Three IFs

If.  What a powerful word for both good and evil.  Three scriptural stories will set the scene:

Our first two stories come from the middle of Alma, in the Book of Mormon.  In fact, I suspect that their placement and emphasis was very intentional on the part of Mormon (the editor), as the message is all the more clear as a result.  We start with the story of Korihor, in Alma 30.  Korihor was preaching, throughout the land of the Nephites, that there would be no Christ.  After being cast out of a few cities he was eventually bound and delivered to Alma and the Chief judge.  As Korihor continued to preach his message, Alma confronts him, and bears testimony of the Savior.  To which we get this reply, with our first use of the word if:
"And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then I will be convinced of the truth of thy words."  Alma 30:43
and then later:
"except ye show me a sign, I will not believe." Alma 30:48
You may recall that Korihor received his sign (he was struck dumb), claimed to believe, and begged to have his sign taken back.  However, Alma foretold that if he were healed he would go back to his old ways.  I call this the only if.

The second story comes only a few chapters later, as Alma and Amulek teach the Zoramites.  In Alma 32, as the poor among the Zoramites come to Alma and Amulek to learn, we get the famous analogy comparing faith to a seed.  After referencing Korihor in verse 17, Alma goes on to describe a different attitude around the word IF.
"Even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work within you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words."  Alma 32:27
As these humble Zoramites did as Alma instructed, they were blessed with a firm knowledge of the truth.  This is what I call the longing if.

Finally, we go across the ocean and back several hundred years to Babylon.  Here we meet Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, three young Israelite in a foreign land.  These young men have been placed as magistrates over portions of Babylon.  They actually held political leadership positions in this foreign land.  At some point, the King builds an idol and commands that everyone should fall down and worship it.  Having refused to do so, the three Israelite magistrates have been taken before the king:

"Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?
15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." Daniel 3:14-18

The three are then thrown into the furnace where the Lord joins them and speaks with them, and they are not harmed.  This is what I call the but if not.

So here we have three IFs, only if, longing if, but if not.  Each unique, and each showing forth a different attitude.  The first, only if, is Faith destroying.  It is a selfish demand that God deliver what you want, when you want it.  And a refusal to believe if he fails to do so.  It reminds me a bit of the toddler who thinks he can get whatever he wants by refusing to breathe.  As though somehow our refusal to believe it God will cause the truth he has spoken to go away.  I think we fall into only if faith more often than we realize.  What happens, for example, if we pay our tithing but still can't pay the bills?  What if we pray for our child, even give them a blessing, and they don't get better?  At times, it can be hard to grow beyond only if faith.

Longing ifs are faith generating.  They re-direct our hearts to be open and honest and humble.  When we truly have longing if faith, we are like the father who comes to Jesus with his horribly sick child.  He begs the savior, "if thou cans't do anything, have compassion on us".  When the savior responds, "if thou canst believe...", the man answers, "Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief".  Realizing his shortcomings, the man does not say "Only if you heal him, then I will believe".  No, with longing if faith, he states his belief, and then begs the Savior to supplement that belief.  But his quest for belief, even for a sign, is not conditional.  He does not say, I won't believe if you don't heal.  That is the key difference between only if faith and longing faith, it is unconditional.  We still want the Lord to give us what we want, but we don't demand it.  Which brings me to the final, and ultimate variety of faith, the but if not faith.

You see, true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ recognizes that our will and his will do not always align, and that our thoughts are not his thoughts.  It recognizes that what we think we want, and what we would want if we knew everything he knows, are not always the same thing.  This sort of faith leads us to respond as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego;  "I believe the Lord will answer my prayer, but if not, I will still believe and worship him."  It is a total submission to the will of the Father and the Son.

Elder Bednar gave an exceptionally compelling talk recently about this type of faith, which he termed the faith not to be healed.  He told of a young couple that he visited with recently; they were fairly newly married when the husband was diagnosed with cancer, and the outlook was very poor.  When this couple asked Elder Bednar for a priesthood blessing, he felt prompted to speak with them a bit first.  During this conversation, he was inspired to ask this couple, "do you have the faith NOT to be healed?"  This was a new concept, even to Elder Bednar, but led to a conversation about trusting in God.  The blessing was given, and the young man, for a time, was better.  Two years later, he again was in the hospital for treatments, and was once again considering this concept of but if not faith.

So here we have three IFs, each with it's own reward.  It is up to us to choose which type of IF we will use in our life.  And it is up to us to choose what sort of faith we want to practice.  Will we be like Korihor, the Zoramites, or the Israelite Magistrates?  The choice is yours.

