Your Best Questions, My Best Answers, #3

TITHING: DID YOU SAY TEN PERCENT?

The principle of tithing, or giving a tenth of one’s income to the Church, may well have kept more people out of the kingdom than any other. So many people can decide to accept all of the teachings of God so long as it doesn't require much sacrifice on their part, but at the mere mention of tithing, they are ready to reject everything they professed to accept and believe, because parting with a substantial portion of their income is more than they have faith to bear.

There are two issue to consider here. The first is whether there is even a need to make contributions to an earthly organization. My experience is that almost every one agrees that for the Church to function, funds are required, to build buildings, pay the utilities and upkeep, etc., and so they are prepared to donate, well, something, toward the cause. I know many people object to paying for a church leader's wealthy lifestyle we sometimes see in the media (I object, too!). When it is explained that The Church of Jesus Christ has a volunteer ministry, and thus tithing is not going towards paying a local minister's salary, that seems to feel right to most investigators.

The second issue is just how much should be contributed, and this is where many seem to have difficulty. "Ten percent of one's income" is often challenged. A few important points:

• I have read that the word “tithe” comes from the Hebrew word ma'aser {mahas-ayr'} or ma'asar {mah-as-ar'}, and has as one if its definitions “tenth part”, or payment of a tenth part

• One of the precedents for paying tithing is the example set by Abraham, who according to the Bible paid tithes to the King of Salem (Melchizedek)

• Malachi asks the penetrating question, "Will a man rob God?", referring to the person who doesn't pay tithing.

Tithing can indeed seem at first to be a sacrifice for those investigating the Church. In some cases, it is extremely difficult to pay tithing, requiring great faith on the part of the saints that God will somehow provide for them if they willingly give the first ten percent of their income to the Church. Addressing this subject of religion calling upon people to sacrifice, the prophet Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:

Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life. (Lectures on Faith, Lecture 6, P. 58)

Paying tithing, or ten percent of one's income (or better said, what ever amount God requires at a given point in history), makes complete and total sense, but only if it is really what God requires. So for me, it comes down to not so much a question of how much one should pay, but a “first principles” type of question: Is God really asking people to pay tithing? Once one finds the answer to this question, the amount becomes immaterial. I am convinced that any person who knows God exists, knows the nature of God and man’s relationship to Him, and knows that God will only direct us for good, will be eager to know whether God has inspired a living prophet to give a tithing commandment to us.

Your Best Questions, My Best Answers, #2

Why Don't You Believe the Bible?

A question I've been asked many times over the years is actually one of the first questions I had about the Church when I began investigating it. How could the LDS church claim to believe the Bible, and at the same time say that The Book of Mormon was scripture? My question was rooted in my understanding at that time of the passage in the book of The Revelation of St. John the Divine in the Bible, which reads:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18, KJV)

It just seemed to me that calling The Book of Mormon “scripture” was adding to the Bible, which appeared to be expressly prohibited. I had read that passage in Revelation myself more than once, and had heard others talk about it on several occasions. It seemed rather clear.

However, there were several pieces of information I was missing, which are needed to fully understand the context of the passage in Revelation to which I was referring. Consider the following:

• The Bible wasn't written all at once, such as how one would write a novel. Rather, it was written in pieces, which pieces were assembled over the centuries and even millenia into what we now call the Bible. James E. Talmadge writes:

The word Bible, though singular in form, is the English representative of a Greek plural, Biblia, signifying literally “books”. The use of the word probably dates from the fourth century .... The word “Biblia” was thus endowed with a special meaning in the Greek, signifying the holy books as distinguishing sacred scriptures from other writings; and the term soon became current in the Latin, in which tongue it was used from the first in its special sense. Through Latin usage, perhaps during the thirteenth century, the word came to be regarded as a singular noun signifying “the book”. This departure from the plural meaning, invariably associated with the term in the Greek original, tends to obscure the facts. It may appear that the derivation of a word is of small importance; yet in this case the original form and first use of the title now current as that of the sacred volume must be of instructive interest, as throwing some light upon the compilation of the book in its present form. (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.13, Pg.237-8)

