Question

Gramps,

Answer

Scott,

It is always a good thing to ponder the symbolism of the ordinances we perform.  It helps to understand what it is we are doing when we participate in such rites.  In this case, there are probably multiple levels of understanding that we may never understand.  But to help you understand I’ll take you through just a couple of meanings that I get out of the ceremony.

First, let us understand that there is no particular meaning of bread itself.

For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins. D&C 27:2

The fact that it was a nourishing, yet common food was why it was chosen.  It is unadorned with no apparent beauty that man should particularly desire it.  Some argue about the kind of bread (leavened, or unleavened).  In some countries where other bread-like products (such as tortillas) are the common food, that is what is used for the Sacrament when approved by the bishop.  It really doesn’t matter.

Bread was the common food available to everyone during Christ’s time — rich and poor alike — for nourishment.  Membership in Christ’s Church and partaking in the covenants therein, and the Atonement of Christ is available to all — rich and poor alike — for spiritual nourishment.  This is why it was chosen by Christ.  That is why we use it today.

But why do we eat food to represent Christ’s body?  Why would we eat our Savior?  First, remember that this is symbolism — spiritual symbolism.

We gain nourishment from the food we eat, just as making and keeping covenants spiritually nourishes us.  We are spiritually nourished by looking to Christ and learning of Him, having faith in Him, and keeping His commandments.

Now look a little deeper.  Think about how food nourishes us.  We eat the food, our bodies take it in.  The molecules of the food we eat literally become part of our bodies.  As we eat more, more of our body is replaced by the molecules of the food we eat.  If we want to be healthy, we eat good nourishing food to become part of our bodies.  The saying “we are what we eat” is literally true.

Before making a comparison with the spiritual meaning, which you may have already guessed, I need to take a side note on what is meant by “the Body of Christ.”

…For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:  Ephesians 4:12

In Christian tradition, the Body of Christ often refers to the Church.  But it is something more than that.  Christ has fulfilled His mission of the Atonement, we also have a mission to preach the gospel, perfect the saints, redeem the dead, and to serve the Lord by serving our fellow men.

In so doing, we become more like Christ.  We receive His very image in our countenance (Alma 5:14).  As we take in Christ’s teachings, His example, and we have His atonement work in us, we become one with Him and “edify His body”.  This reminds us of the story about a statue of Christ being sculpted with its hands missing.  The caption reading “Ye are the only hands I have”.

So, when the Lord said of the bread “this is my body”, there was great symbolism in His words as well as the bread itself.  Partaking of the Sacrament is our physical reminder to edify His body.  Let Him become a part of us and change us until “we shall be like him” (John 3:2 ; Moroni 7:48).  Thus our bodies are symbolic extensions of His own body.  We not only edify His body, but we become edified by His body.

This we do in remembrance of Him — particularly His atonement — as we covenant to keep His commandments so that we may always have His Spirit to be with us.

Gramps

Question

Dear Gramps,

I have same-sex attraction but I haven’t and never will act upon it. Do I need to confess this same-sex attraction to my bishop?

James

Answer

Dear James,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taken the following position, and I have openly supported it in the past:

“The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” (http://www.mormonsandgays.org/)

Not being a sin, same-sex attraction does not require confession to priesthood leaders. I would, nonetheless, encourage you to meet with your bishop and counsel with him as a support and a resource.

The Lord’s law of chastity has long been under attack by the world. For decades popular media have shown audiences that a couple is really in love and committed once they have sex. Prophets have made it clear that such intimacy is righteous and wholesome only so long as it is kept within the bounds the Lord has set. If a couple wants to show their commitment they should make a covenant. In more recent years popular media has even chipped away at the 1 man 1 woman standard of marriage and courting relationships. Celebration of homosexual acts is the “new morality” of this decade. Some will try to influence you to break your baptismal (and temple if applicable) covenant, and rise up as a model of modern normalcy. Your bishop (and family, I’ll bring them into this even if you haven’t yet) can serve as a support for you and give wise counsel. The Church Handbook of Instruction defines this as his role:

“If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.” (21.4.6)

Gramps

Question

Dear Gramps,

Your recent answer to “What will happen to the temples during the Second Coming?” deeply alarmed me as I’ve never considered it possible in our day. Will the persecution of the early days of the Church truly return (openly accepted violence against saints, burning homes, similar to the nightmare of middle eastern sectarian violence)? Is there revelation about it? How should individual saints prepare to respond?  By force for our freedoms or submission like the Anti-Nephi-Lehies?

Concerned

Answer

Hello Concerned,

Thank you for your sincere thoughts, and hopefully my thoughts will comfort your heart and mind, increasing your faith and hope as we look forward to the return of our Lord. In the New Testament we are given this knowledge, John 8:32,”And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Truth is liberating, if we whole heartedly accept it. The more we accept truth the better prepared we will be for difficult circumstances we may possibly experience. In some of our experiences, we may offer a sincere prayer (similar to our Lord’s in Gethsemane) inquiring, “Father, may this cup pass from me.” And in similitude of our Savior, we move forward with faith, hope, and charity and drink (at times) a bitter cup. The more we recognize, understand, and accept truth (all truth) as it is taught the more we will receive the grace of God in strengthening our resolve to endure.

Let’s take a moment to review truths from our scriptures and from modern day prophets regarding the second coming:

 
1) “And the Lord shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?” (Joel 2:11)

2) “The rejection of the testimony of the servants of God by the nations of the world will bring the consequence of greater calamities, for the Lord himself declared:” Below are some of the circumstances prophesied (President Ezra Taft Benson), (Doctrine and Covenants 88:89-91) (Doctrine and Covenants 45:31-33)

* Great Earthquakes
* Thunders, lightning, tempests, and seas heaving beyond their bounds
* All things in commotion and men’s hearts fail them
* A desolating scourge, sickness shall cover the land
* “But my disciples shall stand in holy places, and shall not be moved”
* Wicked will curse God and die
* Earthquakes in divers places
* Men’s heart will harden and they will take up sword to kill one another

3) “But to an otherwise gloomy picture there is a bright side—the coming of our Lord in all His glory. His coming will be both glorious and terrible, depending on the spiritual condition of those who remain. One appearance will be to the righteous Saints who have gathered to the New Jerusalem here in America. In this place of refuge they will be safe from the wrath of the Lord which will be poured out without measure on all nations.” (President Benson) — Here are scripture passages he highlights pertaining to the Saints and New Jerusalem (Zion):

* The glory and terror of the Lord shall be there (terror, as I have come to understand is for anyone attacking Zion)
* If people are unwilling to take sword to protect themselves, they must flee to Zion (only good and righteous people will flee to Zion, and it will not only be members of the Church who flee to Zion)
* The only people that shall not be at war are those in Zion, which means there will be some form of protection (either from a militia within Zion, or by the power of the priesthood — I am inclined to believe the power of the priesthood)

4) In our New Testament, Matt. 24:6–8, 19, 21–22, we are able to read more truths regarding the last days:

* Nations rise against nations
* Famines, pestilences, earthquakes in divers places
* A warning to those with child and those nursing
* If these days are not shortened no flesh would be saved
* Mercy toward the Lord’s elect and “The elect are those who love God with all their hearts and live lives that are pleasing to him. Those who live such lives of discipleship will one day be selected by the Lord to be among his chosen children.” (Elect)

5) “If ye are prepared ye shall not fear.” (Doctrine and Covenants 38:30)

6) “We can so live that we can call upon the Lord for His protection and guidance. This is a first priority. We cannot expect His help if we are unwilling to keep His commandments….I have faith, my dear brethren, that the Lord will bless us, and watch over us, and assist us if we walk in obedience to His light, His gospel, and His commandments. He is our Father and our God, and we are His children, and we must be in every way deserving of His love and concern. That we may do so is my humble prayer, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.” (President Gordon B. Hinckley)

These are straight forward, undiluted, truths for our profit and learning. I remember a story my beloved once shared with me regarding one of her friends. Her friend was watching a dinosaur movie. In this movie the T-Rex (in accordance with its nature) attacked and killed a smaller dinosaur. As the T-Rex bit into its prey (food) her friend said to her son/daughter, “Oh don’t worry, he is just kissing the other dinosaur.” My jaw dropped a little, and I wondered why we often try to dilute truths in order to protect ourselves, and the opposite is really what occurs — we hurt ourselves. Let us not place too much worry on circumstances outside of our control, and let us act more in accordance with the knowledge we do have so that as prophecy is fulfilled we are living such that the protection of the Lord can be upon us.

