How Jesus handles a question about His authority

27 ¶ And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,

28 And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?

29 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.

30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?

32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

33 And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. (Mark 11:27-33)

Many commentators like to go into great depth about the trap laid for Jesus in their question. They also usually point to Jesus’s counter-question as a brilliant defense by which He puts them all in their place.

Yet something about it struck me as odd. I began to wonder what we are supposed to learn from this incident that can help us. Are we to learn that Jesus can unequivocally win arguments and devastate the opposition? Is winning the argument His goal?  Does this help us in our conversations about the gospel? 

It seems to me that when faced with a question about His authority, Jesus’s major goal would be persuading someone to recognize His power to redeem. The question in His mind would be, If I tell you, will you acknowledge my authority and allow me to save you? He might want to know if they were asking sincerely or out of bad faith. Because He wants to save everyone, He has to assume sincerity until they prove bad faith. 

He asks a question to learn from them. I see this incident as instance in which Christ demonstrated His meekness and lowliness of heart. He didn’t ask, “Why do you want to know?” He asked whether they thought John’s baptism was from heaven or of men. His question is meant to discern their level of sincerity and belief. He knew their ability to respond positively to a prophet in their day would determine their ability to respond to the Messiah. 

It is interesting that the reasoning of the chief priests, scribes, and elders was captured in the record in verses 31-32. (As an exercise, just try reading the account without that reasoning inserted, and you’ll see how it might have looked to everyone else who wasn’t privy to the motivation coloring the answer of those leaders.)

Their reasoning indicates that they thought His question was a trap. This was pure projection on their part. They thought Jesus was doing to them what they were trying to do to Him. If they had been sincere, they might have seen His question for what it really was. And I hardly think they’d want such a blatantly self-interested politically-obsessed thought process to get about, but someone overheard, and now it is memorialized for all time. 

Since they claimed they couldn’t tell whether John’s baptism was from heaven or men, Jesus knew then that they’d be similarly obtuse in public about Jesus’s authority. He probably said to Himself, I can’t do anything with people who ‘can’t tell,’ when it’s so obvious, so I guess I can’t tell them anything about my authority either because they won’t get it. And He wouldn’t push His authority on them; He wouldn’t want to condemn them so quickly. He’d want to give them more time in hopes that He could save them later.

One thing I learn from this incident is that Jesus chooses whether to answer a question based upon the receptiveness of the hearer. Even though those leaders thought they were saving face by refusing to commit, they actually disqualified themselves from receiving a real answer. Seeming wishy-washy or obtuse marked them as having spiritual problems, even if they concealed for a time that their problem was outright hostility. It is particularly sad that these were chief priests, scribes, and elders, men who should have been most spiritually mature and receptive.

Jesus’s test question is still a good one for today. How we respond to a modern prophet determines how receptive we’d be to Jesus Himself. If we ‘can’t tell’ if a modern prophet is from God, when his goodness has been demonstrated over years, then our ability to receive revelation is diminished. On the positive side, if we respond to the modern prophet and apostles, we will be receptive to revelation and receptive to Jesus Himself.

I also think that Jesus’s willingness to take time and ask questions of the questioner to gauge where they were at is a good pattern to follow in gospel conversations. If people ask us questions about the church or the gospel, maybe it would be wise to first take time to ask them questions about what experiences have brought them to us or what they believe so that we can better meet them where they are spiritually.

How do we do missionary work with solemnity and meekness today?

 

7 But a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall declare whatsoever thing ye declare in my name, in solemnity of heart, in the spirit of meekness, in all things.

8 And I give unto you this promise, that inasmuch as ye do this the Holy Ghost shall be shed forth in bearing record unto all things whatsoever ye shall say. (D&C 100:7-8)

I did a study on meekness a while back, and I was struck by this scripture that mentions meekness is needed when doing missionary work. Meekness means teachable-ness, so this caused me to wonder in way a missionary (or a member missionary) is supposed to teach the gospel while demonstrating they themselves are teachable?  How do they learn while teaching? Is it only learning from the Spirit, or are they supposed to demonstrate they can learn from the investigator? And if so, what would that look like?

