joseph Smith truly was.  Others may have questions about whether or not God exists, and so they turn to the scriptures (as well as other sources), and ponder whether or not God exists.  Others may even choose to leave the church, believing that the reasons to believe in the church’s truth claims are unsatisfactory.  As you can see, when the dust settled in terms of my faith journey, I did not come to the conclusion that the church was false.  Even so, the final option of abandoning organized religion seems to be one that many people (especially in my generation) seem to be embracing. (8) It’s worth noting from a cultural perspective though that some people have issues calling this a “faith crisis.” Critics of the church might be more prone to blame the church and not their own faith, and members of the church sometimes get self-conscious at the prospect of losing faith.  Instead, members of the church want to structure this as more of a “faith remodeling” focused on questions as opposed to some kind of crisis. (9)  I can get behind this rhetoric, as I believe that asking questions about our own faith and restructuring it seems like a good practice to me.  However, having been acquainted with my own feelings, and the feelings of others, of people navigating these issues, I also have no issue talking about it in terms of the strong emotions involved.  Regardless of how you view it, the relationship between cognitive dissonance and the feelings associated with what many people call a “faith crisis” is worth analyzing. Resolving the Dissonance With such powerful emotions at play, it almost goes without saying that this topic should be taken seriously.  There are a few things that people can do to resolve the dissonance.  For example, psychologists suggest that cognitive dissonance is resolved in a few different ways, including: Changing our behavior so that it is consistent with what we’ve learned. Changing one of the dissonant thoughts in order to restore consistency. Adding other (consonant) thoughts that justify or reduce the importance of one thought and therefore diminish the inconsistency. Trivializing the inconsistency altogether, making it less important and less relevant. (10) I think that breaking down the issue in this way is useful.  Objectively, we need to do some kind of reorganization of our thoughts, whether by adding to, changing, or ultimately changing the authority of those thoughts.  For example, I’ve made it clear that I don’t like raw tomatoes.  If I’m forced to eat raw tomatoes, I can resolve the ensuing cognitive dissonance by either: Just choose not to eat the tomato Try to convince myself that the tomato is actually good Adding a thought as to why I’m eating the tomato (perhaps I’m being paid to do it, or I don’t want to hurt the person’s feelings Or I just dismiss the thought that I don’t like tomatoes, and choke them down anyways. Now, addressing cognitive dissonance from that perspective is certainly not a bad approach.  However, that still leaves us with the more practical question of “How can I help my friend or loved one”?  You can tell them to change how they’re thinking or feeling, but that alone probably won’t do much good.  As will soon be shown, a careful application of critical thinking in combination with spiritual direction can allow us to connect to those who are struggling in ways that are meaningful and effective.  Specifically, Latter-day Saints should understand and care about this topic so they can empathize with those experiencing a faith crisis, help them identify what the root of their faith crisis is, and eventually help them recognize that the feelings they have are a natural part of a healthy, progressing, and ultimately fulfilling faith. While a technical psychological definition is still up for debate, empathy is usually characterized by “a complex capability enabling individuals to understand and feel the emotional states of others, resulting in compassionate behavior.” (11)  While it does not necessarily mean that you embody the anxiety, anger, or sadness that may arise during these crises, it does mean that you are emotionally present and that you are able to perceive the emotions that others are feeling accurately. (12)  Consider the following commentary stated during the Annual Seminary and Institute Training and Institute Broadcast: Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. Genuine empathy brings people together; it sparks connections and helps people feel they are not alone. It is a critical part of creating a sense of belonging. This attribute is a key to responding effectively to a student with a question and to effectively leading a group discussion where many students listen carefully with unspoken questions. (13) An important aspect of empathy includes asking questions, and genuinely listening to people.  We’ve discussed the importance of asking questions in terms of critical thinking, but getting to the root of what a person actually feels requires careful questions, and patient effort.  Not only are you able to get to the root of what a person is feeling, but you in turn get to figure out exactly what a person is truly concerned about.  