Gramps

Question

Dear Gramps,

Why does music bring the spirit when we sing a hymn?  Is it because of the words, the intent by singing, or is it something else?  Thank you and I hope to hear your thoughts.

Kimo’s

Answer

Dear Kimo’s,

Thank you for your question.  Numerous studies address the impact of music on our thoughts and emotions.  I’m not qualified to address those, and they don’t directly address your question, so I’ll leave it to you and other readers whether to spend time reading up on those studies.

To learn what brings the Spirit, or more specifically, enables us to feel the presence of the Spirit, the best place to turn is the scriptures.  In the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord tells us:

D&C 25:12 For my soul delighteth in the song of the heart; yea, the song of the righteous is a prayer unto me, and it shall be answered with a blessing upon their heads.

When we sing the hymns with our heart, they become a prayer, and prayer is one of the ways we bring our souls into communion with God, which always involves the Spirit.

In the New Testament, Paul teaches us:

1 Corinthians 12:3 “…no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”

Even hymns which don’t directly testify of the divinity of Jesus Christ imply this truth, and again, when the hymn is in our heart, the Holy Ghost will bear witness of this truth, as Nephi teaches us:

2 Nephi 33:1 “…when a man speaketh [or singeth] by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.”

From these verses, we learn that some of the things which bring the Spirit as we sing include having the words in our hearts, and singing words which testify of truth.  In addition, the First Presidency Preface to Hymns teaches:

Inspirational music is an essential part of our church meetings. The hymns invite the Spirit of the Lord, create a feeling of reverence, unify us as members, and provide a way for us to offer praises to the Lord.

 

Some of the greatest sermons are preached by the singing of hymns. Hymns move us to repentance and good works, build testimony and faith, comfort the weary, console the mourning, and inspire us to endure to the end.

Reverence, unity, and praise, combined with doctrinal truths, bring peace, inspire in us a desire to improve, and invite the Spirit to testify to our hearts of the truth of what we are singing.

So, as your question hinted, the words (truth and testimony), the intent (in our hearts), and the unified praising of God and His Son all invite the Spirit to perform his primary function to bear “record of the Father and of the Son” (D&C 20:27) and teach us “the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5).

I have personally experienced, and know from conversation with others, that the intent of your own heart makes a world of difference when singing the hymns.  If our heart “isn’t in it,” if we are not singing a “song of the heart,” we are basically telling the Spirit we’re not interested right now, so that whatever good might be done in singing the hymn is muted.  But if we sing the hymns from the heart, with sincere intent to praise, to learn, and to testify, then the Spirit sings his testimony back to us, amplifying the effect the hymn has on our own heart, renewing and strengthening us.

I end with the words of the First Presidency and my own hope the we will all choose to invoke blessings through sincere hymning:

Brothers and sisters, let us use the hymns to invite the Spirit of the Lord into our congregations, our homes, and our personal lives. Let us memorize and ponder them, recite and sing them, and partake of their spiritual nourishment. Know that the song of the righteous is a prayer unto our Father in Heaven, “and it shall be answered with a blessing upon [your] heads.”

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

In reading the Old Testament for seminary this year I stumbled upon Numbers 31:1-18, in which Israel destroys a city and takes the spoils to Moses. When their prophet Moses finds out, however, that they have saved the married women and man-children, he orders their deaths so as not to upset the Lord.  Avoiding the explanation of mistranslation, how can this be just? Every time I hear a testimony or see a child at church my heart burns with anguish to know Jesus commanded such death.

John

Answer

Dear John,

Sometime ago I dealt with the general principles underlying your question, and that answer can be found at this link.  I hope you will take a look at it before proceeding on with the rest of this answer.

The necessity of the male children dying becomes, I think, one of those unexplained and frankly horrifying matters that I mentioned in my previous answer.  But as regards the women described in Numbers 31, there was some additional background that may add some perspective.  The Midianites, in alliance with the Moabites, had attempted to bribe the prophet Balaam into cursing Israel.  When that attempt was unsuccessful, Balaam apparently advised his sponsors that Israel’s power could be neutralized by enticing Israel away from Jehovah-worship.  Accordingly, the Moabites (and at least a few Midianites) sought to entice Israel into sexual immorality and idolatry.  The result of this apostasy, as described in Numbers 25, was a plague that resulted in the deaths of (if the text is accurate) some twenty-four thousand Israelites.

Notably, in verse 17 that Moses isn’t requiring the executions of the married women.  He is requiring the executions of the non-virgins.  From Moses’ standpoint, the women the Israelite men had brought back to camp could well have included the very same women who had earlier instigated a catastrophic apostasy in Israel.  Moses’ orders may well have arisen from the belief that Israel simply couldn’t afford to have any such women re-introduced into their camp.

This, I realize, is hardly a definitive answer; and even if it were, it would continue to be both tragic and deeply disturbing.  Four thousand years after the fact, we do not–can not–know all of the factors that led Moses to believe that actions such as this were appropriate and even necessary.  As I mentioned in my prior answer, we can only give thanks that in this dispensation we are under divine command to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

Answer

Hello Karl,

Thank you for taking the opportunity to ask a question you have been thinking on for some time now. There appears to be four main points of discussion: 1) Our Moral Agency vs. Free Will, 2) Prophets’ call to repentance, 3) Obedience out of love or out of fear, and 4) Atheism/Different belief systems.  In my younger years, I received a blessing that said something to this nature (I don’t remember the exact words), “[Gramps], when you have children you will begin to understand how much God loves you and his children.” When I held my first child, my son, in my arms I began to understand the truth, reality, of this sentiment. I also began to understand that a lot of our gospel principles are best understood when comparing our own family to God’s family. Let’s then begin with the first point, moral agency vs. free will.

Moral Agency vs. Free Will

The gospel principle of moral agency (D&C 101:78) is one of the most important principles we need to know and understand. Free will is not the agency we have received from God. Free will is a sectarian notion implying, “I can do whatever I want without consequence, as long as I am not hurting anyone,” and in light of gospel principles, is false. The truth pertaining to the agency (a gift) we have received from God is that we have the ability to act or to be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:26), or we have the freedom to choose life and liberty through the great mediator of all men or captivity through the devil (2 Nephi 2:27-29). Here are some excellent quotes received from leaders of the Church regarding the moral agency we have received from God:

Elder Boyd K. Packer:

“We are free to obey or to ignore the spirit and the letter of the law. But the agency granted to man is a moral agency (see D&C 101:78). We are not free to break our covenants and escape the consequences.” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1990, 108; or Ensign, Nov. 1990, 84)

Elder D. Todd Christofferson:

“In years past we generally used the term free agency. That is not incorrect. More recently we have taken note that free agency does not appear in the scriptures. They talk of our being “free to choose” and “free to act” for ourselves (2 Nephi 2:27; 10:23; see also Helaman 14:30) and of our obligation to do many things of our own “free will” (D&C 58:27). But the word agency appears either by itself or with the modifier moral: “That every man may act in doctrine and principle … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (D&C 101:78). When we use the term moral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.”

The gift of agency, as received from our Father in heaven, denotes that we are accountable before God for our earthly decisions, especially decisions which are in direct opposition to God’s will, or sin (both sins of commission and sins of omission).