I ran into one answer in Clayton Christensen’s book The Power of Everyday Missionaries on page 26-30. He explained how people are generally not attracted to the church by its doctrines (only around 10% are), but by the promise of finding happiness, meaning, and purpose to their lives. He suggested that when people ask us about the church, we then ask them why they are curious and find out what they know or what they are interested in knowing. He even includes an experience he had discussing with a colleague the disinterest in religion in general society. Christensen asked him, “Why do you think that is?” and wanted to know this friend’s difficulties with organized religion.

Rather than trying to convince Stephen that he needed our church or any church, I said, “Why do you think so many people are exiting rather than entering churches? Are there any big deal-breaking questions that caused you to despair of organized religion because the churches didn’t have answers to those questions?”

Stephen responded that he’d like to take some time to put them together “in a cogent list.”

I said, “I would love to discuss these questions, because I think about this a lot too. And if by chance the LDS perspective shines any light on a question, I’ll offer it to you.” Stephen was amenable, and we set up a meeting early the next week.

At the next meeting I was quite stunned: Stephen had some very good questions—about the purpose of life, if there is one; what is God, if there is one; and so on. He said, “As I went through college and graduate school, the churches I attended just could not answer my questions. So I stopped going to church and have been looking for answers in philosophy and science instead. Frankly, they can’t answer them any better than churches can.”

We started at the top of Stephen’s list. I asked questions about his first question, just to understand why it was important to him, and why he hadn’t been impressed with the answers that others had offered. I then found and discussed answers to that question in the Book of Mormon.

I noticed that he crossed the first question off his list. “Why did you cross it off?” I asked.

“You answered it,” he replied.

We then organized the subsequent lessons with the missionaries around the remaining questions on his list. When we scheduled a time for the zone leaders to interview Stephen for baptism, we listed all of the concepts, doctrines, and practices that are covered in the four lessons. We were delighted that we had covered every one of them, but in a sequence that answered Stephen’s questions. (p28-29)

In the process of trying to understand his friend’s questions, Brother Christensen was demonstrating meekness and solemnity, taking his questions seriously, seeking to hear first before speaking, seeking to understand without judgment or dismissiveness. I suspect that is part of the meekness the Lord asks us to cultivate. (I also notice that Brother Christensen’s friend was honest enough to accept good answers when they were presented to him, rather than trying to go on the attack.)

So if anyone asks us about our church, rather than launching into a recital of our favorite aspects, only telling what we want them to know, we can ask, “Why do you ask?” or “Do you have any questions about religious issues that you’ve been wondering about or that you haven’t been able to get good answers for?”

I love the promise the above scripture gives if we declare the gospel with solemnity and meekness: “that inasmuch as ye do this the Holy Ghost shall be shed forth in bearing record unto all things whatsoever ye shall say.”  That is what we need. It’s what we hope will happen so that others can feel and know it. 

What do you think? ?  Is there anything else involved in teaching this way?  What experiences have you had with teaching with solemnity and meekness

Education Week Class Notes: Hebrew Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon and Book of Mormon Central

-->

The Unconquerable Book of Mormon: A Hebrew Specialist Looks at this Sacred Text (by Donald W. Parry) 

[we got there late]

Different Hebrew literary forms that are found in the Book of Mormon

Plural Amplification--  “Magics” (Mormon 1:19)

Construct form – ‘Plates of brass” instead of brass plates  , sword of laban, rod of iron, temple of Solomon, commandments of the Lord.

Ethelbert W. Bullinger, author of Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, published 1898.   A non-LDS scholar.  Found poetic forms and figures of speech. They were found multiple times in the Book of Mormon.

Climactic Poetry.  (Mormon 9:12-13)  Repeated words in a list, that ends in a climax.

325 examples of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.  

(Isaiah 22:22)  A, B, B, A.

(Alma 34:10)

(Helaman 6:10)    -iah ending of Zedekiah corresponds with Lord also in the verse.

