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.