Each book of the Bible was produced as God inspired various writers from time to time. At different points in history, certain writings were canonized (recognized and adopted as scripture by an authoritative body) and bound together in a single volume. Even today, there is wide disagreement among religious groups as to what exactly should be included in "scripture". The Jews accept what is known to Christians as the Old Testament, but reject the New Testament in its entirety. The Catholics have a version of the Bible known as the Douay version, while much of the rest of English-speaking Christianity uses the King James version, which includes fewer books than the Douay version. Most versions of the Bible clearly reference other books of scripture which are not contained in the Bible--books which appear to be missing. So, without going through the litany of how we got to where we are today, let it suffice to say that rather than a divine manifestation wherein God himself handed the Bible in its entirety to a prophet, there has been a human-involved process through which inspired writings have become accepted and included in what is known as the Bible.

• Given the above, the next important point is that the Bible is not put together chronologically. All these books which make up the Bible were written at different times, but were not assembled in the exact order in which they were written. In fact, depending on the version of scripture to which one refers, the books might be arranged according to the importance placed on the prophet-author, or by subject matter (historical, poetical, and prophetical).

• We don't know the exact date that some of the books of the Bible were written, but we do know approximate dates for them. It is clear in most cases that one particular book was written before or after another, by virtue of reference to some historical event or to another book of the Bible.

• The Book of Revelation was written by John, one of Jesus' Twelve apostles. Rrecall that John was given the special promise that he would not taste of death until the Savior returned again to the earth. Historians generally agree that it was during the reign of a cruel Roman emperor, Domitian Ceasar, who was persecuting the Church, that John was arrested, carried to Rome, condemned to death, and plunged into boiling oil. John's life being miraculously preserved through the power of God, he was then banished to Patmos, a barren, rocky little island in the Aegean Sea. According to tradition, he lived there for eighteen months, at hard labor in the lead mines. It was while on Patmos that John received and wrote the revelation known as the book of Revelation, which of course contains the passage to which I had referred in my discussion with the missionaries.

But now, the point: John left the Isle of Patmos and returned to Ephesus, where he much later wrote what is now referred to as The Gospel According to St. John! This fact in itself is enough to show that the book of Revelation was never intended to be the last inspiration God would ever give to mankind, to be written and distributed for our enlightenment.

• Even more amazing is a second passage found in the Bible, quite similar to what is found in Revelation:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)

Clearly, the book of Deuteronomy, authored by Moses and found in the Old Testament, was written thousands of years before the book of Revelation. It would be totally illogical to think that everything contained in the Bible written after Deuteronomy is not authorized or inspired by God. The only explanation to all of this must be that when man is inspired to write, and adds words similar to what Moses and John have included in Deuteronomy and Revelation, that the instruction to not add anything is clearly directed at those who would have occasion to copy, print, edit, or somehow disseminate what God had intended to be written, in that particular epistle. It could not possibly mean that God had, at that point, severed all communication with mankind, and would never again reveal himself or give further inspiration to his children!

• One final point to ponder: During his earthly ministry, Jesus made this statement:

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (John 10:16)

Would it not seem implausible that these "other sheep" to whom Jesus refers would hear his voice, and yet not write down Jesus' teachings? And would not these writings be of great value to the world? Quite simply, this is the claim of the Book of Mormon--that the inhabitants of the western hemisphere were some of those "other sheep", that Jesus kept his promise and did speak to them also, and as they kept the sacred writings as they were commanded to do, these writings were brought forth in a miraculous way for the benefit of people around the world.

In the final analysis, there is really only one sure way to know that the Book of Mormon contains the inspired word of God; that is to know for oneself, independent of all the reasoning of learned men, apart from all the familial and cultural influences that anchor our point of reference, and beyond all possible scientific analysis that may come to bear on resolving the question; to know for oneself, by reading, pondering, and praying about the book until God reveals its origin to the sincere seeker. And one last point to ponder: I would posit that knowing that the Bible is inspired requires nothing short of the same effort.

Will a Cup of Coffee Keep Me Out of Heaven?

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are pretty well known for abstaining from the use of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea. This practice stems from a health law commonly known today as “The Word of Wisdom”, a revelation received by the first prophet of the Church, Joseph Smith. This revelation contains both prohibitions of those substances, and encouragement to eat certain other foods, along with other health principles. It was published at a time when much less was known about the ill effects of tobacco in particular, and nutrition in general, than we know today.