The Prophets Commandment to Call to Repentance

The principle of repentance, and the exhortation received from prophets, is best understood in connection with the principles of faith, moral agency, and God’s work and glory. The scriptures refer to us as “agents unto ourselves” who have been given the capacity to act (or to be acted upon). “And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment.” (Source – Moses 6:56) The knowledge we receive is obtained through personal study, teachers expounding principles of the gospel, through personal experience, and through receiving laws and commandments. When Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden they received commandments. They had knowledge of these commandments/laws. They were given moral agency to choose for themselves to either obey or to reject the commandments received. What then happens if we choose to reject received commandments?

As with Adam and Eve we will be held accountable by God and we will receive the consequences of our decisions, and whether we enjoy or dislike the consequence of breaking commandments is really irrelevant; although, once we choose to act in ways that are contrary to God’s will we will either humble ourselves and exercise our faith unto repentance, or the Lord may inspire one of His servants to extend the Lord’s arm of mercy (Alma 5:33) via a prophetic call to repentance. Our scriptures are filled with examples of the sons and daughters of God, who had knowledge of said commandments/laws, chose to break those commandments, and then despite God’s efforts they continued to rebel. As they continue to rebel, and the increased of unrepented wickedness, the Lord indeed does provide His children with ultimatums, as any parent has the right to layout.

President Ezra T. Benson in his well known address “Beware of Pride” specified two possible outcomes when we are disobedient: 1) we will either humble ourselves and plead for forgiveness, or 2) We will continue on in wickedness and the Lord will then have need to “compel” His children to exercise humility or be destroyed. A prophetic warning we have received can be found within “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” where a voice of warning is received pertaining to families. President Gordon B. Hinckley in one of his general conference addresses rebuked fathers who abuse spouse and offspring. The real question we should be asking ourselves, “Are we humble enough to accept the voice of the Lord as spoken from the mouth of His holy prophets?”  Jacob in the Book of Mormon provided a stern warning and rebuke to husbands and fathers who were desiring polygamy. Why does this matter, why even call anyone to repentance at all, if we have free agency (moral agency)?  Why not allow us to live and let live? Why not just love us for who we are?

This question is best understood through understanding God’s work and glory, which is to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life (Moses 1:39). Truth, God loves all of His children for who they “really” are. We are His children, His sons and daughters, with the same spiritual potential. The key word being potential. Our potential inherited glory is dependent upon our personal choices, and God desires all of His children to reach our full measure of our creation. Our Father in Heaven gives us knowledge, chastens us when necessary, so that we may know how to return to Him and receive all that He hath. If we act in righteousness, we have no need to fear any rebuke from God or from His prophets. If we act against God’s will, God will do what is necessary, honoring our agency, to return us back into the fold. One of my favorite scriptures regarding a straight edged rebuke is given by an angel to Alma the Younger who spoke these words, “And now I say unto thee, Alma, go thy way, and seek to destroy the church no more, that their prayers may be answered, and this even if thou wilt of thyself be cast off.” (Mosiah 27:15) In every rebuke, whether by the Lord himself, through one of His angels, or through one of His servants our moral agency remains intact. The angel honored Alma’s agency when exhorting him to seek no more to destroy the Church so that his Father’s and others prayers may be answered.

A prophetic call of repentance is often a last resort to try and help individuals, cities, or nations to return to God. As members we are instructed that we are all missionaries. The implied action of a missionary is the call of repentance. The call may be accomplished through teaching, and when instructed the individual humbles themselves, accepts truth, exercises faith unto repentance, and then is baptized. The vocal call to repentance, as noted in scriptures, doesn’t occur very often and not until much wickedness has entered into the hearts of the children of humankind.

Why do we as parents, as friends, and as family call anyone to repentance?  Because we love them. If the call of repentance is not motivated by love, then the call is not from God. This moves us into our next point, obedience from love or fear.

Obedience from Love or Fear

When we think upon our Father in Heaven, in relation to obedience, which option would God prefer? 1) that our obedience is rooted in our love/charity for Him, or 2) that our obedience is rooted in fear of potential consequences? In the New Testament, the Lord provided this wisdom, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15) The answer to the question proposed should be self-evident. The Lord indeed does desire our obedience to be rooted in love and charity towards Him; however, should we choose to obey out of fear is this always a bad thing? This answer should be self-evident also. Obedience stemming from fear is not always a bad choice. For example, as we contemplate the nature of little children as they are progressing in maturity, knowledge, and understanding, obedience from fear often is a good and beneficial option for the child. When my then three year old would run out into the middle of a street, without looking both ways, they received a consequence accompanied by a warning and if they did so again they would be punished. When the circumstance presented itself again my children then had a choice to either obey out of love, “Dad said not to go into the street. He explained why I shouldn’t go into the street. I am not going into the street.”  Or they could obey from fear of the consequence.” I want to go into the street, but I don’t want the consequence Dad said would happen if I did so again. I am not going into the street.” As a father, I would prefer obedience from love and knowledge, but if fear of my consequence kept them safe then it kept them safe and that is a good thing.

Our Father in Heaven would indeed prefer that our obedience stemmed from our love for Him. We have been instructed in matters that pertain to good and evil. We all have given the Spirit of Christ to help us distinguish between good and evil. We have been informed regarding our decisions in life, whether they be good or whether they be evil. We have been instructed receiving knowledge pertaining the our choices and if they are good, we receive the reward of them being good.  If they are evil we receive the reward of them being evil. This is highlighted in these verses in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 16:11-12),

“If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation, being delivered up to the devil, who hath subjected them, which is damnation—

“Having gone according to their own carnal wills and desires; having never called upon the Lord while the arms of mercy were extended towards them; for the arms of mercy were extended towards them, and they would not; they being warned of their iniquities and yet they would not depart from them; and they were commanded to repent and yet they would not repent.”

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ we know that there will be an eternal judgment to come. There is eternal happiness and there is eternal misery — opposition which is affixed. Would it bother me if one of my children kept their covenants out of fear their whole life and in death we remained an eternal unit in the Celestial kingdom? No, I would not be bothered one bit; although, I would have preferred that he loved God rather than feared God. God’s call to repentance is a warning of an event that will occur, an event none of His children will be able to bypass. God’s justice and mercy are real, they are very real, and neither mercy nor justice can rob each other of their due accounting. When God uses His prophets to call His children to repentance, He is providing an opportunity for repentance and a turning of the heart back to truth. If at first by fear they return, so be it. If by love they return, so be it, and in the mind of God we are all “little children” (D&C 50:40) who are progressing in knowledge, maturity, and understanding in learning how to become like our Father in heaven.

Atheism/Differing Belief Systems

The final topic of discussion addressed in your question pertains to other belief systems (you specifically mention Atheism) as stated here, “if you do not believe in God a threat like that won’t be of any concern to your free will.” In the Book of Mormon we are provided this truth, “For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil” (Moroni 7:16) No matter our earthly belief system we all have been given the Spirit of Christ which allows us to know good from evil. A prophetic rebuke, or call to repentance, is for every man or woman who walks the earth. This includes all faiths, all religions, or even the lack of belief (Atheism). A personal belief system doesn’t deny the reality of what is to come. For example, let’s review the second to last paragraph in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” which states, “WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” Our personal belief system will not change the judgments of God which are to come. Our personal belief system will not change what is, what was, and what will be — truth. Our personal belief system will not change the consequences of the disintegration of the family. We have the moral agency to reject light or to receive more light no matter our faith or our beliefs, but we do not have any right to change or to remove the consequences of our decisions.

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

Hi. I have only been in the LDS church for 2 years and my boyfriend just a few weeks. We just started dating and have talked about getting married. We both have been divorced and have kids. We do not live together and are keeping the law of chastity. Can we be sealed?