Put another way, by figuring out what they are feeling, you figure out what they truly care about.  In the last episode, I alluded to the idea that many people leave the church not because of historical issues or doctrinal issues themselves.  Rather, they leave because of the feelings that are brought about by these issues.  If you can address the feelings, you can figure out more how to help resolve the dissonance. And that brings us to another very important facet to this conversation:  Cognitive dissonance is not necessarily a bad thing.  I’ve changed how I view cognitive dissonance (see what I did there?) in such a way that I now look at it as evidence of learning, and an opportunity to grow and develop my ideas.  This is true in just about every aspect of life, but it’s especially important to remember when we talk about faith.  I find experiences that we refer to as “faith crises” often work in a similar way.  We find something that prompts questions and challenges us, and it prompts us to learn more about the gospel of Jesus Christ, or the history of the restored church, and it can provide us an opportunity to cling onto the peace that is found with the Savior.  When we embody this pursuit of truth inherent within LDS theology, this aspect of critical thinking comes very naturally, and we should make full use of that advantage.  Although it’s difficult to navigate the complexities of cognitive dissonance, connecting with trusted sources, open communication, continual learning, and consistent connection with our Heavenly Father resolves cognitive dissonance far better than anything else I’ve found. Conclusion In conclusion, cognitive dissonance is an important and recurring aspect of our journey to become critical thinkers.  It has a long history, and pertains to many different contexts of our lives, including our identities as children of God.  Even so, there are a few options at our disposal that can help us, and others, navigate the complexities of cognitive dissonance.  Whether we are actively regulating our thoughts and opinions in a manner that is conducive to critical thinking, or we’re helping others by being empathetic, or even just becoming more comfortable with the complexities of life, cognitive dissonance does not need to be a stumbling block in our lives.  If we’re able to navigate those feelings well, we’re all that much closer to becoming the kinds of thinkers, and believers that God wants us to be. References: Alfnes F., Yue C., Jensen H. H. (2010). Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 37, 147–163; Cited in Perlovsky L. (2013). A challenge to human evolution-cognitive dissonance. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 179. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00179; This article also references the “Fox and the Sour Grapes” story, which likewise originates from one of Aesop’s Fables. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hive-mind/202002/dissonant-cognitions Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive dissonance. J. Abnor. Soc. Psychol, 58, 203-210. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cognitive-dissonance-2795012 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738, see also https://health.clevelandclinic.org/cognitive-dissonance/ https://thescholarship.ecu.edu/bitstream/handle/10342/7462/WEBB-MASTERSTHESIS-2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://inallthings.org/why-theyre-leaving-and-why-it-matters-gen-zs-mass-exodus-from-church/ https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/questions-of-faith-not-a-crisis-of-faith?lang=eng https://positivepsychology.com/cognitive-dissonance-theory/ Riess H. (2017). The Science of Empathy. Journal of patient experience, 4(2), 74–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373517699267 Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of personality assessment, 91(1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802484381 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/auxiliary-training/2021/01/11webb?lang=eng&id=p15#p15 Further Study: “On Dealing with Uncertainty” by Bruce C. Hafen, link here “Faith is Not Blind” by Bruce C. and Marie K. Hafen, link here “Questions of Faith, Not a Crisis of Faith” by Molly Ogden Welch, link here   Zachary Wright was born in American Fork, UT.  He served his mission speaking Spanish in North Carolina and the Dominican Republic.  He currently attends BYU studying psychology, but loves writing, and studying LDS theology and history.  His biggest desire is to help other people bring them closer to each other, and ultimately bring people closer to God. The post By Study and Faith – Episode 9: Cognitive Dissonance appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Isn’t Jesus the Only Melchizedek Priesthood Holder? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about part 2 of 3 on priesthood. There is so much to say on this and we’re going to get right to it. But I want to point out one thing… Sometimes, at least in people I know, Latter-day Saints seem a little unsure of their overall Bible knowledge. And it’s true, there are some ins and outs of the Bible, especially the New Testament, that Evangelicals will tend to know better than our people. But the Book of Hebrews is not one of those places. The Book of Hebrews is the least read in the New Testament among Evangelicals. It’s not that they don’t think it’s scripture. They do. But it’s a dense book, and you have to know some things about the Old Testament, and even then it’s still considered kind of esoteric. But because of the mention of Melchizedek in Hebrews, more Latter-day Saints have spent significant time there. The parts of Hebrews they really do like are chapters 11 and 12. You probably see this too, but it feels more familiar in tone, pace, and voice. It feels like Paul writing. The first 10 chapters of Hebrews just feel different to them. And, to be fair, they are different. If this is Paul writing, these chapters are the only ones where he talks like that. Okay, so let’s get to our jumping-off point. Hebrews 7:17: You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. So what do Evangelicals do with this verse? If we’re talking about percentages – how many Evangelicals engage with this concept – the answer is: its not a very high percentage. It’s just not on their radar. We say, “The Bible doesn’t lay flat,” meaning that some passages form a canon within a canon. Those are the go-to passages that all Evangelicals would know. And the verses in Hebrews about Melchizedek are not on that list. Latter-day Saints certainly have our own “canon within a canon” – the passages we pay more attention to, and those outside of it don’t get much air time. So the most likely question an Evangelical would have here is simply, “Who is Melchizedek anyway?” Because we don’t have tons of details about the historic priest Melchizedek, the answer to that question is pretty short, so they think there isn’t much here and move on to the other parts of Hebrews that have more content they can do something with. They don’t really have a conceptualization of “priest” so it doesn’t really go anywhere with them. They do like the part in Hebrews that talks about Jesus’ ability to be our Great High Priest because he suffered in the same ways we suffer. And who wouldn’t? There is a lot of comfort in that idea and we are on very firm mutual ground here. Both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals would feel good about that concept. Among Evangelicals who are theologically educated, you might get conversation about how Melchizedek is actually “Jesus in disguise,” as one of the few places in the Old Testament where Jesus shows up. That was a really popular theory all throughout the 20th century, less so now. I think the question that might most come up for them here is, “Why are you making all of this priesthood stuff more complicated than it needs to be?” And if you’ve been listening to this series at all you know that is pretty on-brand for them. The entire Evangelical project has been all about simplifying the Gospel, taking away the parts that make it hard for people to understand or participate – church services are very casual, “priests” are now “pastors,” Difficult to sing hymns are replaced by pop worship choruses. There is a way to take this question without disrespect intended, I think it could be a very sincere question: Why are you making this so complicated? Because in many ways Evangelicals are doing what the early Campebelite churches were doing – trying to get rid of everything that is not the absolute most essential part of the Gospel. The Campbelites considered that the “restoration of all things,” to them it meant just getting to the most important part and let everything else go. And you can hear echoes of that in the Evangelical question: Why are you making this so complicated? And to be honest, it’s a fair question. On the outside looking in, it can seem like a lot when you’re used to the “paring down” philosophy. However, Joseph Smith was not interested in a restoration that gets rid of everything. He wanted to add in everything, always be expanding, worlds without end. So Latter-day Saints look at this and think: Why wouldn’t you want EVERYTHING restored? And what it comes down to on this one is the question of authority. What is needed in order to do God’s work? The go-to verse for Evangelicals is in 1 Peter, “the priesthood of all believers,” and they interpret this to mean that no special authority is needed to baptize or perform ordinances. They see the Bible as giving anyone who believes in Christ the proper authority. To them, the concept of authority means that someone else is going to stand between you and God and regulate what you must do. While we would see authority slightly differently – the power of the priesthood is God’s power and we all are invited to participate in it in various ways. We see the priesthood as belonging to God, it is his power, and we humans are invited to participate. While they see the priesthood as belonging to humans who just want to get in the way and make it more difficult to understand God. And sometimes they’re not wrong. There really are, “evil priests who seek to destroy and oppress,” even if those people don’t always carry the title, “priest.” And I gotta tell you….I