Prophets are men too

Perhaps one of the most pervasive and damaging false doctrines in the church is the notion that the Lord somehow calls perfect men to lead it.  Generally we couch that by saying, the prophet is a man, but when he speaks to the church he is perfect - or other similar language.  However, that is not doctrinal correct.  Joseph Smith put it more clearly, "I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."  Or, as the Lord himself has put it, "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:4)

Let me be clear how this works, because often we misrepresent D&C 68.  When this revelation was given, we didn't have Apostles yet.  It was not about Prophets, it was about 4 missionaries (though I believe it applies to EVERYONE).  You see, the requirement is the same regardless of position in the Church.  "When moved upon by the Holy Ghost."  So the things I teach when moved upon by the Holy Ghost are also the will, mind, word, and voice of the Lord.  The same is true of Prophet's and Apostles.  Where we may sometimes err is in assuming that they are being so moved anytime they speak.  This takes me back to the fact that they are not perfect.  Furthermore, the Lord councils that "it is not meet that I should command in all things."  God does not want to have to give us all the words we ever speak.  

This is important because Church leaders make mistakes.  There, I said it.  They don't just make them at home, in their journals, or in small private settings.  I think that mistakes are more likely in those situations (because they feel more free to speak about things that are less certain).  Nonetheless, there are plenty of instances of errors in General Conference Talks.  Perhaps my least favorite General Conference talk of all time was given in October 2011.  Elder Tad Callister's talk The Book of Mormon - A book from God was rife with poor logic and false teachings.  Perhaps the most concerning to me is when, about half way into the the talk, he reads several wonderful quotes from the Book of Mormon.  The then states:
"Could these statements from the Book of Mormon have possibly been authored by the evil one? After the Savior cast out certain devils, the Pharisees claimed that He did so “by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” The Savior responded that such a conclusion was nonsensical: “Every kingdom,” He said, “divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every … house divided against itself shall not stand.” And then His compelling climax: “And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?” "
When I heard this I thought to myself, wow, if that's the measure of Good vs. Evil....   I guess that means that the Koran was the work of God (which I don't really question).  In fact, pretty much every holy book from any religion would pass this test.  I'm reminded of the old - and truly disturbing - analogy of the dog poop brownies.  By Elder Callister's measuring stick, those brownies must be good.  After all, how can anything that contains such wonderful ingredients like chocolate and sugar be bad?  You see, I've learned in my life that Satan can tell the truth!  In fact, he has been most effective in my life when he has told me 95% truth, and with conviction.  So much conviction and truth that I managed to ignore the 5% lie he told.  That does not make Satan "divided against himself".  It makes him crafty, cunning, and dangerous.  Were I to take to heart Elder Callister's measuring stick, I might well fall victim to many many such traps in my life. Now, lest you think I have a problem with this wonderful man, I will point out that he spoke again in April of 2013.  The Power of the Priesthood in the Boy was a fantastic talk.  I loved it.  

So, if you can't trust everything you hear, even in General Conference, how will you know what to believe?  Sorry to break this to you, but you'll actually have to do some work.  You see, this is about the Holy Ghost.  How do I know when one is moved up on by the Holy Ghost?  Well, it is actually quite simple.  If the speaker is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost, then I will receive the message by the same power, if I am worthy and listening.  It really is that simple.  But there can be danger here too!  What if the speaker says something I don't like?  How easy is it to let my pride interfere with the Holy Ghost?  It's pretty easy.  The Savior gives us a good guide:

Go ye unto your homes, and ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father, in my name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow, and I come unto you again. 13. 3 Nephi 17:3.

I have two other rules I use to keep myself safe.  If something is taught in any setting, and I don't feel particularly comfortable with it, then I study and pray about it.  If I find I am not receiving personal witness of it, then I do not teach it to others.  And I then follow the Savior's advice.  I don't ask "is it true".  Rather, I pray "that I may understand".  Elder Callister, for example, was over simplifying a true doctrine.  As I prayed to understand his teachings, I was able to understand what he was trying to teach, even if it was poorly delivered.  At other times I have had similar experiences.

The second rule is crucial in my mind.  Teachings are one things, commandments and guidance are another.  When a Church leader gives a commandment (not just thou shalt commandments), I obey first!  Unless the spirit forcefully constrains me to do otherwise, I will always try to follow the council of my leaders.  Even when I am confident they are wrong.  Never have I received a prompting to the contrary, and I suspect it is very rare that I would.  The Lord blesses obedience.   I am sure that he would warn me against any council that was detrimental to my salvation.  But if a leader gives misguided, but harmless guidance, the Lord would want me to obey.  And so I do.

One final word:  I believe it is rare that our leaders make mistakes.  Particularly those who have been called, prepared, and chosen as Prophets.  They are men of God, and they are far wiser and more spiritually mature than I.  Mistakes in their teachings are so rare that I don't even look for them, but I do recognize that they can happen.  When they do, it does not bother me, nor does it make me doubt that they are inspired in their leading of the Church.  So please, don't focus on it, but also don't be so confident in their infallibility that it causes you to stumble if they make a mistake.  