Jennifer

Answer

Dear Jennifer,

If your boyfriend is promoted to fiance then the two of you can get sealed in the temple. About a year after baptism, your boyfriend will be eligible to receive his endowment in the temple. Following that, yes, the two of you can be sealed together. If your wedding date is scheduled any time after that year mark, the civil ceremony and the temple ceremony will take place at the same time (that is – they are the same ceremony) (assuming you are in the United States or some other country that allows the two ceremonies to be the same). If your wedding date is scheduled before then, then the two of you can be first married civilly (by your bishop if you want). Normally, a couple who opts to marry civilly rather than in the temple have to wait for a year to be sealed. In your case, where a temple sealing would mean an undue delay in your marriage, the sealing can be scheduled for a year from your fiance’s baptism.

The Eternal Marriage student manual lists the procedures for preparing for and entering into a temple sealing. The scenario you describe is mentioned as an exception to the one year wait policy:

“A person may not receive a temple recommend until one full year has passed following baptism and confirmation. If a couple is civilly married and then decides that they wish to be sealed in the temple, they must wait one year from the date of their civil marriage to be sealed. This restriction applies only to those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so.”

As a hypothetical, it would look like this: Your fiance was baptized January 1 of this year. The two of you decide to get married and schedule the date for August 1 of this year. Since your fiance is not yet endowed, your bishop marries the two of you together. Then the two of you will be eligible to be sealed Jan 1 of next year, one year from his baptism (not one year from your wedding).

Of course, you’ll want to counsel with the bishop since he has been called to be a gatekeeper for the temple. This way there’s no surprises in the timeline for either of you. And you should probably be engaged first too.

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

Answer

Dear Leo,

Latter-day Saints are uniquely aware of how sensitive a person can be when it comes to getting his name right (just ask Symonds Ryder). We also know how important it is to get a name right when it comes salvific ordinances. I can tell you from life experience that your friend’s analogy just doesn’t hold up. I have worked with a number of individuals who have requested to be called by an English name. Most memorable is a “Steven” Kim who thought it would be fun to share a name with the pro wrestler Steve Austin.

Jesus insisted that it was essential to get the name of His church right – and that means it has to bear His name. “[H]ow be it my church,” Jesus asks, “save it be called in my name? … if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church.” (3 Nephi 27:8)

Today Christ has seen to it that the Church follow this pattern. “[T]hus shall my church be called in the last days,” He declares, “even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115:4)

Had my coworkers asked to be referred to as Xiaodong or Bixiang, I would have done what I could to learn their names. Instead they told me I could call them John or Sean and no hard feelings exist between us. Jesus has told us that His church ought to be in His name. Rather than telling us to use Jehoshua, Joshua, Yeshua, or Yehoshua, He has asked that we use the name Jesus Christ. Additionally, the additional scripture we’ve received has made it clear that Jehovah is also an acceptable moniker for Yahweh or YHWH (see Moroni 10:34, Abraham 1:16, and Abraham 2:8).

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

Considering the fact that certain vaccines require aborted fetal matter to be made, how does the Church support vaccines while condemning abortion?

Richard

Answer

Hello Richard,

The question submitted offers an intriguing comparison in relation to vaccines (a known product that sustains life), a fetus (a human baby), and abortions (a procedure that more often ends the life of healthy offspring).  The first thoughts I have, as I entertain this question, are that this question can be answered by similar comparisons. The Church invites its members to avoid drinking alcohol. Alcohol is often used in over the counter medicinal drugs. The Church supports medicinal drugs that heal the body, while condemning the consumption of alcohol. I believe an honest and sincere heart would be able to distinguish between the support of medicinal drugs that heal the body in comparison to the consumption of alcohol, however, let us review the stated facts provided in this question.

The following vaccines known to have been grown from fetal embryo fibroblast cells are: varicella (or chickenpox), rubella, hepatitis A, shingles, and a specific rabies. As these vaccines stand now, they are made from the fetal embryo of two elective abortions in the 1960s, one of the elective abortions was from Sweden and the other from England. These two terminations that provided the necessary embryonic cells have continued to grow, have been used to make the necessary vaccines today, and no other sources are needed to make these vaccines as of today, at least according to this article: Vaccine Ingredients – Fetal Tissues I assume a question we can ask ourselves, as our understanding matures in matters of biology, are there yet ethical means by which these diseases will be combated without using any aborted fetus? According to some online research there appears to be some consensus that certain vaccines which are currently using fetal embryo fibroblast cells might have an alternative source to produce vaccinations that are able to cure some of these diseases.

True, the Church condemns elective abortions, and rightfully so, save in the case of rape or should the mother’s life be at risk (and these exceptions should not be done without much thought, prayer, and fasting). Here are actual statements regarding the Church’s position regarding abortions:

“In today’s society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord’s declaration, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6).”

In the words of Elder Russell M. Nelson, in relation to a war on the unborn, “However [Word War I and World War II], are dwarfed by the [death] toll of another war that claims more casualties annually than did World War I and World War II combined. Worldwide reports indicate that more than 40 million abortions are performed per year.

“This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice”

Now, if fetal tissue is necessary for certain life saving vaccines there are other options available other than elective abortions providing the fetal tissue for these vaccines. Over the course of my marriage, my wife unfortunately had to endure four miscarriages. One of her miscarriages resulted in the known dilation and curettage operation (D&C). This was not an elective abortion, and yet this fetal tissue resulting from natural causes would be sufficient to grow vaccines from fetal embryo fibroblast cells. Natural abortions, nothing self induced, occur often enough that as long as fetal matter is required for vaccines we would have sufficient tissue without the need of any elective abortion that terminates the life of healthy human offspring, which causes me to think that the question more so approaches deceptive arguments against the Church — in attempts to say “Gotcha!” If some vaccines require fetal cells, wouldn’t natural miscarriages work just as well? Yes, they would, thus elective abortions are not necessary for vaccines. This is choice, not necessity.

Although, not directly involved in the question, I feel it important to note that there are groups who do not choose to immunize their children for exactly this reason. They have discovered that these vaccines use the fetus from abortions. Are they wrong? Would you force them to immunize their children?

If the article previously mentioned is correct, only two abortions have been used from the 1960s for the vaccines we used today, and the question leaves it open as if declaring elective abortions today are being used. This doesn’t appear to be the case.

Richard, the Church will continue to condemn elective abortions resulting from selfish desires in dealing with unwanted pregnancies, as the Church and many others recognize that “human life is a sacred gift from God.” This will not change, and thank goodness!

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

Are missionaries allowed to be in the prayer circle in the temple and if not why?

Dean

Answer

Hi Dean,

Thank you for your question: Are missionaries allowed to participate in temple prayer circles?

Having spoken with several recently returned missionaries from around the world about this, I feel I can better shed a little light on the subject now. The answer to your question is both yes and no. Many members of the church make great efforts to attend the temple. Some drive long distances, take time off work, incur personal expense and are only able to visit infrequently. Because missionaries may have easier access to the temple, they have been asked to give other patrons the opportunity to participate in prayer circles before themselves. Because of their schedules, it can be typical that  many missionaries might attend the temple all on the same day. With a mass influx of Elders & Sisters at the temple all at once, it might leave other patrons without the chance to be in the prayer circle themselves. So as a courtesy, missionaries are asked not to participate in the prayer circle in those circumstances. During slower times and when there are few to no other missionaries or patrons, missionaries may be allowed to participate in prayer circles. Each mission may vary in their adherence to this gesture, so missionaries should check with their Mission President for the exact policy in their respective areas.

All in all, it really is simply extending a courtesy to other patrons.

Thank you,

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

What is church policy as pertaining to members bringing their pets to church?

Ray

Answer

Hi Ray,

Guidelines for Use of Meetinghouses as Emergency Shelters Manual states:

“Pets, other than service animals, are not allowed in the building.”

Disability Resources FAQ: Doctrines and Policies manual reads:

Q: Is it appropriate to bring a service animal into Church buildings?