All of 1 Nephi is a big chiasmus.

It is found all over the Old Testament and it’s all over Isaiah.

It helps people to remember things and it emphasizes things.

Repeated Alternates  A, B, A, B, A, B, A, B,   (1 Nephi 19:10 has four statements and four witnesses in this form)  As flow powerfully by themselves, and the Bs give a powerful list of witnesses.

(2 Ne 29:12)   1 tribes, another tribes, all tribes, all nations.

 The pattern is used for emphasis. 

Essentials of Jesus’ sufferings 1 Nephi 19:9.  The repeated “he suffereth it” emphasizes that Jesus is putting up with all that is put on him.

(2 Ne. 33:6)  I glory in ___, I glory in _____, I glory in _____

(2 Nephi 11:2-3)  three witnesses of the redeemer

Four repeated elements with crucial ending  (Alma 12:33-34)  A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D,

If you think this is easy, try it and let him know how it goes.

At one point, the teacher felt depressed because of the state of the world, then opened the Book of Mormon, and started reading. Kept reading. After nine pages, he felt the Spirit and felt things were going to be okay because the Lord is in charge.  It calmed his soul because of the power of the book.

Hebrew Names discovered in inscriptions on papyri, seals, arrowheads, and clay bullae.:

Aha, Abish, Alma, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Jershon, Lehi, Luram, Nephi, Paanchi, Pahoran, Sam, Sariah.

The Alma Scroll, dated 133AD. In a cave of the Judean desert, 13-20 miles away.

From the Cave of the Letters.  “Alma, Son of Judah.”  Shows us Alma was a boy’s name.

Names and titles of God from the Bible (about scriptural text)  multiple names.

King of Israel, king of glory, lamb, lawgiver, lord, maker, man of sorrows, everlasting father., etc. 

Each name tells us about his character, attributes, mission, ministry.

BofM – almighty god, beloved, brazen serpent, Christ the son, eternal judge, god of the whole earth, great creator, great spirit, holy child, holy god, holy messiah, Jesus, keeper of the gate, king.

Parley P. Pratt loved reading the Book of Mormon. Eating was a burden, had no desire to sleep because he preferred reading to sleep.

The book of Mormon will hold us as close to the Spirit as anything I know – Ezra Taft Benson

Sometimes we miss the best parts of the Book of Mormon as we read, seeing the very beginning stuff and missing the main features.

The New Book of Mormon Central” Website: Keeping Up-to-Date on Book of Mormon Research: Features of the “Book of Mormon Central” Website that Allow for In-Depth Study (by Taylor D. Halverson, John W. Welch, Lynne Hilton Wilson)

www.bookofmormoncentral.org

The website is a massive undertaking with the purpose of giving the Book of Mormon the best website and social exposure it can be given in the media.
We can view ourselves as static people with limited intelligence, or as growing and open to new knowledge that surprises us.
JFK challenged the country to put a man on the moon and 7 years later Neil Armstrong walked on the moon even though people didn't think it was possible.
The website works well because of the dedication of the team, going where the Spirit directs, following direction of general authorities.
This helps us keep up on the latest in Book of Mormon research, even if it was published 40 years ago.  It helps advance the conversation.

Asking why over and over again.
BMC promotes in-depth study
Has resources by topic, resources around questions,
Knowing why is often more important than knowing the what.
KnoWhys

Every detail counts for something.
Why did Lehi build an altar and offered sacrifice? Why are we told they traveled for three days? Within 3-days journey, you must make sacrifices at the temple; otherwise you can build your altar and give your sacrifice how you want. They didn't want sacrifice to take a whole week going down and back. This is according to the temple scroll that was written during 1st century BC
Why would Lehi do this?
Are we being told this to understand the importance of obeying quickly?  Would it have been easy? What did they sacrifice with limited supplies?  Teaches about gratitude and making our sacrifices.

Is this seal something that belonged to Mulek? Who was Melkiyahu? Scholars think it was Zedekiah. We think Mulek might be a contraction for this.