The Word of Wisdom

How much have you really considered the Word of Wisdom?  What is it?  Why do we have it?  Has it always been so?
CAUTION:  This post is chalk full of opinion, though I try to support it with scripture.  Prepare to be offended and disagree.

I have often been amazed the lengths that members of the Church will go to in defending the Word of Wisdom.  I almost find it humorous, as they seem to have little understanding of the principles contained therein, but it also has a very dangerous undertone.  Some background will help set the stage here.

The Word of Wisdom is a very modern commandment.  In fact, far more modern that most members seem to realize.  You see, while the revelation in D&C section 89 was given in 1833, it was not until 1851 (or later, potentially as late as 1945) that it began to be considered a commandment.  In fact, the text itself clearly states that the revelation was not given  "by commandment nor constraint".  This has little bearing on today, where we have been clearly commanded to follow the Word of Wisdom, but it is an important point to consider for reasons we will get to.

The question of why we were given the Word of Wisdom is crucial to a proper understanding of it.  Some suppose that it is a law of health.  In fact, many of our lesson manuals refer to it as such.  However, the Lord never uses that term.  I've hear dozens of "reasons" for the Word of Wisdom, but I find most of them to be full of folly.  I recall an Elder I served with telling an investigator that Coffee was against the Word of Wisdom because it contained tanic acid, which is used in the tanning of cow hides.  I had to kindly thank him for sharing what must have been a direct revelation from God, since I was sure God had never revealed such a specific reason to anyone I was aware of.  Luckily, we don't have to guess or postulate at God's reasons.  He is VERY specific in the revelation about the EXACT reason for it.  He says,

"Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of^aevils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of^bconspiring men in the last days, I have ^cwarned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation"

Thus, we get from the mouth of the Lord the reason for his revelation.  It is not that this or that is bad for your health - though we now know many of its prohibitions are bad for us.  It was given because of the evils and designs of conspiring men.  I can't say for certain what that means, but I can say that it gives me great peace.  Why, you may ask.  Well, here are some of the challenges that members often face with regards to the Word of Wisdom and a poor interpretation of it.

Medical studies sometime appear to contradict the Word of Wisdom.  We can start with an easy one - a glass of wine a day can reduce the risk of hear disease.  Many members will get up in arms about this.  They will cite studies they have never seen (nor confirmed the existence of) that show grape juice will have the same impact. (I have confirmed those studies by the way, and they are real and not done at BYU)  However, with a proper understanding of the Word of Wisdom, I could care less what the studies find.  I am wholly open to the idea that some things prohibited in the Word of Wisdom may actually be good for me.  God told me not to drink wine, he didn't say it was bad for me.

On a related note, many struggle when faced with scriptural accounts of wine.  I have actually hear it suggested that Jesus didn't really turn water into wine, but into grape juice.  After all, Jesus would have obeyed the Word of Wisdom.  Well, there are two huge flaws in this logic.  First, there is NO BASIS for the idea that the word wine meant anything other than wine.  Second, there was no Word of Wisdom for Jesus to obey.  It is a modern law, given specifically to the saints, and specifically due to the designs of men in the LAST DAYS.  In other words, it doesn't matter if Jesus and Nephi and any other scriptural individual drank wine.  If you don't believe it was alcoholic then you have to answer three points for me.  1. How did the people of Lemhi get their captors drunk enough to pass out with just plain old grape juice?  2.  How did Labon get drunk and pass out on grape juice.  3. (and this is the hard one) How did ANYONE keep their grape juice fresh for more than a week?  You leave a glass of grape juice out of the refrigerator for a week.  Tell me what it tastes like after that.

OK, one more example and I'll wrap up.  How do you feel about medical marijuana?  Ignore the fact that it has been very poorly implemented in American society, and is highly abused in our existing system.  Pretend for a moment that you could only get it as a pill, and you had to have a real prescription from a real doctor, and buy it at a real pharmacy.  Would you ever take a pill filled with marijuana to relieve pain?  I used to have an easy answer to this.  NEVER!  It's a drug.  But that changed one day.  My friend suffers from chronic pain.  She's been on every pain medication out there, and has been addicted to at least 2 of them at various times.  After dropping a medication that was causing as much trouble as it was good, her doctor suggested that she give marijuana a shot.  Assuming it would make the decision easier, she went to her bishop.  She figured he would tell her she couldn't, and that would be the end of it.  Her Bishop, a MD himself, said something that caught her off guard, and dramatically changed my perspective.  I wasn't there, but I imagine the conversations went something like this:

"Sister, how many medications have you tried?"
"Dozens."
"And how many of those were narcotics or opiates (nasty drugs)?"
"Most of them."
"And would you consider those medications drugs, if someone who didn't need them medically used them?"
"Well, yes, I guess I would."
"You know a thing or two about marijuana.  Would you consider it a more or less serious drug that most of those narcotics?"
"Well, I guess I'd say it's pretty mild."
"So the concern is really that your narcotics come from a pharmacy, and marijuana does not?"
"Well, when you put it that way, I guess that is true."
"And perhaps that Marijuana is illegal?"
"Yes, that is certainly concerning as well."
"Do you know what the Church's policy is regarding the use of marijuana?"
"I assume it's against the Word of Wisdom."
"Actually, no.  The Church has no position.  It is left to the local leaders to guide.  Clearly you are not interested in using marijuana as a drug, but as a medication.  Therefore, I see no problem with it."

