Friday, May 31, 2019

Dogs Cats and The Doctrine of Christ

I was struck recently with a few elements of the Doctrine of Christ and how The LDS Church teaches it and speaks of it.

To start I wanted to look at some really interesting statistics.  Thanks to a database of general conference talks back to 1851 we can easily see how focused the General Conferences of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been on "The Doctrine of Christ".


Here's a link to see the origin of my above image is case it's not very clear.  The link takes a second to fully load so give it a minute.  https://www.lds-general-conference.org/x.asp?c=gc&q=73946295

As you can see the "Doctrine of Christ" (or alternate "Christ's Doctrine") wasn't said all that much over the last 60 years in LDS General Conference.  Sometimes only mentioned twice a decade.  To give you some frame of reference, the word "dog" has been spoken more in general conference than "Doctrine of Christ", 14 times more to be exact.  The word "pulpit" blows them both  away with 884 mentions.  Before I return from my digression I need to speak to the cat lovers of the world and acknowledge that "cat" has been said in General Conference 81 times with definite trends upward this decade. The word cat has been said more in General Conference than the Doctrine of Christ for like 4 of the past 8 decades.  But now I'm way way off track.

The Doctrine of Christ is specific doctrine, taught by Christ and defined by Him.  A proper noun in grammatical terms.  It's not vague ideas or concepts defined by us.  It has specific scriptural sources.  Christ's doctrine also has a warning not to add to or take away from this particular doctrine and than teach it as if it was Christ's doctrine.  So, to me, there's a clear boundary between groupings of Gospel stand-alone ideas (such as faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost etc), and Christ's specific doctrine.   
With that as background what I'm wondering about is how often or frequently Christ's Doctrine is spoken of or taught about.  So back to the above image you no doubt saw the huge bar graph jump in 2010's where the Doctrine of Christ was said 62 times (still less than buzz word "Covenant path" which has no clear definition or scriptural reference but carries 77 mentions this decade).  But back on track.  Something very interesting must have happened as the Doctrine of Christ got triple the mention that decade than it had EVER had.  Drilling down into the 2010's we see more specifically 1 year was the big increase.  2016.



2016 is the clear outlier.  Drilling down further every mention of the Doctrine of Christ that year was during the October General Conference.  Why would that be I wonder?  I mean this jump is so significant in the past 168 years it bears investigation.  More mentions in one session of General Conference than any prior decade! 

One interesting idea is something else that happened in 2016 prior to that October LDS conference.  A small unorganized and informal group of Mormons or former Mormons.  Both now formerly known as Mormons as a result of the recent teachings from President Nelson to no longer use the term "Mormon.  Anyway that group decided to hold a "Doctrine of Christ" conference in September of 2016 in Boise Idaho.  Chris's Doctrine was the focus of the entire event.  Prior to this event in September there was a bit of an awakening among this band of religious misfits about how neglected, discarded, and completely misunderstood the Doctrine of Christ had been for generations in the LDS church.  That group decided to revisit the subject and bring added emphasis, light and life to the topic taught by Christ as His own doctrine.

I have no idea who is reading this so I need to give some context.  The LDS church (as it was known then) does not at all fancy this informal band of independent thinking Mormons/Christians I'm referring to.  They have excommunicated many of them, often apply a label of apostate,  and oppose them and any of their beliefs which don't conform to LDS thought and tradition. This group made up of mostly members or former members has firmly gotten the attention of the LDS church and it's not the approving kind of attention.  It's the opposite.  This group isn't a church, and has no formal organization.  It's more a group unified by belief in the Book of Mormon and belief in what God is doing in our day. 

Back to this conference in Boise though.  A few top LDS Church leaders were invited to speak at it. See here.  They were invited and encouraged to send a speaker as this was a unique opportunity to address folks who's views of the Church may not be very positive.  And it was also a chance for LDS leaders to share whatever insights they had with people on a topic presumed to be of high importance to everyone who believes in the Book of Mormon.  So, it's a matter of fact that the LDS Church knew about this "Doctrine of Christ" conference months in advance. 