sympathize with their opinion in some ways. No one wants evil priests, and it is very easy for someone who thinks they’re acting in the power of God to confuse that with their own desires for power. That goes bad in 100 different ways. But the saying, “misuse should not mean no use,” applies here. Just because evil priests exist, does not mean there is no good priesthood at all. And this is part of what Hebrews is getting at – Jesus is the only priest who never messes it up and misuses his power. But you can see that what Evangelicals are really worried about here is something like: Who gives you the authority to make all these rules? And the accusation is: You’re just making stuff up to make it seem more complicated than it is. And in a weird way, they see THAT as being an “evil priest.” A person who is blocking access to God – in this case through “complications” – instead of doing what Jesus did which is to make access to God even possible. They see things like baptism being required as an extra rule. They see all of the ordinances that way. The idea of a priesthood is just another example of this. But this is actually where we find some common ground. In the Evangelical way of thinking authority or leadership is bestowed on someone because they themselves feel a direct call from God to do whatever it is that God is calling them to do. No one chooses you or calls you, you have to do it yourself. And, depending on the corner of the Evangelical world you’re standing in, anyone can claim to be called to anything simply because they feel God wants them to do the thing. In the simplest terms possible, this is the main difference that they would be able to identify – they call themselves and qualify themselves, and we have a process for it that involves requirements and accountability. A young deacon in our church might not have given much thought as to whether he should become ordained or not – I hope he has, but these are young boys and that process probably happens a bit more automatically for some than for others. They get ordained as a deacon simply because they’re the right age to do so – but the further up he goes the more it will require the man himself to desire to take on the requirements and responsibilities of the priesthood. He has to want to do it too. That piece – the man’s desire to serve in this way, and his own understanding of his calling – that is something Evangelicals can relate to. They might never love the structure (though to be honest, for someone like me the structure in our church is a breath of fresh air) but they might also be surprised that a man taking on priesthood responsibilities is also doing it out of his own sense of desire to do so. I mean, have you met the men in our church? My impression is that yes, they can certainly submit to their spiritual leaders when necessary – but it’s not divorced from the man’s own desire to serve. And Evangelicals would recognize and respect that if it were pointed out to them. Okay, next week we’re in the book of James, so a break from talking about priesthood – and then we do the “priesthood of all believers” which is the continuation of this. See you then. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Hebrews 7–13 appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: Ordain Every Man in the Church? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about why in the world ALL men in the church can be ordained as a priest, not just a few. As you know, we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. You will also notice I am not in my regular spot. I’m in the airport waiting on a delayed flight. I planned on recording when I got home, and that is not going to happen. But I got to have a fantastic girl’s weekend with friends that I know from growing up in Modesto, CA. So, this video is going to be shorter, and well, it’s an airport. So, yeah. Here we go. The word, “priesthood” is a very loaded word. At least when we’re trying to talk about how different groups use that word, and the situation between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals is one area where it gets hard in about 8 different directions. But, luckily, we’re spending 2 weeks in Hebrews, and then some time in 1 Peter, so I’ve got 3 episodes worth of material to try and unpack this. Today we are only going to focus on the aspect that we come across in Hebrews 5 which is this: For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”; 6 as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” So the question that comes up here might not even be obvious to you as a Latter-day Saint if you haven’t spent much time in other Christian churches. For this episode, we’re going to talk about “priest” as a category, not necessarily a job title. Most Evangelical churches are not going to use the word, “priest” except in the context of, “priesthood of all believers” and we will get to that specific issue once we hit 1 Peter. However, today we’re just going to stay tightly focused on the issue of why most men are ordained to the priesthood in our church. It’s a rather unique thing. I actually can’t think of another denomination where that happens – where every