Now, in the end, my friend didn't end up going to marijuana - though the option is still there.  But it was an enlightening concept.  When we get a drug from a doctor or pharmacy, we don't think twice.  Most of the women I know have taken narcotics after they gave birth.  Many of them probably didn't even realize that the drugs they were taking were worth hundreds of dollars per pill on the black market as recreational drugs.  Vicodin, Codine, and so forth, are NASTY drugs.  Incredibly powerful and highly addictive.  Certainly mind altering.  Yet, we don't think twice.  The Word of Wisdom states that God gave us every herb of the field to be used with wisdom and thanksgiving.  I'm confident that some of those herbs, like tobacco, are meant to be used as medicine.  Tobacco is a great herb for bruises.  Heals them very quickly.  But I can only imagine the looks I'd get from church members if they saw me buying a pouch of tobacco at the store.  My point isn't that we should all support medical marijuana, nor that we should be using it.  My point is that we need to actually think and consider deeply before coming to a judgment that is based more on culture than on doctrine.

Finally, to wrap up, I want to make a few things clear.  First, the Word of Wisdom is modern day commandment.  We are all commanded to obey it, and nothing I've said today should change that.  Second, do not let your testimony be damaged by those things which appear to contradict the Lord's commandment.  Man does not understand all that God does.  The deeper lesson here is that it is dangerous to ascribe reasons to God's commandments.  While you may think you know why he commanded x y or z, you could be wrong.  And if you have the reasons wrong, you may find yourself in a very troubling situation.  When the world's wisdom contradicts the reasons we think God has given a commandment, it is sometimes because man's wisdom is wrong, but it is also often because we misunderstood God's reasons.  Lastly, do not judge others for things you do not understand.  You may think they are in sin, but it is quite possible that it is you who does not understand the situation.

Four Flavors of "Doctrine"

What is doctrine, and how is it established?  I have come to recognize four categories of beliefs that often get labeled as doctrine, though only one of them truly is.  I find this framework is very helpful in understanding the doctrine of the Church, and in understanding why there are many flaws in the church. (notice the big C vs the little c).

True Doctrine (with a big D)

The Doctrine of Christ, and the various other Doctrines which surround it, are the only teachings which can truly be attributed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  For a teaching to be considered Doctrine, it must be consistently and frequently taught by Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.  This does not preclude "deep Doctrine", but it does separate the true "Mysteries of Godliness", from the non-doctrines.  For me personally, an item is only true Doctrine if I can find it taught by at least 3 different Prophets (or Apostles), and only if I can see it taught by them with some consistency over multiple years.  Once that has happened, I consider the teaching to be well established, and I am entirely comfortable teaching it in any setting (unless it is of such a nature that I feel it should be reserved for certain settings).

False Doctrine

False doctrine is the polar opposite of true Doctrine.  These are teachings which have been consistently and frequently described as false by the Prophets and Apostles of the Church.  Like true Doctrines, I expect to see a consistent pattern of clear statements over time.  When I hear a false doctrine taught in any setting, I will quickly as respectfully speak up.  Generally I find that a simple question will resolve the issue without hurt feelings.  "Where did you learn that?"  Generally the answer is, "I got an email (or Facebook, or read a website)...."  I can then explain that the "quote" they read was never spoken and that the teaching is not consistent with Doctrine (for reason XYZ).