 

A:  Although the Church is under no legal obligation to admit individuals with service animals into houses of worship because it is exempt from Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Church policy generally allows the use of service dogs in Church buildings. Other types of service animals or comfort pets are not permitted. The only places where service dogs are not allowed are in the temple and in venues where meetings/events are being broadcasted or recorded. In the temple, ordinance workers will gladly assist you. In other venues, ushers will direct you to overflow viewing rooms where your service dog is allowed. Please be aware that local laws concerning service animals and other assistance for those with disabilities may vary.

While I have from time to time personally seen small contained pets brought to church (never in the chapel) for a specific activity, like a snake for the Boy Scout reptile merit badge, it appears bringing pets on a consistent bases is not encouraged or allowed.

In addition to these policies, we should keep in mind that church attendance is a community activity, where all are welcome, including visitors and strangers, which means we may not know from week to week who will be present.  In that environment, pet allergies, fear of animals (regardless of severity, source, or how benign any given animal may be), and the fact that many animals do not do well with other animals in the same space, all mean that the wisest, most considerate course of action is to leave the pets at home.  This ensures that all people can feel safe and welcome at church.  No doubt, the Lord will watch over our beloved pets while we’re away from them.

I would suggest asking your Bishop if you have a specific pet in mind.

Thank you,

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

Lately I’ve come upon another website while researching the Joseph Smith papers. Evidence they present based off historical documents from the Church history and journals are incredibly compelling. However, I truly want to believe the church is true. In particular, they claim that the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible in Matthew doesn’t correspond to 3rd Nephi which are identical to the KJV of the bible.   Why wouldn’t the Book of Mormon contain the JST version of the Matthew verses? There is much more…

TC

Answer

Hi TC,

Thank you for your question and for sharing your concern. My original thought, upon reading your email, was to specifically address your JST Bible and Book of Mormon question. Upon further consideration, I feel you and other readers would be better served if I addressed your overall concern instead, that of finding bad information on other sites. I’m afraid that if I only address your one specific question, it alone would not suffice to set your mind at ease, since you also said, “There is much more…”.  I am afraid that by visiting this “other” site, you probably feel like you’ve opened a Pandora’s box. I assure you it is not as bad as you think, which I will get to in a moment.  For now I’d prefer to help you close the lid on this box, rather than going case by case addressing each individual concern that stems from it. Rather than spoon feed a single answer, I would like to share with you some helpful tools that I hope you will apply to your current and future gospel studies.

I make it a habit to not shy away from tough questions, in fact I welcome them. Though I will be addressing your overall concern instead, I’ve still decided to include a wonderful link regarding your specific JST Bible and Book of Mormon question. The link is to FAIRMormon.org. The article is called:

Response to claim: “How is it that the BOM doesn’t match the” Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

Moving on to your overall concern, below are four tools that I hope you will consider implementing in your studies especially when you come across “other” websites that are critical of the Church.

Tool #1: Recognize that there are few Original Criticisms: The truth is, in my experience, there are very few if any new or original concerns related to the Gospel of Jesus Christ or to Church History. Most doubts and concerns brought forth by critics of the Church, are for the most part unoriginal rehashes of criticisms that have lingered for many years, if not since the early days of the restoration. Antagonists of the Church often try to repackage old criticisms differently, perhaps adding a superficial modern spin to them or declaring they have “exposed” a deep secret. In reality most criticisms boil down to a lot of the same old tired talking points. I’ve learned to no longer be “shocked” by what they claim is supposedly “shocking.”

Tool #2: Recognize the Source of the Criticism: Identify the source/author(s) of the criticism(s) and recognize it/them for who they really are and what their desired goal is for spreading such criticism. Some individuals or groups are overtly obvious in their attempt to criticize and make no qualms about their desire to basically tear down the faith of their readers. This is apparent as we read the chapter heading for Alma 30:

“Korihor, the anti-Christ, ridicules Christ, the Atonement, and the spirit of prophecy—He teaches that there is no God, no fall of man, no penalty for sin, and no Christ”

In contrast to the overtly obvious critic, there are those who deceptively hide their agenda behind the shroud of sheep’s clothing. This group of wolves employs the strategy of pretending to be concerned active members of the Church who are simply seeking “truth.” From the beginning, this group who professes the moral high ground in helping others to “think,” in reality have hidden their identity and what their true goals are. By masquerading as concerned faithful, active LDS members, they use a bait and switch technique to subtly lure innocent members into thinking they have found Church doctrine answers, when in reality it was never intended to strengthen or help the reader but was only ever designed to criticize the Church. This is the Pandora’s box that I feel you have inadvertently opened.

Tool #3: Recognize out of context “Truth”: Masterful critics of the Church are skilled at using lies mixed with truth. If everything they said was a lie, it would be much easier to dismiss. The best lie is the one sprinkled with some portion of truth, a half truth. Some criticisms are 100% true. While a 100% truth may be used by a critic, if it’s taken completely out of context and twisted, the once beautiful truth can suddenly seem highly illogical, suspect or dubious in it’s origins. Once a truth is placed back into it’s original context, it can become easy to understand and beautiful again. When presented with a criticism it is always helpful to remember Elder Uchtdorf’s talk entitled: Come Join with Us

“Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.”

Tool #4: Recognize there are Faithful Resources Instead: Since most criticisms are actually yesterday’s news, know and understand that counterarguments to most criticisms already exist. Please realize that either the Church or other, actual “real” faithful members of the Church already have produced faith-promoting, well-researched, educated, testimony-building counterarguments, as demonstrated by the previously linked FAIR Mormon article. In addition, over the years, I have tried to do my part in using Askgramps.org as another outlet for faithful “moral answers to everyday Mormon concerns, curiosities and uncertainties”. Lds.org contains an ever-expanding, wonderful library of authoritative resources. In fact some of my favorite recent-additions have been the Gospel Topic Essays addressing such topics as: BOM Translation, Race and the Priesthood, and Plural Marriage. There are many faithful sources to find testimony-building answers if we just choose to look in the right places instead of relying on the critics.

TC, I hope that you and others can benefit from some of these tools as you move forward in your studies and choose to close the lid on a box that is only designed to tear down faith. Remember to choose sources of learning that only uplift instead. D&C 88:118 reads:

“And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith”

It is always good to “think.”  Better than only thinking, is studying while pondering and praying in faith, thus inviting the Spirit to confirm actual truth to us. I would like to leave you with two quotes that I really enjoy. Elder Neil Anderson in his talk Faith Is Not by Chance, but by Choice says:

“Addressing honest questions is an important part of building faith, and we use both our intellect and our feelings. The Lord said, “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart.” Not all answers will come immediately, but most questions can be resolved through sincere study and seeking answers from God. Using our mind without our heart will not bring spiritual answers. “The things of God knoweth no man, but [through] the Spirit of God.” And to help us, Jesus promised us “another Comforter” and called Him “even the Spirit of truth.”

 

Faith never demands an answer to every question but seeks the assurance and courage to move forward, sometimes acknowledging, “I don’t know everything, but I do know enough to continue on the path of discipleship.”

 

Immersing oneself in persistent doubt, fueled by answers from the faithless and the unfaithful, weakens one’s faith in Jesus Christ and the Restoration. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.”

In a separate talk Elder Anderson also shared:

“Studying the Church … through the eyes of its defectors,” Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said, is “like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.”

Thank you again for your question TC.

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

In the original first vision account by Joseph Smith’s own hand, he states that only Christ visited him.  No mention of the Father and Son.  Why then did this change later to be the Father and Son visiting Joseph?  Also, why are there 4 versions of the same story?

Jack

Answer

Dear Jack,

There are 4 primary versions of the story of the First Vision because Joseph recorded 3 official versions (in different circumstances) and his scribe happened to be with him during 1 private retelling. Besides these 4 there are a number of other secondary versions recorded by those who heard Joseph tell it first-hand. Because of the different circumstances and intents in each retelling (for the primary accounts) as well as different authorship (with the secondary accounts) no two accounts contain exactly the same detail – nor do they contain contradictory details.