4 months prior to the little conference in Idaho, the LDS Church demanded all names of any leaders and the Church be removed from the conference website.  It became a legal matter of intellectual property.  The LDS Church had a spokesmen adamantly and firmly reject any invitation to speak.  Although the conference was never presented as having affiliation with the LDS Church, the intellectual property representative demanded that a clause be added to the public website that this conference was not endorsed by the Church.  So much for sharing their insights or speaking to people who's views of the Church are not very positive.

Given the degree of the negative reaction, it's not a stretch imagine the Church had people or informants attend the meeting to see what was going on.  The leaders knew the topic and knew that such things as re-baptisms would take place at the event since Christ's doctrine includes baptism by authority as one of it's main elements.  Remember this Doctrine of Christ conference was September 2016, one month prior to the regularly scheduled and sanctioned LDS General Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Now the graph comes into play.  As you can see, fall of 2016 is when you can see on the graph a  sudden and major jump in mention of the Doctrine of Christ.  This was the first conference after the little conference in Boise.  But the upswing in mention of Christ's doctrine was only a temporary spurt, it then returns to the previous trend.

Is it possible that in order to not be shown up, or not be shown as lacking teachings (or even mention) about such a core topic (for decades), that this was a counter response to a tiny group in Idaho?   The data is there. You decide if there is a correlation.

If an organization were concerned about search engine hits on the "Doctrine of Christ" possibly directing the public to that disavowed little conference in Idaho, then making a lot of mention of that phrase soon after could help keep online search results pointing where you want.  Namely to your own organization.  Again, any correlation is up to you to decide. 

It's interesting that one of the speakers at the LDS conference who spoke about Christ's Doctrine during that Oct 2016 conference mentioned how for members of the Church partaking of the sacrament "renews covenants made at baptism".  He referenced this idea twice in his talk.  The citations for the idea linked only to another conference talk by another Church leader I linked to it above if you want to research the details.  This idea of sacrament renewing covenants has been shown to be unscriptural and not the purpose of the sacrament by other members of the 12 (Neil Andersen), but that's a separate topic. 

I wonder if this double reference to sacrament as a renewal of baptismal covenants had any inkling of an attempt to counter what they knew was happening up there in Boise Idaho with actual physical re-baptisms.  In olden days of the LDS Church if you wanted to renew your baptism, you'd simply get re-baptized.  It was common.  It was no only accepted practice, but an early temple recommend question even asked "When was the last time you were re-baptized".  The idea of re-baptism now days however to most members of the Church is viewed as definitely poisonous.  It's interesting how something common and harmless like getting re-baptized, can transform into something seemingly abhorrent after only a hundred years. 

Christ went to the trouble of specifically defining His doctrine in scripture (LDS 3rd Nephi 11:30-40) and then warned not to add to or take away from it and go and establish it as His doctrine.  The speaker at the LDS conference also went to the trouble of defining Christ's Doctrine but interestingly never included Christ’s definition. Instead he gave his own summary definition. There are differences between the speakers definition and Christ's. But I'll leave that to you.

Here's the section of the talk.
My message today focuses on the doctrine of Christ. The scriptures define the doctrine of Christ as exercising faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, repenting, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end.5
[5] See 2 Nephi 31; 3 Nephi 27:16–20.

If you look at footnote 5 it cites 2 Nephi 31 (which is great) and 3 Nephi 27.  Oddly missing is where Christ himself defines his own Doctrine in 3 Nephi 11.  What a curious thing to leave out.  Instead a related but different passage in 3 Nephi 27 is used as the source.  Wonder why, when defining Christ's doctrine a speaker would not cite the Lord himself who defines his own doctrine.  Questions for another day. 

I was in attendance at that little Doctrine of Christ Conference in Boise Idaho.  Some things were said that have stayed with me ever since.  Those thoughts and the contrast between that and what I heard a month later at LDS conference motivate the below thoughts.  In Nephi's words "there is none other way...man can be saved in the Kingdom of God" than the doctrine of Christ. (LDS 2 Nephi 31:21)  So this topic is of greatest importance to us all.  Both Nephi and Christ himself spent time teaching and clarifying this doctrine.  It's about our own salvation.  It describes an interaction between God and man.