Non-Doctrine

Non-doctrine is a very interesting concept.  I came across this concept a few years back.  Basically, non-doctrine are thoughts and ideas upon which there is no consensus or consistency among the leaders of the church.  This includes principles that are taught in General Conference even, if such principles are not taught consistently by multiple individuals.  It also includes any concepts that may be discovered individually, or taught by individuals who have no authority to contribute to doctrine.  McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is an excellent example of this.  It was written before he was an Apostle, and introduces numerous ideas that were not taught with any consistency among the Brethren.  In fact, many of the things taught in that book were refuted by other Apostles.  There are, particularly in the early church, many examples where the Brethren openly taught conflicting concepts.  These instances where there is disagreement (a lack of consistency), constitute non doctrines.
I want to point out that there is nothing wrong with non-doctrine.  It is not necessarily false, but it requires careful thought.  First, we need to be very sensitive to the spirit when considering these principles.  Through the spirit we can be enabled to understand truth and determine the worthiness of such principles.  Second, we need to be particularly caution when sharing non-doctrine.  Whenever possible, it should be made clear to our listeners that the principle we are teaching is not established doctrine.  We can certainly bear testimony of it if we have received such a witness, but it should still be made clear that this is a personal witness, and not an established church teaching.  Finally, non-doctrines should rarely be discussed in a formal church learning environment (Sunday School, etc).  These are principles best kept for more private and intimate discussions with those who clearly understand that they involve a degree of conjecture.
Finally, a short word on the source of non-doctrine.  Many of these teaching originate with individual members and their personal thoughts.  However, others arise from church leaders.  In many cases, they come from journals or private teaching environments where early church leaders often felt very comfortable theorizing and contemplating.  Modern leaders are much more cautious about such teaching, specifically because church members are too quick to treat such teachings as doctrine.  So let's keep in mind that being an Apostle does not mean that you instantly know everything, nor does it mean that God suddenly chooses to correct every mistake you make.  How unfortunate that would be for those men.  They too deserve the opportunity to grow and discover gospel truth.

Cultural Doctrine

The final category, and one I've only recently come to consider, is cultural doctrine.  These are teachings and practices that are a result of culture, not gospel truth.  Personally, I consider them some of the most damaging to the spiritual growth of church members.  For example, we teach and claim to believe in the Gifts of the Spirit.  However, very few of the these gifts would be tolerated in a modern church meeting.  the Gift of Tongues, as an example, is now treated as somehow synonymous with "learning a language fast".  We tell stories about our history that clearly show that wasn't always the case.  I can only imagine the reaction of church members if we were to see the same miracles as were experienced at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.  I think most of our members would be very uncomfortable by such a manifestation.  Other elements include the way we generally teach chastity, modesty, and many others.  When, and how, did it become important that Priesthood holders wear business suits?  Is the power of the priesthood really somehow connected to my tie?  If so, what color was Moses tie when he parted the Red Sea?  I'll probably blog a great deal about cultural doctrines because I genuinely feel they are detrimental to the personal growth of church members; both those that espouse them, and those who are hurt by them.

Well, there you have it.  That is my framework for considering Gospel principles.  Oh, and there was a great talk along those lines a few years back.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

They that be with us

In the third Chapter of 1st Nephi, we get a glimpse into the minds of Nephi and his brothers.  After having first asked for the plate, and then offered to buy them, the brothers are now hidden in a cave, waiting for their enemy to end his pursuit.  Laman and Lemuel have had enough.  They see that they are on a fools errand, and are ready to turn around and go home.  However, their stubborn brother, Nephi, has made an oath (a very sacred oath as I understand it) on his life.  And so, they begin to beat him.  As they do so, an angel appears and tells them to knock it off.  Before he departs he promises them, "Behold, ye shall go up to Jerusalem again, and the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands." (vs 30)  The older brothers, still not understanding a the crucial gospel principle, immediately turn to faithless murmuring: "How is it possible that the Lord will deliver Laban into our hands.  Behold, he is a might man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty, then why not us? (vs 31)
Laman and Lemuel did not yet understand what Nephi had understood before they even left on the journey: "I know the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them." (vs 7).  Had they understood the principle, they may have said what I imagine Nephi was thinking.  "I know that God can do this, but how will he pull it off?  Laban can command fifty, yea even he can slay fifty; surely he could slay us.  How then will he accomplish this task through us?  Nevertheless, let us go to Jerusalem and accomplish the will of the Lord." (no reference, I made it up).
This principle is taught again and again in the scriptures, however.  And we, unlike Nephi, have dozens of examples of it to guide our lives.  There seems to be a hidden principle in these stories too.  Not only will God accomplish his will through the faithful, but he will almost never do it in the way that we would have expected.  So, when moving forward with faith, prepare to be stretched to your limit before you see God's hand come to your rescue.  A few examples shall suffice.

• Elisha and his city were compassed about by a huge army.  Vastly outnumbered, his servant was beginning to panic: "Alas Master!  How shall we do?"  At this point Elisha tells his companion, "Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them." (2 Kings 6:16)  He then prays this his companion's eyes may be opened, and his companion sees the mountains filled with horses and chariots of fire.
• The early saints, marching to the aid of their suffering friends in Missouri - on what would be known as Zion's Camp - are entering into enemy territory.  As a mob begins to close in on them, a mob they would have been powerless to stop, the Lord steps in.  He doesn't give them the strength to fight back.  Rather, he sends a sudden and forceful storm to batter his enemies into retreat.
• The armies of the Nephites, about to fall to their enemies are aided, not in some miraculous way, nor by being strengthened themselves.  Rather, he sends an army of young men, the very young men who they have tried desperately to keep OUT of the fight.  Yet this noble army not only turns the tides of the battle, but escapes without a single fatality.  
• And back to Nephi.  He enters the city without a plan.  Simply acting in faith, expecting the Lord to fulfill his promise.  Nephi never could have imagined that he would kill a man that day.  And when the Spirit whispers that he should do so he balks.  His faith is tried, and he eventually follows the prompting and obeys the command.