Today there is little debate about the bad things tobacco does to the human body. However, people learning about the Church often find other parts of The Word of Wisdom as odd, or at least overly restrictive. Many would question whether occasional or recreational imbibing of alcohol, coffee, or tea really has any harmful effects.

While I strongly object to the use of alcohol in any amount (based in large measure upon the very destructive effects it had on my parents’ marriage), I understand the questioning one may have of any scientific basis for not partaking of these things in any amount. I guess for me, it has come down to more of a question of whether I believe the Lord has really advised us to not drink these things, for whatever reasons or purposes He may have. Like so many aspects of the gospel, one reaches a point where science and reason are insufficient to satisfy all inquiries. They have simply not advanced enough to prove all spiritual principles. That doesn’t in any way invalidate the principles, it just leaves us searching for another way to satisfy our questions, our spiritual longings to know more.

I would like to tell you a story that illustrates the point. This story is true, but names have been substituted out of respect for family members.

While serving in the capacity of a part-time missionary leader, Sister Carter caught me at church one day and mentioned that we (the part-time and full-time missionaries) should go visit Harold Brown. Harold was married to a member of the church, and had children who were members of the church, but he had never been baptized himself. He had been in poor health in the last few months, and had recently gotten out of the hospital. Sister Carter knew Harold and having recently visited him, felt that Harold might be receptive to the gospel message.

Before I could mention to the full-time missionaries that Harold would be a good person for us to call on, they had on their own already contacted him, just in the normal course of their work of calling on families of the church. While I wondered to myself if this wasn’t more than just coincidence, I encouraged them to continue visiting and to let me know if I could be of assistance. After just a few weeks of the missionaries telling me of their visits with Harold, which had seemed to be going very well, they then told me that they needed my help. They told me that Harold had just experienced a miracle in his life, and yet he had a problem with committing to live the commandments of the Word of Wisdom. They told me that he had an engineering background, and was extremely logical and calculating. Since I also had an engineering degree, the missionaries thought perhaps we could “speak the same language” and develop a rapport that could help break through the log jam they had recently encountered. We set a time for me to go with them to visit Harold.

When the appointed hour arrived, we knocked on Harold’s door, and were invited in by a gracious wife. Harold sat in an easy chair with his cane on the floor beside him. He apologized for not getting up, but he was not feeling well. We exchanged pleasantries, and I asked Harold to tell me a little about the experience (a true miracle) he had had while in the hospital.

Harold began by telling me that he has been agnostic all his life. He believed that the Church taught some fine principles, but he was never convinced that God existed. He had supported his children in things like missions and temple marriages and so on, but it was just never enough for him to be baptized, because he simply didn’t have the evidence he needed to know that the Church was true.

So, life was good for Harold and Bea Brown, but they never talked religion. He ruled his house, and made it clear that he was not to be pestered about things in which he did not believe. Then one day, Harold suffered a stroke. It left him with some impairments, including loss of memory and loss of function of some of his body. Slowly, his memory was returning, but it was far from what it had been. He was very weak, and suffered from a variety of ailments, which at one point put him back in the hospital. Harold suffered from an un-diagnosed condition which was causing him great physical pain--to the point that he began to want to die, so great was his suffering. However, death did not occur, but rather he just continued to be in pain to the point where he stayed heavily sedated constantly. Life had become miserable for Harold.

It was at this point that one of Harold’s daughters came to visit him in the hospital, and she discussed religion with him. She talked about the reality of God and His great healing power. After she left, Harold pondered what she had said. He had never prayed before, but felt there wasn’t much to lose at this point. Harold told me that he said a prayer, and asked God to show him a sign, if in fact He really existed. Harold was specific; he wanted a nurse to come in and turn off a light that was over his bed; if this happened, he would take this as a sign that God existed, and heard his prayer.

It happened. Within just a few minutes, a nurse came in and turned out Harold’s light. And then, if that weren’t enough, Harold awoke the next morning with no pain. Totally, one-hundred percent, Harold’s pain was gone. A great miracle had just occurred, and Harold knew that God had heard and answered his prayer. He was released from the hospital, not without infirmities, but without the pain that was previously causing him to wish for death. Because of this miracle, Harold was willing--even anxious--to learn about the Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ, with a perspective he had never had before.