Interestingly it's not a stand alone topic in any Church manual, it's not the title or main subject of any LDS book that I can find.  It's never been the sole subject of any lesson I've had at church with the exception of when a lesson or talk happens to be based on a General Conference talk that happens to have had the Doctrine of Christ as its subject.

When I hear this topic taught at Church there are often strong undertones that connect this doctrine to fidelity to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  The topic can hardly be taught by the Church without some focus on and pointing to the men leading.  Despite that none of those things are part of the doctrine.   

For most of my religious upbringing this doctrine has been reduced to a list of actions checkboxes that you can fill out and then be done with it.  At least that was the predominant attitude I have seen all my life as a member of the Church.  It's an attitude still held by the overwhelming majority of people I still attend Church with.  Even the enduring to the end bit comes across as simply killing time on the clock of life. As long as you can somehow remain a member in semi-good standing until your physical death, you've apparently "endured to the end".  That has never inspired me, nor felt right.  It's boring, shallow, and lifeless.  It's no wonder the topic doesn't get much attention.

If there's any question on what the Doctrine Consists of here are the scriptural links:

3 Nephi 11:30-40 (NC 3 Nephi 5:9)
2 Nephi 31-32 (NC 2 Nephi 13-14)
I wrote a few posts about a few things on this topic beginning here
Other's have written some great stuff, here is one: https://www.totheremnant.com/2014/09/destroying-doctrine-of-christ.html

Assuming you know what the doctrine is, and have spent time on it, I put together a list of questions I found thought provoking on the topic.  Food for thought but it's important to be familiar with the doctrine first.  My goal is to refocus on Christ's Doctrine and gaining from it what God offers.

How far does the Doctrine of Christ take you?  Nephi teaches “Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. (v. 6–7).  "Unto you" "in the flesh".  Does the Doctrine of Christ lead you to an encounter with Christ as Second Comforter?  While you're mortal?  Is that within it's scope?  Or does the Doctrine of Christ stay shallow and not encompass or involve such Gospel depth?

Nephi also relates this when discussing this doctrine: But behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying, After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the holy ghost, and can speak with a new tongue—yea, even with the tongue of angels—and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me

Speak with the tongue of angels.  Does that make that person a type of ministering angel?

That last part of the above quote has an an ominous warning.  What is it about denying Christ at that point in progression that provokes this warning?   There's another warning by Christ in context of this doctrine that warns the audience not to add or take away from the Doctrine.  Why I wonder?  What does it do to the doctrine when men add to it or take away from it?  What does it cost a person or people when this happens?  What do they potentially loose out on?  Does a little contamination ruin the whole? 

When Nephi teaches: And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved. (2 Nephi 31:16) Does that just mean the end of your body clock?  Or does that imply an "enduring" or "preserving" of truth forever?  How far does the example of the Son of the living God extend?  I think our idea of "endure to the end" is extremely short sighted and boring.

Christ taught: "I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end", He tells us. "The end" is one of his names. Is Christ the "end" to which we are to endure?  Is that when we meet Him and receive Him?  Is it also something further?  Why has no one ever taught or even talked about any of this in Church?  It's as if it was hidden in plain sight.

Why would God hide things in scripture?  Is it so God in his Mercy can judge people less harshly?

Does the Doctrine of Christ require your fidelity to a Church organization?  Does it even require a formal earthly Church at all?

Where in the Doctrine of Christ does it require a man from the Church to lay hands on your head?  Can the Holy Ghost just descend upon you itself like it did for Christ who's example we are supposed to follow?

Does the Doctrine of Christ require you to give your tithes and offerings to a corporation or only one specific Church to be considered tithing?

If you follow Christ's Doctrine who is it you should be getting to know?  It makes sense that you get to know someone you're following.  But if all you're following are religious steps or religious leaders the only thing you may get to know are that Church organization and those men leading it.  Getting to know Christ might be very different than getting to know a Church.