Nephi talks about writing with learning of his father and language of the Egyptians. Archeologists are finding writing samples in Israel of scribes writing both Hebrew and Egyptian. Egyptian and Hebrew are sometimes mixed in the same document.

Lehi's dream of the river of filthy water that people fell into and couldn't get out of.

In the Middle East, many lose lives getting caught in a wadi with an unexpected flash flood in a slot canyon.
Maybe the valley of Lemuel was one of these. Maybe this was used as an image for hell too.

How old were the stripling warriors?

We can calculate how many years since the first oath.

They might be 12 years old or younger at the time of the oath, then could be in early 20s. Only the high priest could say whether they were bound by the law (oath) of their fathers or not.

Why did Teancum kill Amalickiah on New Year's Eve (according to their calendar)? This was the day of recreation of order and re-enthronement of the king. If the king is dead, that's a problem.

How many times does plan appear in Alma's words to Corianton?

Similar to significance of ten in scripture. Like the ten commandments. The plan is a ten-fold promise God has made to him.

Book of Mormon Central essays are short and useful for personal study.
How reliable are the pieces that are on this website?

They work hard to only work with sources that have passed muster with reliability and rigor. They are published in known venues and church sources.  Book of Mormon Central was started exactly started because of this.
There is also further reading and footnotes, there are copies of what they are using in the archive.  2156 sources in the archive. This has original scholarship that is the basis of what is being written.
Music, art, and poetry is also being archived.
The extra things are added to be used during our teaching.

Another feature: Book of Mormon text section: It has Royal Skousen's the earliest text of the Book of Mormon.  Lots of versions of the full text.  Different versions.
We only have 20% of the original manuscript.
We have the whole printer's manuscript now. This is free on BofMCentral
No punctuation in original manuscript.
Not all the version agreed with each other. This is part of the experience of dictating. (Anyone can try this themselves)
There are 660 of these things that occur in the Book of Mormon
The interactive text 2013 version of the scriptures
Allowed  to build resources around the scriptures. They are working on an app that has all those things contextually connected to the scriptures.
They intend to build to the size of the phone.

Another app--the KnoWhy App
BMC helps us read the scriptures more insightfully.
KnoWhy app can be found on the Apple app store.
Has all the KnoWhys in it and play videos. Links to all of the resources supporting
The "about us" button
There's a Subscribe button that gives daily or weekly email from the site.
They are writing a KnoWhy book.

Art features
Lots of stuff by Arnold Frieburg, Minerva Tiechert, also original works by others.
Music Features included too on the website

Addressing the question of a God who apparently commanded genocide in the Old Testament

One of the arguments I’ve heard from people who object to Christianity is that they question the Old Testament stories that depict a God who commanded the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of the promised land in order to take possession.  They point to those stories and say, “I can’t believe in a God who commanded genocide.”  They essentially frame him as a cosmic Hitler.

I admit that when looked at in this light, the stories are disturbing.

However, there are two things I think need to be taken into account.

First, if one charges God with crimes against humanity and essentially put Him on trial, then along with our modern definitions of crime, one has to use modern standards of justice.  In order to be just in this trial, one has to consider the evidence for and against the thing God did. If God had good reason for using His people to wipe out the inhabitants of Palestine at the time of Moses/Joshua, then God was justified. But if the inhabitants were not evil, then God was not justified.

The tricky thing is, there is not much documentary evidence in the Bible about what kind of people the inhabitants were.  And there is some evidence in God's favor, but it is scarce.  Because of this scarcity, it is tempting to acquit the inhabitants and condemn God, but actually our court standards require us to presume innocence until proven guilty. So one must withhold judgment against both the inhabitants that were killed and against God who commanded their killing.

And that leads to an interesting point where one presumes innocence of both the inhabitants and the God who had them destroyed.  But this might lead one to ask oneself, “Who is likely to be more innocent—man or God?”

Second, it might be useful to imagine ourselves in God’s position at that time and consider the particular situation God was in and the goals He might have been working toward and the cultural situation of the peoples He had to work with.