It was just at this time that the missionaries knocked at Harold’s door, seemingly by chance, adding even more evidence to the possibility that the Lord’s hand was in what was happening to Harold.

So, as the missionaries began teaching the precepts of the gospel, what they taught sounded good, even though Harold wasn’t making any commitments. He was listening to the Book of Mormon on audiotape, and he was certainly thinking deeply about the things he was being taught. However, as the days and weeks passed, he began to question whether it was possible for the nurse to have turned out his light just by a coincidence. He wasn’t sure, but he told himself that while the probability of this being coincidence was small, it still could have just happened without intervention from God. He still had no explanation, though, for the relief from his pain.

The discussion then came to the Word of Wisdom. The missionaries taught that the Lord had commanded us to abstain from taking harmful substances into our bodies, including alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, and so on. When the missionaries asked Harold if he would commit to abstaining from these harmful substances, he refused to commit himself, without really any good reason. And so, this was the point at which I had been invited to participate, with a standoff between Harold and the missionaries, neither knowing just where to go from there.

Harold and I seemed to be at ease with each other. We communicated very well, not so much because of engineering backgrounds, but frankly, I just liked him and I think he liked me. So, I bluntly asked him what the problem was. He told me that he drank coffee only once or twice a year, so giving it up was not a problem for him. In fact, it was no big deal. But no youngster or anyone else was going to tell him what he could and couldn’t do. Harold was full of pride and independence; he was his own man. It could be that he would never touch coffee again, he said, but he just hadn’t made up his mind, and certainly wasn’t going to commit to the missionaries to never drink it again.

We talked for some time about this and other subjects. There seemed to be no other obstacles or objections for Harold, other than that infrequent cup of coffee. While I made several attempts at analyzing the situation with Harold, I couldn’t relieve the requirement to commit to living this principle of the gospel. We talked about how it was God’s commandment, not man’s, and how the commitment he had to make was to God and himself, not to a missionary. We talked about how other commandments would probably be much harder for him to live than this one, and yet he was willing to commit to those. I bore my personal testimony on the subject, and made several return visits to see if Harold had a change of heart. I am sad to say that not only did Harold never change his mind, I in fact began to see a regression in his spirituality. He became rather certain that the nurse turning off his light that night in the hospital was just a coincidence, and his remission from his painful condition could, too, have just been something that happened to him as it has happened to others, without any spiritual significance.

Today, Bea goes to church by herself, while Harold sits at home in his easy chair, again suffering from his infirmities, with no faith in the salvation available to him through the grace and power of Jesus Christ. My perspective is that in this case, a cup of coffee is preventing Harold from receiving the saving ordinances of the gospel. Until he has a change of heart and accepts all the commandements in their entirety, failure to live this one "small" commandment prevents Harold from being baptized for a remission of his sins. And because "no unclean thing" can enter into the kingdom of heaven, Harold will not enjoy being with his family eternally, in the presence of the Lord. Oh, what a terrible price to pay, just to be able to drink an occasional cup of coffee.

Your Best Questions, My Best Answers

For a number of years, I have had the thought that it would be very satisfying to publish a book, on the subject of the really good questions I have received about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and my answers to those questions. However, I have realized I just don't have time to do a book right now, and beyond that, it would really be more of a "booklet" than a book--and probably not much of an audience these days for booklets. But recently I had the idea that maybe I could use this blog to get started. So if you have any comments or suggestions, I would really appreciate the feedback--you can be my editors and critics! Here are some of the questions I intend to address:

Tithing? Did You Say Ten Percent of My Income?
Why Aren't Women Equal to Men?
Why Do You Worship Adam and Other Gods?
Priesthood Authority? Who Needs That?
Why Don't You Believe The Bible?
How Many Wives Do You Have?
Why Can't You Just Accept The Saving Grace of Christ?
Will a Cup of Coffee Keep Me Out of Heaven?
Why Do You Call Joseph Smith a Prophet?
Why Would a Loving God Send His Children to Hell, Forever?
Why Doesn't God Intervene and Stop All These Bad Things?

So, that's my list. And if you think I've missed a really good one, I'd like to hear that, too. I'm thinking I'll probably post 1 or 2 a week, with the first one later this weekend.