Going back to the question that started this post, can you talk about and follow religious steps and never come to know Christ?

Does the Doctrine of Christ require you to "know Christ"?  Nephi tells us his revelation on the subject was given that we "might know the gate". Christ called himself "the gate" (NIV John 10:7). "Knowing the gate", and "knowing Christ" sound like one of those hidden clues God wants us to notice.  All these synonyms and names and titles all seem to have an intriguing theme and an underlying message as you follow the clues.

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father..."

___________________________________________________________
*Update 6/4/19

The Doctrine of Christ twice mentions to become as a little child.  Also in Luke:

NC Luke 10:8
And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them; but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them and said, Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Truly I say unto you, Whoever will not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall by no means enter therein.
Is there a connection between a little child and the Kingdom of God? For a fascinating read on the birth of the Kingdom of God symbolized in the constellation of the Infant Prince, as seen in the heavens, see here.  https://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/2019/kingdom.html

Truly "of such" is the Kingdom of God.

Continued next post....

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Named and Proclaimed to Reign

President Nelson of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has recently embarked on another traveling ministry tour.  Similar to the world wide tour last year, and the Asia one, this year it's a Pacific ministry tour.

During the previous tours and during this Pacific ministry tour I sometimes look for transcriptions or video of the ministerial message he took to the people. There aren't any. There are only news highlights of only small excerpts of what he says. There are plenty of PR clips, PR images with children, and pictures with civic or government leaders.  It almost looks more like a vanity tour than a spiritual or prophetic tour with a message from God.

I did see that he gave one governmental leader, who's a former Mormon, a fancy Book of Mormon with her name embossed.  Oh, and like he did to the single mom in Africa, he also gifted The New Zealand Prime Minister a picture of himself and counselors (see caption).


When the early apostles had ministry traveling tours I don't recall any examples of it being a public relations endeavor.  It was instead to preach a message and not to point to themselves, give out pictures of themselves, or gain favor with the world. It got them thrown in prison, severely persecuted, or killed.  In 2019 the actual message preached seems to be a much less important (sometimes hardly mentioned) part of what the Church Newsroom publicizes of President Nelson's ministry travels. When we do see highlights of the message it's never in full, and it's never anything not already found in any given generic Church produced manual.  The focus is definitely on the President himself and his own prestige. What does he say to these governmental leaders?  Does he preach repentance?  Whatever he's saying it's not producing any of the results early apostles endured. 

But that's neither here nor there.

Something did stand out to me on the Church's web page about the recent Pacific Ministry tour.  It's something mentioned in another post but it stood out to me again.  Something very misleading.

This is the last paragraph from the News Room article on the Pacific Ministry.




The paragraph from the Church Newsroom has a link on the word "sustained" which takes us to the below: 


It says President Nelson was named 17th Church President and this was announced on Jan 16th 2018.  This special live broadcast was specifically stated to be for the "members" of the Church.  Then it says President Nelson was sustained and set apart January 14th.  The announcement was 2 days after some sort of sustaining and ordination by a small group inside an upper room of the temple, on a Sunday (Temples are closed on Sundays).  Whatever happened, it happened in secret, outside of view of the public, and without any involvement or vote by the members.  The members did not even know about the ordination and sustaining, hence the Church had to announce what they had done.

Can you imagine if a POTUS took the office and 2 days later the White House announced it to the people before the people even voted?  The country would erupt in fury and cry corruption! That goes against the Constitution.  But if  when this type of thing happens in religion I'm not sure people even notice.  But continuing on from above, how much more weird would it be to offer the people a chance to vote a month or two later for that political leader ALREADY sworn into office?  That's like 2 cups of pandering, 1 cup lip service, and 3 cups of distraction, and no one would buy it.  But if a top Church leader is sustained and ordained and takes the helm, and they announce it, and then months later the people get to vote on it?  ♫  "Juuuuuuust a spoonful of pandering helps the medicine go down......"  What's concerning is this suggests those in authority did not believe they needed the people in order to assume the power or position.