So, imagine you are God.

Ready?

You have a group of people who believe in you, and they have been slaves for perhaps a generation, maybe two. You’ve delivered them from bondage so that they can serve you and become a better people. They have practically nothing. They know how to work hard, but their greatest labors have been coerced, so you’ll need to teach them about being internally motivated.  They also have a sad but understandable tendency toward disobedience and complaining that you’ve been trying to train out of them with 40 years in the wilderness.

Where are you going to settle these people of yours? Is there an empty land that is reasonably easy to cultivate? How will they survive in the time it takes to cultivate a season of crops if they have nothing? (You’ve been feeding them with manna all this time.) Where will they get the tools and seed to use, if they have practically nothing? How far will they need to travel to get to this land?

Is there a culture nearby who has enough charity and care for humanity that they will be willing to give relief to your people? Will they be able to tolerate the religious duties you have set your people?

Suppose, for argument’s sake, that there was such a people. Would there be any need to give your people the command to destroy?  No, of course not.  Your people would likely find refuge there and over a period of years find places to settle.

Now, suppose that the other cultures are hostile to everything you’re trying to teach your people.  Suppose there are serious problems with moral corruption, perversion, violence, and injustice.  (Suppose you tried all kinds of ways to reach these people before and they don’t listen.)  You understand the pressures to culturally assimilate, and the last thing you want is for your people to start learning those nasty practices. 

Destroying the inhabitants starts to look like a viable option.  (Naturally, there are a lot of additional factors that God would probably take into consideration, along with a large dose of mercy and forbearance, but I think we get the idea.)

But does it have to be your people who destroy the inhabitants?  Wouldn’t it be better to let the inhabitants destroy one another?  There’s a small problem with this.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and as soon as one culture destroys another, the land will be taken over by the victorious side, so it would still be occupied. 

Why not destroy the inhabitants with massive natural disaster, like Sodom and Gomorrah?  There’s a problem with that too. If the inhabitants get wiped off the map with natural disaster, it is likely their possessions and tools would be too, and you need to preserve that stuff to help your people get a leg up.

Why not hit the inhabitants with a deadly disease then?  Problem is, it’ll leave all their stuff covered in germs, and while your people are instructed in cleanliness and washing as part of the law you’ve given them, all it takes is one person carrying it and you’ve got a pandemic on your hands.

Commanding your people to destroy the inhabitants starts to look more viable..

But why not try to use lots of big miracles to convince the inhabitants to receive the Israelites?  Well, actually God did that.  The news of the Exodus miracles and all the subsequent miracles spread to the Palestine peoples, but instead of deciding to help the Israelites, the inhabitants were frightened and most preferred to fight.  One king (Balaak) even tried to have Israel cursed.

Ultimately, these considerations still may not be convincing to some, but as a person who believes in the God of the Old Testament, they help me remember several things:

--A decision of the kind God made is an incredibly heavy responsibility and would require full and complete knowledge. In a word, omniscience. 

--I don’t know all the factors leading to this particular command, but the ones I can imagine give me a hint of how God worked with the conditions of the time.

--The Bible doesn’t tell the full story. But I have faith that ultimately there will come a day when all the whys and wherefores of God’s doings will be explained.

Probably the most worrisome aspect of this discussion may be the implication that such a command might be given again.  But I think that unlikely.  That particular command was instruction customized to a particular set of conditions, much like God’s command to Noah to build an ark was customized to circumstances in his day.   

Since God is omniscient, no doubt He knew that future generations would not have a full record of the conditions that would make conquest by His people necessary. He knew He would be painted in black colors as an angry tribal God, but since He intended to bear the blame and fault for all mankind to give us all a chance to repent, He was not deterred by that. 

When Jesus taught the people during His mortal ministry, He declared Himself as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. Since He bore the sins of the Palestine inhabitants, He certainly had authority to say when their time was up. It is possible that He intended our sparse Biblical record to be a test to see if people could muster the faith to believe He was good even though it might look like He did something that would appear unjustified.