If you have the Gospel Library app, then you can read the 4 accounts of the First Vision that originate from Joseph Smith. Scroll down and select “Church History” and then “Joseph Smith’s Accounts of the First Vision”. It contains the same information as this page in the Joseph Smith Papers site (just select your language of choice). As an exercise, you may want to capture the elements shared in each account in a table and compare them across the different accounts. I think it will amaze you instead to see the many similarities. The differences will then serve to flesh out details of the story.

Unfortunately, what’s lacking in these resources is context providing the provenance of these accounts. You can find that on Joseph Smith Papers site with links to the original documents. Dean C. Jessee, in his article “The Earliest Documented Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision“, provides context on the record-keeping practice of those decades and additional second-hand accounts of Joseph reciting the details of the First Vision.

Joseph, in the official 1838 account (the one found in the Pearl of Great Price), tells us why he was so reluctant to share the details of his 1820 vision. Recognizing the sacredness of his experience, he didn’t tell his mother and instead shared it with a spiritual mentor. Imagine the alarm of this young teenager, when his telling is treated “with contempt” and is told “it was all of the devil…. [T]elling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice … and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase.” (JS-H 1:21-22). Given the trouble that this vision caused, it is little wonder that 3 years later, when Moroni’s several visits prevented Joseph from attending to his farm labors, he had to be commanded to share the new vision with his father.

The hubbub continued to follow Joseph and so he only shared publicly those things which needed to be public. When the Church was organized in 1830, he shared a simplified version of his life from 1820 – 1823 that “after it was truly manifested … that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world” (D&C 20:5). From there, he then testifies of the miraculous forthcoming of The Book of Mormon with more detail – the book already printed and the angel attested to by 3 others. The same day the Church was organized, Joseph was instructed by the Lord to keep a record (D&C 21:1) but did not get to this for another two years. This was the setting for the 1832 account.

The 1832 account contains Joseph’s handwriting (portions of it were written by his scribe, just like the others). It was recorded in a record book and seems to have been intended as an internal document. That is, Joseph knew there needed to be an official history, but did not seem to see a need for an official public history. The public narrative would largely revolve around the coming forth of The Book of Mormon and the textual revelations Joseph received. In this internal 1832 account, Joseph speaks of the years he spent concerned for his salvation, the alarm he felt realizing the fallen state of the world, the stirrings of a testimony of God when pondering nature. He then goes into “the wilderness” where his prayer is answered and he sees the Lord, who confirms that apostasy the world is in, but assures Joseph that his sins are forgiven him. The emphasis here, like the 1830 testimony, is that Joseph was forgiven of his sins by the Lord. He then uses this to segue into his period of foibles which precede Moroni coming to assure him that his sins have been forgiven him once again (before telling Joseph about the gold plates).

The 1835 account is a bit of an anomaly of the four. Of the primary accounts, it is the only one that is a conversational retelling and not any sort of official history. As such, it highlights understandable differences. Joseph was entertaining a stranger passing through who showed interest in godly matters and particularly in the rise of the Church. Joseph then accordingly told him an account of the First Vision, but here young Joseph is trying to discern the right versus the wrong of religions. Thus, he goes into some detail on getting attacked by the powers of darkness, following the visitation of angels (plural!), one of which tells him his sins are forgiven and then testifies of Christ. Having been visited by angels, and having clear discernment between darkness and light, Joseph is then visited by Moroni (he notes Years have passed but places these two angelic visits only words apart). An appropriate end of this background story is that Joseph discerns that his visitor is filled with darkness and evicts him from his home. All talk of God the Father or the Son is missing in this account. Some critics like to use an evolutionary approach to the story of the First Vision – that Joseph added elements with each retelling – but this period shows that Joseph is much more inclined to test the waters first and only share the sacred with those likely to receive it.

During the 1835 – 1836 years, Joseph may have shared his First Vision experience with the saints in public sermons. Unfortunately we do not have the text of those sermons, but a synopsis can be found in Jessee’s article. By this time, Joseph (along with Sidney Rigdon) had seen Jesus “on the right hand of God” (D&C 76:24). This public 1832 record of the Father and the Son, and the divisions in the afterlife, was so significant the saints referred to it as The Vision. As the story of the 1820 visitation came out, the saints distinguished it as The First Vision.

The 1838 and 1842 accounts were intended to be public accounts and were shared openly. Joseph opened up to those inside and outside the Church because he felt “induced” to do so. “Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons,” Joseph took matters into his own hands to tell the story on his terms, “to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers of truth in possession of the fact.” (JS-H 1:1). Modern saints are most familiar with 1838 account in our scriptures. It includes details of Joseph searching for true religion and not finding it, the devil’s powerful attempt at blocking prayer, a prophetic theophany of God the Father introducing His Son, the Son’s testimony that there is no true church on the earth and the corruption that has crept in. The foibles once again return and forgiveness is sought, and forgiveness is assured through the visitation of the angel Moroni who then tells him of the plates and the great work ahead. The 1842 account was prepared as part of the Wentworth Letter (where the Articles of Faith were originally printed) and is similar to the 1838 account with the search for true religion, but skips over Satan’s attack and includes only a brief message from Jesus (although the Father is there). That message is that the fulness of the gospel would eventually be given to Joseph. He then shares the account of Moroni’s visit and details surrounding The Book of Mormon.

Once an official version of the First Vision was published, Joseph’s personal retelling starts showing up and the details here are varied as well. Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde published pamphlets that included the story in 1840 and 1842, respectively (the Father and the Son are in both). Levi Richards summarizes a sermon from 1843 (Joseph’s prayer is answered by the Lord, but no mention of the Father and it’s unclear if the Son appears). Alexander Neibaur records a private conversation with Joseph in 1844 that includes mention of the Savior (but not the Father). A reporter passing through Nauvoo in 1843 records a version that includes the Father and the Son (once again, see Jessee’s article for details). The discrepancies here can either be attributed to the diversity of the record-keepers, or to Joseph himself.

The 1838 account is by far the longest and contains the most details. Other accounts contain details not found in the official public version, but the Joseph Smith-History contains by far the most content. It comes as no surprise then that the other accounts (including the 1832), as brief retellings, lack many of the details in the official record (revival meetings, James 1:5, Satan’s attack, presence of the Father, presence of the Son, the forgiveness of sins, scriptures quoted, etc.). Additionally, we find in the personal journals of the time that Joseph continued to show some reluctance in openly sharing details of the the First Vision until he felt compelled to share it with the world. And even then, details differed in the brief accounts (the focus tended to quickly move to the more attested  Moroni and the tangible Book of Mormon). While this may have been because of the different authors, it is not unlikely that Joseph varied his telling by referring to the official “two personages” (which would include the Father), and the more colloquial “the Lord” (which would just be the Son by the strictest reading). Further, if he only focused on the resulting answer, the strict reading would leave him unvisited. In this respect, the 1832 account fits neatly in with the private retellings of the next decade.

The evolutionary model describing the origin of the First Vision (including the progressive addition of the Father) doesn’t bear scrutiny when comparing other elements of the story and when adding in the secondary accounts. For instance, looking at the other elements in the primary accounts we see the post-1832 addition of Satan’s attack, but then it abruptly disappears in the Wentworth letter. And once we add in the secondary accounts, we find that Joseph talks about these different elements throughout his life, to those prepared to hear it. The First Vision is usually coupled with the story of Moroni and the gold plates. In fact, it often serves as an introduction to that story which is also given far more literary space – so Joseph may be apt to omit details in order to move along to Moroni’s visit. It is only in the official 1838 account that Joseph takes the time to include many details of the First Vision, so it’s little wonder that elements of the story may seem novel when comparing it with earlier and later accounts.