The message to us is clear.  The Lord is in control.  He will rarely act in the way we expect, but he will always prepare a way for us to accomplish his commands.  It will rarely be easy, and it will often require us to stretch to our limit, but if we act in faith, he will prepare the way for us.

The philosophies of men

So, something very interesting came out in conference yesterday, and has me thinking twice about my approach on this blog.  The speaker mentioned that our instructors should not be teaching the philosophies of men, mingled with scriptures.  An interesting, and rather intense, reference/statement.  It got me thinking, where and when is it appropriate to philosophize, theorize, and contemplate.  Clearly there is a time and a place for considering the mysteries of the kingdom.  Joseph taught, "I advise all to go on to perfection, and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness" (Teachings, p. 364).  So clearly there is good that can come from searching beyond the plain and precious truths in the scriptures.
So what does this all mean for a blogger?  After all, our enemies, and even many of our devout, have gotten way off track by quoting the journal of some long ago general authority.  Surely we should not consider the private thoughts of an apostle to be doctrine.  Particularly when those thoughts were expressed once or twice in an journal, but never taught in public.  Surly they never intended such things to be considered "teachings" so much as ponderings.  Yet, there is certainly the risk that other may take the things I write here as my teachings, or as my claims to doctrine.  And that could be very bad, as I often write things that I have only considered for a single day.
Ultimately, as I write this, I have come to a conclusion.  Forgive me if you find it annoying, but I intend to qualify my blogs.  I still intend to write about things that I'm not yet certain about, but I will try to be clear when I'm teaching my own ideas, and when I'm stating what I believe to be doctrine.  I hope, that by doing so, I may expand my mind, and the minds of my readers, without leading anyone astray with fallacy and speculation.  What do you think??

Lehi's Tent

"And my father dwelt in a Tent" - ok, what's your point Nephi?  I listened to an excellent talk a while back on scripture study.  One of the key points that was made is that the scriptural writing model limits details to a bare minimum.  We don't, for example, know the names of Ishmael's wife, sons, or daughters.  We know nothing of the other inhabitants of America (except the Mulekites who play such a key role in The Book of Mormon), etc.  So when we see details, according to this talk, we can generally expect that they are guiding us into a soon to come important point.  So why, when engraving on plates is so tedius, does Nephi feel it is important to tell us his father was living in a tent?  I have three theories, and I'm not particularly fond of any of them, but they're the best I've been able to come up with.

Because Lehi is wealthy

I imagine that having a tent was not totally common back then.  Furthermore, having the ability to carry a tent and various supplies with your family was likely unusual as well.  Given that Lehi "left his gold, and his silver, and his precious things" rather than selling them, the implication appears to be that Lehi was very wealthy.  He had enough camels and provisions to take off into the wilderness without even needing to sell anything to pay for it.  So perhaps that point is being reinforced by the tent comment.  To tell us that Lehi and his family left a life of luxury to sojourn in the wilderness.

Because Lehi's circumstances were humble

Or, perhaps it was the opposite.  Perhaps his point was to show that his wealthy and well to do father left EVERYTHING behind and was forced to go from a nice home to a tent.  And that he had done this all willingly, because the Lord asked it of him.

We're setting things up for the Liahona

Or maybe I'm over thinking this.  Perhaps we're just foreshadowing the discovery of the liahona outside of this very same tent?

I don't really know what to think on this one, but I'm pretty confident that it is somehow important.

The sons of Lehi, which one am I?

UPDATE:  So my brother pointed out that Sam was actually older than Nephi.  He's right, but I'm too lazy to go back and fix this right now.  So, you've been warned, I blew it.

Lehi had 4 sons who left Jerusalem with him, and we get introduced to each of them in 1 Nephi Chapter 2.  I'm going to steal a little information about them from other chapters as well, but primarily we'll focus on what we know from Chapter 2.

How old were they?