True doctrine can end religious strife

22 And also they had peace in the seventy and eighth year, save it were a few contentions concerning the points of doctrine which had been laid down by the prophets.

23 And in the seventy and ninth year there began to be much strife. But it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi, and many of their brethren who knew concerning the true points of doctrine, having many revelations daily, therefore they did preach unto the people, insomuch that they did put an end to their strife in that same year. (Helaman 11:22-23)

There are several neat things in these verses. First, true doctrine preached puts an end to religious strife. We’ve seen elsewhere that it has more effect on the minds of the people than the sword or anything else. It dispels doubt and ignorance and can become a shield against deceptions of the devil. (Of course, when people are more determined to carry their point than to learn the truth, it is another story.)

Another neat thing is that Nephi and Lehi and many others who knew the true points of doctrine still had many revelations daily. Their strong foundational knowledge did not prevent them from learning more, and they were able to perform a great service with their knowledge by helping end strife over doctrine. I also suppose some of their revelations helped them settle the strife as well.

So a good question for us is, when there is religious controversy do we remember important applicable points of doctrine that can help us settle it? Can we think of verses of scripture on the topic? Can we find applicable scriptures? Are there words of the modern-day prophets on the matter? I suspect that if we haven’t consulted the scriptures or the prophets on the question then we haven’t yet done all we can do, whether we have questions or whether we’re trying to help someone else with questions.

Some thoughts on Elder Nelson’s talk “Let Your Faith Show” from April 2014 conference

Here’s a part of Elder Nelson’s talk that stuck out to me recently:

“Problems abound in this world because it is populated by imperfect people. Their objectives and desires are heavily influenced by their faith or lack of it. Many put other priorities ahead of God. Some challenge the relevance of religion in modern life. As in every age, so today there are those who mock or decry the free exercise of religion. Some even blame religion for any number of the world’s ills. Admittedly, there have been times when atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But living the Lord’s pure religion, which means striving to become a true disciple of Jesus Christ, is a way of life and a daily commitment that will provide divine guidance. As you practice your religion, you are exercising your faith. You are letting your faith show.”

Elder Nelson describes a number of ways that problems occur because of imperfect people with imperfect faith.  It is easy to just brush over these types of people and tsk-tsk over them, but I think it is worth looking closer and think about what caused those states in the first place. 

It is possible to see that they may be well-intentioned but hampered by ignorance, or confusion, or uncertainty, or overwhelm, feelings of inadequacy, or exposure to zeal without knowledge.  Understanding them can help us feel greater charity and find ways of speaking to their spiritual needs rather than to salve our own defensiveness.

“Many put other priorities ahead of God.” -- God’s influence isn’t noisy or flashy, and to the natural man God’s wisdom is foolishness, so some simply gravitate to the where they think the excitement is.   They need to hear people who are enthusiastic about what true religion has to offer.   Some have never learned to make decisions in a way that gives God priority.  The best age to learn to put God at highest priority is while young when habits for life are being formed, so change in the adult years is a struggle and a miracle.  They need to hear how believers have made sacrifices to put God first and what blessings have come from that.

“Some challenge the relevance of religion in modern life.”  -- If talking of angels seemed odd in the age of steam engines and railways, it may seem more so in the age of cell phones.  Many think the unexplainable doesn’t fit in the days of science and logical explanation of natural laws.  Happily, if our lives have been improved by a few scientists discovering and harnessing natural laws, the benefits can be just as great if not more if we can only learn to live by the spiritual laws God has laid down.  If GPS systems have made it easy to navigate road systems we’ve never been over before, divine revelation is still needed to help us navigate and make sense of life experiences. 

Also, modern life doesn’t yet have satisfying answers to match those that true religion provides to the deep questions of “Why are we here?” “Where did I come from?” and “Where am I going after this life?”  The answers to those questions and what they demand of us are profoundly relevant to modern life and actually help us order our lives well.

People who don’t see that relevance need people to share how true religion has affected their lives and made it better.