If we reconstructed the history based on what other accounts do not include, we would simply state that Joseph prayed and the Lord answered his prayer, telling him the world was corrupt. It would perhaps be better to take an additive approach, supplementing to the official version details included in some of the other accounts (witness of God found in nature, increasing intensity of Satan’s attack, the intensity of the light as fire, visitation of angels, etc.).

Gramps

21

Question

Dear Gramps,

Is there any reason to study the U.S. Constitution any more?  It has been negated and dismantled from the founders original intent in so many ways.  And the powers that be will never let us go back to the way it originally was.  So why bother?  There is a conservative college up in Michigan offering free online courses on the U.S. Constitution, but I figure, what’s the point?  It’s never going to go back to the pristine purity it originally had.  It’s just depressing.

Robert

Answer

Robert,

I am pleased to hear that at least some understand the importance of the Constitution.  The college you refer to is a fine college that has a history of teaching traditional, original intent courses on the Constitution.  I can think of no better source for you to start your formal studies on the Constitution.

What grieves me is that you are so disheartened by the current political climate that you’re prepared to abandon the hope which that sacred document promises.  In this response, my primary goal is perhaps to give you some of that hope that I speak of.

So, first, let me assure you that the Constitution will always have a place on this earth — possibly into the Millennial era.  In fact we need look no further than the Doctrine and Covenants for such assurance:

Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.  D&C 109:54

This prayer was given to Joseph through revelation to be prayed at the dedication of the Kirtland temple.  The Lord wanted this request to be made in solemn prayer so that He could bless us to be able to keep it.  Will we do so?  Brigham Young thought so:

Will the Constitution be destroyed? No; it will be held inviolate by this people.  -Brigham Young JD 7:15

He then quoted Joseph Smith saying:

The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.

Pres. Young then referred to the injustices that the federal government were executing upon the Saints of the day (1854) when he concluded:

With regard to the doings of our fathers and the Constitution of the United States, I have to say, they present to us a glorious prospect in the future, but one we cannot attain to until the present abuses in the Government are corrected.

While it may be true that we are seeing many violations of the Constitution perpetrated by the very elected officials we voted in to protect our Constitutional rights, it is up to us to correct that abuse.  And how are we to correct it if we do not learn more about the document that we hope to adhere to?

Pres. Ezra Taft Benson testified of the role the Elders of Israel will play in the restoration of Constitutional principles:

If the Gentiles on this land reject the word of God and conspire to overthrow liberty and the Constitution, their doom is fixed, and they “shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant” (1 Ne 16:6; 3 Ne 21:11, 14, 21; D&C 84:114-115, 117 [Ether 2:8-10])…

 

For years we have heard of the role the elders could play in saving the Constitution from total destruction. But how can the elders be expected to save it if they have not studied it and are not sure if is being destroyed or what is destroying it?…

 

We know, as do no other people, that the Constitution of the United States is inspired — established by men whom the Lord raised up for that very purpose. We cannot — we must not — shirk our sacred responsibility to rise up in defense of our God-given freedom.  -Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson 618-620.

If you were defending your family from criminals who want to invade your home and harm your family, but they severely outnumbered you in manpower and munitions, would you simply give up?  Or would you do everything in your power to resist them at every turn unto your last breath?  I hope your choice would be the latter.  Winston Churchill’s famous quote appears to be appropriate:

Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. -Winston Churchill, Harrow School Commencement Address 1941

Is it honorable or good sense to accept the path of tyranny and slavery over democracy and liberty?  Of course not.  And this is nothing new.

We were asked this same question in the War in Heaven.  We experienced a crisis over it twelve score years ago during the conflict which established this nation.  We experienced it in varying degrees throughout our country’s history.  To let you know this violation of our liberties is not a new phenomenon, I’ll quote Pres. Benson again:

To all who have discerning eyes, it is apparent that the republican form of government established by our noble forefathers cannot long endure once fundamental principles are abandoned. Momentum is gathering for another conflict — a repetition of the crisis of two hundred years ago. This collision of ideas is world-wide. The issue is the same that precipitated the great premortal conflict — will men be free to determine their own course of action or must they be coerced? – Ibid 623-624

If President Benson saw these patterns in his day, just imagine how far such patterns have progressed since then.  At some point there will come another crisis.  And it doesn’t take a prophet to see such patterns.

But this is not cause to despair.  On the contrary, we have cause to rejoice that we will be the people who can be depended upon to provide an earthly government and a society based on liberty, justice, and Constitutional principles.

Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction  -Joseph Smith (Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City, July 19, 1840).

Let me emphasize that the use of the word “elders” in the earlier quotes does not simply refer the the Church as an organization or the General Authorities.  It refers to you.  It refers to me.  It refers to every freedom-loving Melchizedek Priesthood holder.  If we as individuals do not know, love, and have a commitment to Constitutional principles, then all will truly be lost.  It is not enough that the Church as an organization or by doctrine supports the Constitution as a divinely inspired document.  We must (as the Prophet Joseph once said) befriend the Constitution.  Or else how can we fulfill the prophecy described by Orson Pratt:

Those nations…will eventually crumble to ruin, and those men of wealth will come here, not to be baptized, but many of them will come that have never heard the servants of God; but they will hear that peace and health dwell among us. Orson Pratt JD 3:16

and John Taylor:

When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men… as long as we do what is right and fear God, he will help us and stand by us under all circumstances.  -John Taylor JD 21:8

While the world falls into chaos because they have abandoned both God and the principles of the Constitution which He has established, the faithful of the Church will always have a place of refuge.  Even the Gentiles shall know of it and come to us for safety, for justice, and the freedom to worship as they please.

Stay close to the stakes of Zion in hope and faith.  Remember, revere, espouse, and befriend Constitutional principles.  Miracles will happen.  And God will always provide hope and a place of refuge to all who desire truth, justice, and the principles of liberty enshrouded in the Constitution.

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

I feel God isn’t fair.  He has blessed others with families that love them and support them,  He has blessed me without parents that care for me. I feel it’s not fair for Him to expect the same things out of all of us.  He did not bless us with the same things. It’s not fair. Why does he do this?

Michelle

Answer

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for sharing your question with me. I’ve had your question/concern on my mind lately. I happened to open lds.org this evening and on the home page there was link to a talk called “That I Might Draw All Men unto Me” – By Elder Dale G. Renlund. Part of the talk shares the following thought regarding “unfairness:”

At the same time, I can emphatically state that because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, ultimately, in the eternal scheme of things, there will be no unfairness. “All that is unfair about life can be made right.” Our present circumstances may not change, but through God’s compassion, kindness, and love, we will all receive more than we deserve, more than we can ever earn, and more than we can ever hope for. We are promised that “God shall wipe away all tears from [our] eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

I felt prompted to share this with you when I saw it. I would encourage you to take a moment to read, watch the video and ponder this counsel as I feel it will help in your situation.

Warm Regards,

Gramps

Question

Dear Gramps,

In Alma 40:11, it says, “…the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body…are taken home to that God who gave them life.”  And almost all people who have had Near-Death-Experiences report that they have a life review with Jesus Christ when they get on the other side.  But D&C 138:37 says that the Lord cannot personally meet with those in the spirit world who were evil.  So I guess I am confused.  Do all people have a life review with Jesus Christ?

Robert

Answer

Hi, Robert,

Let’s consider the elements you bring up, keeping in mind that the so-called near-death experience (NDE) is notoriously unreliable. Some supposed NDEs are the creation of the teller’s imagination, a misguided bid for attention. Others may be nothing more than the hallucinations of an oxygen-starved brain. Without doubt, at least some NDEs are exactly what they seem: An authentic spiritual encounter. An example of this is the experience related by Elder David B. Haight in a talk given in October 1989 General Conference about the sacred nature of the sacrament.

But even in such cases, these NDEs are best considered as a special type of personal revelation, and follow the same rules that apply to other personal spiritual experiences: They are given for the benefit of the recipient, and are not binding nor even typically shared with the general public. (As an apostle, Elder Haight held the keys of revelation and teaching for the whole Church, so he was authorized to share his sacred experience as he was led by the Spirit.) We should exercise great caution in trying to draw any sort of conclusion from an NDE, and whatever tentative conclusions we do draw should accord with revealed truth.