eligible man is ordained. If you know of one, hit me up in the comments. In Evangelical churches the word priest morphs into “pastor” and all the variations on that word. But we’re in the same category, sort of. But we need a little history lesson first. For most of the history of Christianity churches were led by pastors, and those pastors were overseen by a bishop – maybe they didn’t call him bishop, but that’s the category of the role. So it goes, congregation, pastor, bishop, and then someone over him, and up some more. And initially, Evangelical churches were organized this way too, at least in th e1950’s and well into the 1960’s. By the late 70’s, and certainly by the 1980’s this structure had significantly disappeared. The nature of Evangelical churches lends itself very much toward independent churches that are not overseen by a bishop. This is not scientific evidence, but I messaged a handful of my Evangelical friends who all attend church regularly and asked if any of their churches had this set up, and not one did. It’s mostly gone away. So what they have now is congregation, pastor, and maybe he has some kind of advisory board, but there is no one above him. And so the language started to change in the 80’s and into the 90’s. They started to say things like, “Every member a minister” and the idea was that the senior pastor was now the overseer of all the members of the chuch, who are actually the ministers. It’s no longer a bishop overseeing a number of churches in the same city, but a pastor overseeing non-ordained people who mostly do the work of the church. This set up should sound somewhat familiar to you. An Evangelical would look at how our local wards are set up and wonder why someone is being called the Bishop (I mean, if they know the word at all) because he’s only over 1 congregation and traditionally bishops were over multiple churches. But if you go up one level in structure we have Stake Presidents who essentially are in the same category that would traditionally be called Bishop – he oversees multiple congregations. And it’s not immediately intuitive to Evangelicals that we have formalized a structure that they arrived at because of the changing landscape of how churches work. So, back to our question, why is every eligible man and boy ordained? But the only structural difference there is that we have formalized what they keep informal. They actually do see each member (men and women, for the most part) as ministers – they just grab the title “priesthood of all believers” to sort of cover them in that role. This is one of those fascinating situations where, at first glance, we are in very different structures…..but as it turns out, no, not really. Now, questions about priesthood certainly don’t stop at understanding who is ordained and why. We’ll get to the rest in parts 2 and 3. But I do hope this clears up a bit of the language difference between us. We use a formal ordination process for “ordinary” men – and they use an informal process that accomplishes the same thing. This is a short episode, but I’m in the airport. So. Come back next week and we’ll take up the next bit on priesthood. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Hebrews 1–6 appeared first on FAIR.

Evangelical Questions: The Husband of One Wife by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about polygamy. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand. We are on Week 43 of this 52-week project. I’ve teased you a little about what will happen next year. I’m still not ready to spill the beans, but we had a planning meeting for it yesterday and I’m really encouraged. Our jumping-off point is 1 Timothy 3:2: Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach… Before we start, let me set some expectations. This is not an apologetic for polygamy. This is not to pretend there are not hard issues with polygamy. If you yourself, Latter-day Saint friend, are struggling over the history of polygamy there are so many resources to help you. Let me just briefly touch on 3 of them. 1) The work of Brian Hales on this topic is the the very best source for learning the history here. His site JosephSmithsPolygamy.org should be your first stop if you’re wanting to see the most in-depth display of original documents as it relates to Joseph’s polygamy specifically. Brian and his then-wife Laura Harris Hales (now passed) created the site. Laura was amazing and kind. I gave my first formal talk for FAIR in 2020 and Laura was the speaker right before me. We had never met but she just sort of told me, “You and I are going to be friends because you need to know the things I can tell you.” Maybe not that blunt, but in essence, that’s what it was. Laura’s talk that year was on Helen Mar Kimball’s later-in-life reflections on polygamy. Helen was sealed to Joseph when she was 14, which gets really complicated for us today. But Helen’s own words, written after a lifetime of living polygamy, are the essence of what it means to embrace faith in the midst of something really messy. And if I had not already been completely swept off my feet over this church, I would have become so right then and there. My very favorite genre of speaking or writing is from the standpoint of, “You can maintain faith even if things are messy, even if you have doubts, even if you have questions. Those things in no way disqualify you from having a strong faith.” So, resource 1 is: check out Brian’s site (Brian is very much alive and well – just this last week he released a paper on Joseph Smith’s education called, “Joseph Smith’s Education and Intellect as Described in Documentary Sources.” Our friends at the Interpreter Foundation have it up on their website. It’s 8,000 words and over 120 footnotes. Brian’s site and Laura’s talk on HMK at the 2020 FAIR conference. 