Me and Wii and Sarah Make Three

So Sarah moved the "Wii" from the basement to the family room tonight. She set it up (she's a real gearhead!) and then turned it on. She got this little game going and got me to play with her. It looked really simple. All you had to do was "push a button" when the little bell of a certain color moved across the screen. She had the 'P1' controller and apparently I had 'P2'. We go through the song "Do Re Mi" and music is playing but I can't tell if I'm doing well or not. Then the song is over and the score pops up. Sarah 96, Dad 0. Zero? Huh? Ok, which button am I supposed to be pushing? I don't have a 'B' button. No, 1 and 2 buttons don't work either. What do you mean I have to hold it like a violin? On and on it went, Sarah giving me instructions that didn't work, while she continued to rack up the points. Oh, this is really fun.... So I told Sarah not to touch a button while I figured this out. When she did nothing, I was able to beat her 24 to nothing. That wasn't much fun either, so I bagged it for the night. Then she told me that I was the DARK blue bells, not the light. Since I'm partially color blind I wasn't even seeing there was both dark and light colored bells! And then she said the dark ones were all on the same line! And she wrapped up by letting me know I had the controller and the nunchuck in the wrong hands.

I would tell Sarah I am mad at her for not telling me all the rules and tricks, but she is laughing so hard she wouldn't hear me anyway. And besides, she gets this sense of humor from me.

Judge Judy She Ain't

So, how do you feel about Sonia Sotomayor? I'm not at all sure myself. I know so very little about her, it's really hard to form an opinion or make a judgment as to how qualified she is or how well she would serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

But I really resent the way liberals are running this campaign (and make no mistake about it, this is very much a campaign) to influence me and more importantly those who represent me, politically. There is a magnificently orchestrated blitzkrieg of media hype being poured out and onto the American public, which to me is silly and offensive.

In addition to all the typical "news" stories ("news" is in quotes because it is really a euphemism for pre-printed, totally biased monologues written by people trained in advertising, not journalism), we are being fed a diet of praise, glory and honor for Ms. Sotomayor by people like Harry Reid. You know, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader? After singing her praises, telling us how qualified she is, Mr. Reid admits he has not read one single opinion written by Judge Sotomayor. And he doesn't intend to! How lame is that?

And then there's the really ignorant media attempt at using mass reverse psychology on us. Practically moments after the nomination is announced, news stories started popping up saying things like "maybe this isn't the person liberals want"--an overt attempt to make conservatives (like me) think "oh, if the liberals Don't want her, maybe we Do!". Come on you guys, you have to do better than that.

I'll admit I am somewhat troubled by her comment made years ago about what a "wise Latina" might do vs. a white male who hadn't had her experiences. But I'll cut her some slack on that one. Who hasn't said something they wish they could take back later? And to bring up that comment so many years after she said it leads me to think that if that's the worst thing they can come up with, she's way ahead of the rest of us.

I don't like the liberals telling us "there's no reason and no time for debate". That has just the opposite effect on me. When you tell me to stop thinking, stop debating, and just go with the flow, that's when I immediately recoil and I will challenge that much harder. If there's nothing to hide, then why the rush? Let due process happen. Judge Roberts certainly got put through the wringer (there's a term my kids probably don't even understand!) and all the other justice nominees of the last two decades endured the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

Here's what troubles me at the moment: 1) Contrary to the headlines, she's NOT Puerto Rican. She's American, unless the Bronx was part of Puerto Rico back in the '50's (I'm pretty sure it wasn't). 2) She has been a strong advocate for hiring Latinos. I don't like it when anyone lobbies to get preferential treatment of a race, a religion, a nationality, or a family member. I say, hire the most qualified, full stop. 3) Where are the brilliant judiciary decisions Ms. Sotomayor has handed down from the bench, that makes her such a great choice for the Supreme Court? I've read summaries of the best of the best she's done, and frankly, I'm not impressed, and you won't be either.

She is apparently very bright, if you look at her educational record. There's a lot to be said for bright, especially in this job. But I want bright coupled with morals and ethics. I want bright crowned with inspired wisdom. I want bright veiled with humility and compassion. I want bright connected to jurisprudence, not bench legislation. I want...someone more like...like...Judge Judy! (ok, maybe Judy isn't all that humble)