“There are those who mock…the free exercise of religion” – The mocking might come from those who do not have enough experience with expression of the sacred to be comfortable with it.  They may be afraid of what they might feel or do if they let themselves respond to it, so mockery is their way of defending themselves against something they sense is powerful but which they don’t understand.  

These people need it explained to them what they are feeling and need space to make the choice to respond.  They can’t be pressured.  They need to they are not alone, and I think deep down they want to know what they can expect and that it will be okay to be moved by the sacred.

Mockery may also come from those whose exposure to religious practice has been to wild, maybe indecorous, or seemingly irrational displays.  They need to hear about religious experiences that are orderly, reverent, and to know how the Lord works through the mind as well as the heart.

There are those who…decry the free exercise of religion” -- Decrying free exercise of religion usually happens because someone has seen some religious practice harm or infringe on someone else or perceives it as harmful or infringing.  Elder Nelson points out that there have been times that atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but implies that living the Lord’s pure religion will make us disciples of Christ and thus we will not be guilty if accused of harm or infringement. 

People who decry the free exercise of religion may not understand where the boundaries of free exercise are.  They need to have explained to them how a particular free exercise of religion is beneficial.  If there is an instance where they are right, then that can have a corrective influence. 

One of the best responses we can make is to teach about Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tears. 

24 ¶Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn….

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.  (Matt. 13:24-30)

It is natural to wonder where the atrocities come from if what was sowed was good religion and good doctrine.   Jesus wanted the disciples to know that false doctrine would be sowed by Satan and there would also be people claiming to be wheat but who would exhibit the worthlessness of tears and who would do evil things under a cover of religion and doctrine.  He assured his disciples (and all of us) that their deceptions would not protect the tears in the eternities.  

Also important in the parable to the discussion of free exercise of religion is the question about how to deal with the tears-- “Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?”  It is tempting to think that the solution to bad religion is to root it out and outlaw it and suppress it, but Jesus’s answer is, “Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.”  Trying to destroy false religion with violence is notoriously hard to do, hard to judge, gives too many false positives, and leads to a hollow appearances-only fear-driven religion devoid of saving power.  It is better to allow both true and false to exist together until the harvest.   We all have to take on faith that there will be a harvest when the Lord will separate the two.

“Some even blame religion for any number of the world’s ills.” – This comes from people who have thought about various society problems and try to trace the causes.  When they find that it leads them to a religion or church practice, they stop their search and declare that religion is the cause.  The problem is they don’t keep going and look for what beliefs cause those problems and behavior and try to find out the origin of that thing.  It may not be religion.  It may be traditions that have been folded into religion.  And religion isn’t a homogeneous thing; it has variety and shades and flavors, so to condemn all religion because of one religion is to pre-judge.  Also, to blame it for the world’s ills is to look only at the negative and to miss the number of world blessings that come from it.   These people need to learn the good religion has done for the world, and to be able to share that, we need to know about it ourselves.

For all these different types of people who Elder Nelson lists, I think we can learn to deal with them according to their spiritual needs.  Also, we’ve all had points in our life where we ourselves have been a part of these groups.  Remembering those experiences and how we changed will be very helpful as we share our faith.  It will allow us to show our faith in a way that blesses others and leads them closer to Christ.

Have any of the apostles seen Christ?

Have any of the apostles seen Jesus?  We may wonder about this on occasion, since the apostles are supposed to be special witnesses of Christ.  I happened to run across something Elder Packer wrote on this subject in his book Teach Ye Diligently:

…as students there are some questions that we could not in propriety ask.

One question of this type I am asked occasionally, usually by someone who is curious, is, “Have you seen Him?”  That is a question that I have never asked of another.  I have not asked that question of my Brethren in the Council of the Twelve, thinking that it would be so sacred and so personal that one would have to have some special inspiration—indeed, some authorization—even to ask it.