Well, we certainly don't know the answers for sure, but we can make some educated guesses.  First, none of them are married, so I think we can safely assume they are no older than their early twenties (given the culture of the Jews at the time).  Second, we know that Nephi was "Exceedingly Young".  Normally I would think that puts him in his early teens, but I think it is meant to give us some context prior to his trip to get the Brass plates.  The things he does on that trip, in spite of his being "large in stature", suggests he was in his mid to late teens, well into puberty.  Laman is the oldest, followed by Lemuel, Nephi, and finally Sam.  Finally, Sam is old enough to join his brothers on an arduous journey to retrieve the plates - a journey I doubt he would be sent on unless he was old enough to provide value to the trip.  Given all of this, I am going to make up some ages;

Laman  19

Lemuel 18

Nephi   16

Sam      13

Laman

Laman is the oldest on Lehi's sons still living at home.  We are never given any reason to suspect he has older sons, but it certainly is possible.  Likewise, there could be married sisters who are no longer part of the household (more on that later).  All that aside, Laman feels a degree of leadership as the oldest son.  He's put up with a lot over the years and is finally feeling comfortable with life.  He's wealthy, popular, is courting a lovely young lady, and generally enjoying life.  He probably has an apprenticeship and is only a year or so away from being a journeyman, marrying, and starting his how family.  He's been active in religion since his youth, but has always walked close to the edge, defying the gospel without being outright disobedient.  If pushed, he would admit that he believes the gospel is true, but he likes to push that knowledge to the background so that it doesn't interfere with his lifestyle.  Had they remained in Jerusalem, he likely would have become a wealthy leader like his father.  Most likely he would have remained moderately active in his local congregation and raised his children in the Gospel.

Lemuel

Lemuel is less than a year younger than Laman, and as is often the case with such "twins" he idolized his brother for the first decade of his life.  As he grew older that idolization became a healthy respect and close friendship.  He is intelligent, funny, and well liked, and thus has earned his place as part of Laman's social circle.  Most of his friends are somewhat older than he, and the women he socializes with are near his own age.  As a result, he feels an increasing pressure to be just slightly older than his own age.  His marriage prospects are disappearing quickly and his brother is always just a small step ahead of him.  Like Laman, he is an apprentice and just a step ahead of others his age in working toward a journeyman.  He correctly feels as though he's been working just a little harder than the rest his whole life trying to keep up with Laman, but he can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel - a prize for all that extra effort.  Though they are not yet courting - as she's a bit young for such as of yet - he has developed a keen interest in the younger sister of Laman's bride to be.  Religiously, Lemuel is much like his brother.  As in other things, however, he has taken his brother's behavior and gone one step further.  He is occasionally found in outright disobedience, not so much because he wants to be, but because he's trying to prove something to Laman.  Like Laman, he knows the gospel is true, and he "wants" to live it, but it isn't important enough to put aside the world.  He's a modern teen who is at church each Sunday, mutual on Wednesday, and shows up to seminary just a few minutes late - sitting in the back and working on homework at least one day a week.  He probably would graduate from seminary, might earn his Duty to God award, but would have avoided the "Holier than thou" attitude at BYU.  Left to his own, he'd probably have stayed in the faith, but never really embraced it.

Nephi

Nephi was a gem of a son.  From an early age he just seemed to get the gospel and the notion that it was worth the sacrifice.  Somewhat younger than his brothers, he was a bit of a loner growing up.  He he matured, both physically and emotionally, much earlier than most.  By 12, he was already competitive with his older brothers, and relished in the chance to beat them at anything.  He was very intelligent and began to develop an interest in his career years before he was to formally become an apprentice.  Because of his intense interest, he was offered his apprenticeship two full years before the norm.  He frequently beat his brothers in both physical and mental challenges, which did not always bode well for family harmony. Though his parents encouraged humility, and he tried to follow that advice, he often gloated just a bit.  His relationship with his brothers was not poor, but it was often strained.  A natural leader, Nephi often took charge of the younger children (Sam and his younger sister).  Religiously, Nephi was an eager listener.  He enjoyed synagogue, and was a prolific reader.  Because of the family's wealth, he had plenty of scrolls to read too.

Sam

Sam was a good, but quiet child.  He looked up to Nephi in many ways, but did not have the same hero complex as Lemuel.  Furthermore, because Nephi was always just a little advanced of his years, Sam was often left behind.  Nonetheless, he was able to see the differences in his older brothers, and chose to follow Nephi's steps rather than Laman or Lemuel's.  Honest, sincere, and kind, he was well liked by everyone, both in the family and outside the family.  He worshiped regularly, and was much like Nephi in his love of the gospel.  Sam was a bit of a follower, but a devoted friend and confidant.

Sisters

A few passages of scripture suggest that Nephi has sisters.  We don't know either way, but it seems reasonable to me that he did.  Perhaps one or more of them were wives of Ishmael's sons.  It seems odd, otherwise, that Ishmael's sons would join him in the wilderness, with no prospect of marriage.

So, who are we most like?  I think Laman and Lemuel get a bad rap.  We think of them as bad people, which is easier than admitting how much we are like them.  They CAME on the journey, after all.  They had testimonies.  How many of us have seen angels?  Yes, the did horrible things, and yes, they tried to kill Nephi how many time?  But how different are we?  How often do we sin despite all the witnesses we have?  How often have we heard that a testimony by the spirit is stronger than seeing angels?  Do we murmur like Laman, or do we "go and do" like Nephi?