2) Second resource you should know about is the 2023 talk at FAIR by Don Bradley. Don is a proper historian and did the deep research for Brian and Laura’s work. And he has continued on in that work. Don’s talk at FAIR a couple months ago brings new information into play that changes the timeline of Joseph’s polygamy – which snaps several previously problematic ideas into place. It is well worth your time. 3) Finally Brittany Chapman Nash’s book, “Let’s Talk About Polygamy.” Brittany worked in the church history department for a long time, she was on the YW General Advisotry Board. She makes the topic very accessible and this is a very easy read. I think it’s less than 150 pages, in plain language, and it’s a great resource if you are struggling here. Ok, those are 3 great resources if you’re struggling in general with the topic as a Latter-day Saint. But what we are going to do today is different. We, as always, are going to talk about this topic as it comes up for Evangelicals. So, before I was interested in the church, I knew some rough details about polygamy – mostly from movies or tv shows. I couldn’t have sketched out an overview of why it started or when. I just knew it was a thing, and supposedly wasn’t a thing anymore. But even that small amount of knowledge is more than a good percentage of Evangelicals have. As evidenced by this reality….Since joining the church I’ve received a handful of messages from friends about various tv shows that go something like this: “Hey, I’m watching such-and-such tv show about your church. There’s a lot going on there – you okay?” And they mean that with the kindest of intentions, they really do. They just don’t realize they’re watching a show about the members of a different group who practice polygamy, not our church. And I would say most Evangelicals have an understanding that is somewhere between what I knew and the knowledge that my friends displayed in their messages. So when they think about polygamy you need to know that their imaginations are populated by what they see on television and not by actual historical realities. But even if you can explain all of that to them, and I think many (most?) Latter-day Saints could, you still have a problem…They interpret this verse in 1 Timothy to mean that all expressions of polygamy are bad for all places and all times. They get real squeamish explaining the polygamy of almost every prophet in the Old Testament and will usually say something like, “Yeah, they might have done that, but God didn’t like it or allow it – they just did it.” You can point out that 30% of the countries in the world still allow it today. They just…it’s usually been a hard no for them. But even that is changing. In 2003 Gallop does a survey and finds 7% of adult Americans thought polygamy was morally acceptable – by 2020, 20% of adult Americans said it’s morally acceptable. And 35% of adults who consider themselves politically liberal say it is morally acceptable. This is sort of the spot where I walked in. I wouldn’t describe myself as particularly liberal, but I lived in a very liberal West Coast city for 25 years and that exposes you to a wide variety of people and lifestyles where the automatic response of most people is, “love is love.” So when I was investigating the church, that’s the cultural soup I was living in, so when the issue of polygamy came up my response was something like: Love who you want to love, why should I care? When the conversation came up with 2 women friends that are members of the church I was surprised. So surprised. I asked how they thought about the history of polygamy or the issue in general and they kind of fell all over themselves trying to tell me how bad they thought it was. They wanted to put lots and lots of distance between today and the 1800’s. I was confused. My liberal culture had taught me: You don’t get to have an opinion on how other people structure their marriages. Now, I get what they were doing – I was an investigator and they were trying not to freak me out – and I see the goodness in that. But I was far less worried about the issue than they were. As time went on, and I learned more, there were parts of the topic that I struggled with harder than others – I struggled with Joseph’s polyandry and if you struggle with that one too you must watch Don’s talk that I referenced earlier. But my initial reaction to the topic of polygamy was kind of, “So?” And I really haven’t moved too far from that. I understand the problems, I understand that the theological framework that