Did everyone expect President Nelson would be the new President?  Of course.  But that's because of process and procedure, not revelation, or scripture.  But even still, common consent was required and that requirement was blatantly broken.  Voting after the fact just makes the previous rise to power appear legitimate.

On an interesting side note: D&C 107 talks about the First Presidency in a very overlooked verse:
22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
Chosen by the body.  Clearly that is not how the First Presidency is chosen in our day. The President is the longest living Apostle and his counselors are chosen by the President, not the body.  Clearly differing from what we read in the scriptures.  It makes sense to uphold with faith and prayers someone you chose.  But misalignment with scripture seems to really not matter to most members in 2019 since it's widely accepted and taught that living leaders trump all others.

When the members and press were first introduced to the new counselors I found the setting and alignment with the painting of Christ above President Nelson to be interesting.  The locations of the broadcast, pictures, and camera angles are likely deliberate and intended to imply alignment with Christ (similar visual alignments are common in Church picturesmanuals and magazines).



Least you think the above analogy to politics and the President was too distant from how the Church was supposed to propose its leaders and receive a vote of the Church before they grab the position, below is from the D&C Church manual about Common Consent:

D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–6726:22838:34–3541:9–1142:11102:9124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)
Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2). D&C 26:2.
Could a Person Hold an Office in the Church without the Consent of the People?
No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)
A few phrases and a scripture in particular worth noting:
Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside
“No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility.
D&C 20:65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;
D&C teaches: No person is to be ordained to ANY office.  So what does that make of President Nelsons ordination that occurred without a vote of the Church?

If you've ever paid attention in any local Church when a new ward leader is called, say a Bishop for example, before they are set apart they are first presented to the ward for a sustaining vote. Once they receive a confirming vote THEN they get ordained and set apart.  Why would top Church leadership presume themselves exempt from this charge in scripture and church law? 

The announcement by Elder D Todd Christopherson was not a proposal. It was, as the newsroom said, an announcement and proclamation of what had already occurred.  So when the newsroom says President Nelson was sustained January 14th 2018 that is either completely the wrong date, or it's true and represents a very blatant departure from the Church's and scripture's teachings about common consent.  The new Church President likely signed some legal papers that day making him the sole owner of the entirety of the Church's assets but the actual sustaining vote for President Nelson as Church President, by the body of the Church, didn't happen until the Solemn Assembly held for that purpose during the April 2018 General Conference.  (The Solemn assembly was technically on the last day of March) 

Here is an excerpt from that assembly meeting: Full link here.  Seems like that should be the date cited for the sustaining since according to Church law that is what authorizes the person to hold the position. To use any other date seems to only proclaim how scriptures and church laws were disregarded.    
Dating from October 10, 1880, when John Taylor was sustained to succeed Brigham Young as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, each of these occasions has been designated as a formal solemn assembly of the body of the Church to express the voice of the Church.
We will vote by quorums and groups. Wherever you are, you are invited to stand only when requested and express by your uplifted hand that you choose to sustain those whose names will be presented. You should vote only when asked to stand.
Goes to show that someone can assume the highest office in the Church with only a few other men with high callings agreeing to make it so behind closed doors.  How does that sound to you?  Any inklings to unfortunate patterns with power we see in scripture?   There is way way more to the topic of succession of Church Presidents but this post is just about this one element. 

To recap: The Official Newsroom identifies a sustaining date months before the Church body even had a chance.  Why does this matter?  It implies that in 2019 leaders can do whatever they want and whenever and they have such confidence the people will simply vote in approval after the fact that they go ahead and skip laws of consent and sustaining.  Does this sound like Priesthood power to you?  Not a very reassuring first act by the new First Presidency.  

This has been mentioned before but it caught my eye again as I read about the current Pacific Ministry tour.  I reached out to the website and newsroom media relations department and asked if perhaps the wrong date of sustaining was utilized since the Church did not sustain President Nelson until months after the date they use.  I didn't receive a reply and likely never will.