In high school I was a Laman.  Completely and totally.  I mocked the good kids.  I walked as close to the line as I could.  I likely would have ended up a great deal like Laman had it not been for a life changing year in middle school.  I had a course correction.  Though I still ventured to the edge of the cliff a few too many times, I had a new perspective on the gospel.  Unlike Lemuel, who thought Laman's badness was "cool", I began to be more like Sam.  I saw the Nephi's in my ward and wanted to be more like them.  Eventually, I was able to become a Nephi myself.  I still fall into bad habits now and again, but the Lord has blessed me with a perspective that lets me be Nephi like.  It's not that Nephi was losing any less than Laman by leaving Jerusalem.  But Nephi could see what Laman didn't; God was sending him.  And God would make the journey worth it.

The blessings of obediance

So, Nephi has explained the his writings are intended to show us the tender mercies of the Lord.  This was immediately proceeded by verse 19, about his father:
"And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also hte redemption of the world.  And when the jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain, and they also sought his live, that they might take it away."
This, it appears, is the blessing of obedience.  First, that the world will hate you.  The more completely you testify of the truth, the more they will seek you life.  Nephi sees this same pattern in his own life.  Second, notwithstanding the pain and hatred that come as a direct result of righteousness, we also gain access to those tender mercies that we have discussed previously.  Thus righteous living is a great antidote for luke warmness.  When we are righteous, we will not have a chance to "coast", but rather will be faced with amazing highs and painful lows.
Enjoy the journey.

Tender Mercies

At the end of Chapter 1 of First Nephi, Nephi gives us a clear statement of what is to come.  In fact, the final verse  of the chapter is his summary of the entire First and Second Books of Nephi.  He says:

"But behold, I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance."

One sentence, but it truly is the summation of all of Nephi's writings.  How simple and pure is this principle,and he learned it again and again throughout his life.  As he goes with his brothers to get the plates, again as they return home from convincing Ishmael to join them, as they are without bows in the wilderness, crossing the sea and being tied up during a terrible storm, and even as they are forced to flee from their newly found promised land into the wilderness.

The message Nephi seems to send through it all is that God is in charge.  If we simply put our faith in him, he will bring us to safety.  It may not be easy, fun, or pleasant, but it will work out for our good.  That's an easy message to remember when you are on calm seas, but far more challenging when the ship is being tossed like a rag doll and buffeted - by that same God, I'll point out, that you have chosen to serve - and as it is buffeted, YOU are the one who is tied to the mast with rough cord.  It is YOU, not those evil brothers, who is taking the brunt of the storm.  And as you swallow mouth-full after mouth-full of sea water, as you vomit from the choking, as your flesh is torn from your wrists by cords and from your arms and knees and scalp from the deck of the ship - a ship that God directed you to build - as you are bruised and beaten, not by man, but by the tempest sent by God himself - it is in those moments that we can so easily become bitter.  It is those moments that make us question if maybe we know better than God, or if, perhaps, he has abandoned us.  In those moments of darkness, it is no longer so easy to believe that God has this all figured out.  It is in those moments that we can become "mighty even unto the power of deliverance".

So how?  How, in those moments of greatest alarm and unfairness do we reach out to God and receive of his tender mercies?  Joseph gives us a great example in the Doctrine and Covenants.  As he sat (or stooped, but never stood) in the vile confines of Liberty jail and listened to his captors tell of the awful things the saints were enduring - in his moment of greatest despair, he called upon God;

"O God, where art thou?  And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place?  How long shall thy hand be stayed and thine eye, yea they pure eye, behold from the eternal heavens the wrongs of thy people and thy servants, and thine ear be penetrated with their cries."
And God's reply
"My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes.  ... thou art not yet as job .... their bound are set."

While the Lord's reply is instructive, I think Joseph's words are particularly enlightening in respect to Nephi's introduction.  He does not ask "why don't you care", or "are you watching".  He asks, "Where art thou", and "how long shall thy hand be stayed".  He also acknowledges "thy pure eye".  It is clear he knows who is in charge, and he knows that God has a plan.  He is simply pleading to be let in on that plan.  He seems to be saying "God, I know you've got this figured out, but it is REALLY hard for me right now.  Please, can I have a glimpse of where this is going, and a small peak at how it all turns out?  I'm at my limit, and I really need just a little support."  That is Nephi's message.  No matter how hard it gets, now matter how much you feel God has abandoned you, or even turned on you, he will ALWAYS be your father.  His love is deeper than you can imagine, and if you will endure well the trials he allows you to face, you will be delivered.  And how great shall be the reward.