supported polygamy is still found in places in our church. I listened to 100 episodes of a popular podcast talking about polygamy. And perhaps I’m not the typical example here, but what I’ve observed is that people inside the church are more touchy about this topic than people outside of it. So, all of that to say, you might be surprised that this conversation could go an entirely different way than you imagine. You, Latter-day Saint, might have far more complicated feelings about this than someone outside of our faith. You’re allowed to have complicated feelings here, and there is plenty of help for that, but Evangelicals don’t necessarily walk in with the same baggage. And here is the other direction I want to go. I think sometimes we Latter-day Saints look at Protestants widely, and Evangelicals specifically as being a people who don’t have to grapple with history as hard as we do in our church. Since we’re talking about polygamy we’ll use that as the example. There are 2 reasons for this. 1) Evangelicals are perfectly aware of polygamy in the Old Testament. But, that was a very, very long time ago. Meanwhile, in our church, there are people alive today whose grandparents practiced polygamy. So stories about polygamy (and all of its challenges) are not just random stories about stuff that happened 3,000 years ago. Evangelicals have the luxury of not thinking about this topic very much because 3,000 years is a long time. And, to be honest, in general, they’re fairly unaware of the events that have happened in the interim. For example, Martin Luther, the great reformer and father of Protestantism, said, “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” But even that was 500 years ago, so it just doesn’t feel as relevant for them. 2) Evangelicalism is very young as a faith community. Younger than ours. They really didn’t start gaining steam until post-WW2. And what was the cultural zeitgeist in post-WW2 America? Everything is modern and new. Everything is about the future. New is better than old. So they’ve culturally been able to tell their origin story that way. Think of the biggest Evangelical church in your town, I can almost guarantee you that their origin story is something like, “Well, Pastor So-and-So just wanted to study the Bible with some friends so they started a Bible study group in his living room. And pretty soon it grew into a church, and now here we are.” Well, that’s a pretty tidy history. But you understand that it’s an edited history. “Jesus did some stuff, died and rose again, then fast-forward 2000 years and we started this church.” And that’s the end of the history lesson. Because its culturally allowed (even expected) for the story to be told that way, they mostly just accept it, and no one asks harder questions based on history. They actually really do have it easier here than we do. But this is sort of the pay off on this topic and what I want you to hear…. Faith in messy. History is messy. People are messy. There was a time in our church’s history when a more sanitized version of history was being told – that happened for a lot of reasons, and it seems we’ve mostly moved past that mentality. And now we grapple with this stuff. And yes, some people leave over these issues. But have you met the people who know the depths of these issues and don’t leave? Don’t abandon their faith? People who can struggle through these issues, faith intact? If you’re watching this, I suspect there is at least some of that in you too. And you have no idea what a gift that is. A person who goes to a church whose origin story is Pastor Bill and his living-room Bible study, well they don’t develop the same skill in the same way. They don’t have to because the messier details are obscured from sight. My very favorite people in the world are people who model this for me – they want to know all the details of everything, and they still choose faith. My point here is not even to prep you on how to talk about polygamy with outsiders. I don’t think that’s even a very interesting conversation, and a pretty large number of them won’t even care. But there’s a pretty easy pivot from that conversation to how one keeps faith alive while also acknowledging the messy. This is one of the gifts of our faith that you might not see, but in my opinion, helping other people build their faith by modeling how to wade through complex issues is one of the holiest things you can do in this world. I hope and aspire to be able to do that for other people, and I know you do too. Okay, well, there you go. And seriously, if you are hurting or struggling over this issue please check out the resources I listed at the top of the show. Sometimes I’ve seen this cynical attitude from critics of the church that says, “Well, if you knew everything I knew, you’d leave too.” Which is just ridiculously untrue. And the folks in the sources I mentioned can really show you what its like to know all the details and still maintain faith. Next week, “the priesthood of all believers” is up. That will be a great conversation. See you then. More Come, Follow Me resources here.   Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon appeared first on FAIR.