Though I have not asked that question of others, I have heard them answer it—but not when they were asked.  I have heard one of my Brethren declare, “I know, from experiences too sacred to relate, that Jesus is the Christ,”  I have heard another testify, “I know that God lives, I know that the Lord lives, and more than that, I know the Lord.”  I repeat: they have answered this question not when they were asked, but under the prompting of the Spirit, on sacred occasions, when “the Spirit beareth record.” (D&C 1:39)

There are some things just too sacred to discuss: not secret, but sacred; not to be discussed, but to be harbored and protected and regarded with the deepest of reverence. (86-87)

When I first read this two years ago it gave me extra reason to pay close attention to apostolic testimony to see if they give just a little extra emphasis to their testimony of Christ.  I’m sure those who have seen Christ would like us to be sensitive and read between the lines.  If I were in their spot, I’d hope that members would be willing to consider that I might be testifying to something more.

Nephi on Searching, 1 Nephi 10:19

--> 

For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round. (1 Nephi 10:19)

This verse tells us the law of the harvest applies to spiritual things as well as temporal things.  You reap the insight and the spiritual strength that you sow from your searching curiosity and obedience.  There are no bargain-basement spiritual insights; you get what you are willing to put in, and the mysteries come by the power of the Holy Ghost.

I’ve had people ask me in the past how I come up with stuff for my blog.  All I can saw is that I’ve been willing to put in the time and the thought and the pondering and studying and prayer into it, and the Lord has blessed me with insight.  The times that I haven’t put in what was required I haven’t learned so much.   I also fight against the dreaded complacency of thinking that I’ve learned all there is to learn about various stories.  I fight the dreaded perfectionism of feeling like an insight isn’t good enough or profound enough to share (which I combat by remembering the “many flecks of gold” talk from conference a while back).  And I try to think of more to seek out because seeking answers is the best motivation for scripture study.

From time to time I hear people make comments about how they need to get better at their scripture study and I think one of the difficulties we have is that we haven’t learned how to seek adequately.  When we’re first starting out our study, we don’t know what to seek for, so we read to enjoy the story.  But story gets old when you’ve read it so many times.  And the scriptures have much more than story.

I remember when I was in Young Women working on Personal Progress, there was a requirement that I learn about a gospel topic and then talk to my parents about what I learned.  There was a suggested list of things, like prayer, faith, atonement, fasting, etc., but none of them sounded very interesting to me.  Now I realize that what I should have done was try to extract from any spiritual difficulties I was having at the time a few questions then seek the answers.   This is one reason why I think the new youth curriculum is inspired, as it structures the lessons around gospel questions.  Questions inspire a burning desire to find answers.

I listened to a BYU devotional lately called “The Age ofWonder in the Age of Whatever” by Michael Wesch in which it was pointed out that a search engine is really a question-answering machine.  We bring questions, often in the form of search terms, and it aggregates for us all the pages it can find on which someone has tried to answer that question.

To seek, we have to have something to seek for that we really want to know, a deep question of the soul.  Seeking diligently (instead of perfunctorily or haphazardly) requires that the question be important to us.  Seeking diligently requires that you learn search skills, learning places where you are most likely to find an answer, learning ways to phrase your question such that it can inspire you and not discourage you.  Good phrasing can mean the difference between intriguing others into trying to help and scaring them away from a perceived attack.

Nephi also has a warning to give about the act of seeking:

20 Therefore remember, O man, for all thy doings thou shalt be brought into judgment.

21 Wherefore, if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever. (1 Nephi 10:20-21)

This has great relevance for our world of search engines.  In fact, it makes yet another argument for how the Book of Mormon is a book for our day.    Nephi is trying to give us a warning that what we seek will be part of what we are judged on.  It is certain that if we search diligently, we will find, but if we seek wicked things, we will be judged by that.   It matters very much whether we seek for good things or evil things, for the mysteries of God or the pleasures of the flesh.  There are no unimportant Google searches in God’s eyes.  No search is wasted, either for good or evil, since it all has an impact on the soul, even if the search was meant to waste time.   It teaches us that just because we can search for something doesn’t mean that we should.  It teaches us it is imperative to restrain the curiosity of the natural man or women and give the spiritual man or woman free reign.