You mention Doctrine and Covenants Section 138. In it, President Joseph F. Smith quotes Peter, who tells us that the Savior, after his death and before his resurrection, went among the dead to preach the gospel. But rather than going to preach among the spirits of the wicked, the Lord organized among the righteous dead the work of preaching to those souls. This is the meaning of Section 138: The Savior did not preach the gospel in person among the wicked dead, but authorized others to do so in his place.

This does not preclude some personal encounter with God at death, however, as is suggested in Alma 40:11. In a talk given by President David O. McKay to Church employees, President McKay described the nature and general contents of a divine interview for the Priesthood-holding brethren he was addressing, which may well have been what was suggested by Alma:

Let me assure you, Brethren, that some day you will have a personal priesthood interview with the Savior himself. If you are interested, I will tell you the order in which he will ask you to account for your earthly responsibilities.

According to Alma, the post-mortal encounter with God, whatever its nature for each person, will be followed by some sort of prejudgment, where the wicked are assigned to a “spirit prison” while the righteous dwell in a “paradise”. This condition lasts until the resurrection, and affords the unrepentant wicked a chance to hear and accept the gospel, repent of their sins, and leave their state of torment while they await the resurrection. (Though even the souls in paradise view the separation from their bodies as a sort of bondage, according to President Smith’s vision in Section 138.)

In short: From my reading, it appears* that each of us will indeed stand before our Savior at death and account to him for our actions while in our mortal state. For the wicked, this and any other confrontation with Deity will be an excruciatingly painful experience, but for the righteous, a joyful blessing beyond compare. As Alma makes clear, this life is the time to prepare to meet God, so let us take advantage of the opportunity.

*(Note that President Joseph Fielding Smith and President George Q. Cannon held other opinions on the matter, believing that we are not necessarily brought immediately into God’s presence at death. For more information, read the relevant material in the Book of Mormon Student Manual for the verses in Alma 40.)

Gramps

Question

Dear Gramps,

I am currently going though a process of repentance for the terrible sin of abortion. It has been a painful journey and I am living on hope and faith that the worst sin I’ve ever committed is forgivable.  My question is, although it is currently known that the Church gave a statement on abortion forgiveness, the statement includes “as far as has been revealed.”  How do we know for certain that this sin is forgivable, if the Lord has not states it is one way or another?

Afraid

Answer

Hello Afraid,

As I ponder this question, there are a few scriptures that encompass my thoughts. The first scripture I ponder are the words of Mormon to his son Moroni during the time of great destruction and great wickedness among the Nephites, “My son, be faithful in Christ; and may not the things which I have written grieve thee, to weigh thee down unto death; but may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever.” (Moroni 9:25) As of right now, Mormon’s words are for you:

1) Continue to be faithful in Christ
2) Allow Christ to lift you up
3) When grief does enter into your heart, do not let it weigh you down unto death, but allow His love (His pure love) to rest in your heart and mind.

Nephi said this a little differently, “And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.” (2 Nephi 4:19) A truth that will enter the heart of every individual coming unto Christ, via repentance, is our awful state before the Lord as a result of sin. Even as we repent, even as we desire to rejoice, we will be enticed with despondency and discouragement, and when these enticing feelings come (and they will come) Mormon and Nephi have given us the solution, “Look to Christ!”

The statement inducing your question, “as far as has been revealed,” was spoken by Elder Russel M. Nelson back in 1985, “Now, is there hope for those who have so sinned without full understanding, who now suffer heartbreak? Yes. So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And “as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant.” The idea presented is an important statement as we are only judged by what has currently been revealed, either collectively or individually (prophetic revelation or personal revelation). What then has been revealed, and that is what we need to place our trust in currently?

1) Unpardonable Sin, “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” (Matthew 12:31)

As far as has been revealed abortion is not committing the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; although, for those who have gone through an abortion and who truly have a repentant heart, an effectual struggle for repentance may still be left.  As Alma said, “which caused [him] sore repentance.” (Mosiah 23:9) It wasn’t easy, but it was worth it.

2) The First Presidency (1973), “As to the amenability of the sin of abortion to the laws of repentance and forgiveness, we quote the following statement made by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L. Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., which continues to represent the attitude and position of the Church:

“As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, He has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.”

We have now three witnesses, as far as has been revealed, that abortion is not an unpardonable sin; although a grievous sin. Abortion is not in the realm of being unpardonable. In light of this, as in the words of Mormon to his son Moroni, may you be blessed to allow “Christ to lift thee up.” Allow Christ’s suffering, His death, His mercy, and His pure love to rest in your mind knowing that He is our advocate with the Father. Trust in His grace, and trust in what has been revealed.

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

I am the sole carer to my wife and would not wish otherwise. Whilst I cannot get about much due to disability I have in my mind to return to an old hobby of mine, model railroads. Obviously there is not much time to pursue the hobby because I look after my dear wife 24 hours a day. My question is, am I being sinful to take up the hobby again?

John

Answer

Dear John,

You are correct. The first responsibility you have is to your wife. You need to take care of her and make sure that she is as healthy as she can be and that her needs are taken care of. It sounds like you are doing that just fine. However you also need to remember to take care of yourself. In his General Conference talk, “Like a Broken Vessel” (General Conference October 2013)  the apostle Jeffery R. Holland said “Fatigue is the common enemy of us all—so slow down, rest up, replenish, and refill.” Some of us can indeed replenish, rest up and refill by relaxing with our favorite hobbies.

Sometimes people who are very selfless feel guilty about enjoying the things that give them pleasure. As caregivers there are times that we try so hard to give all that we can that we forget that it is okay to make the time to take care of ourselves as well.  We need to remember to take care of our own physical and mental health. Taking care of our physical health is obvious. If we don’t get the proper sleep and nutrition our own health will suffer and we won’t be able to take care of anyone else.

But mental health is important as well. Aside from being physically demanding,  it can also be mentally stressful to take care of someone we love. There should be no shame in admitting that it can be taxing on our mental health to take care of others. If you feel like a hobby or an interest relieves some of the stress that you feel, then there is no problem engaging in it.  Hobbies and interests should also be pleasing to our Heavenly Father, and your interest in model railroads and trains is certainly moral and what we call “good, clean fun”.

The apostles have hobbies. Some surprising and interesting ones too. (Hidden talents and surprising hobbies of modern-day prophets)  They also have family and church responsibilities, yet they make the time to enjoy some of what life has to offer. Ecclesiastes 3:1 is a famous verse and it does say there is a time for everything, and that should include a bit of rest and relaxation.

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

The fact that you care so much about the health and welfare of your wife to even ask the question about hobbies shows where your heart is. As long as your are not neglecting your work, church and home responsibilities you should feel no guilt whatsoever in it.

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

Answer

Dear Trish,

Your original response, “I just don’t believe it” is more than an ample reply.

The Lord guided Joseph Smith in translating the Bible. When he came to the Apocrypha (those books of the Bible that are included in the Catholic canon but not the Protestant) he was told not to bother with an inspired translation because right alongside the “many things contained therein that are true” could be found “many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.” (D&C 91:1-2). Much the same can be said of these so-called “lost books” of the Bible. They contain many truths and stories that ring true for Latter-day Saints in particular, but there are also a great many questionable accounts. “Infancy gospels” are among the worst offenders.

The authors of the Gospels place a reverent hush over the early life of our Savior, except to tell the account of His birth, His temple visit at age 12, and a passing mention that He “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” (Luke 2:52). It could be that rearing the Savior was a sacred experience that led Mary to frequent pondering. Or it could have been akin to rearing a boy destined to open a new dispensation. Lucy Mack Smith described Joseph Smith’s youth in disappointing terms. “It is thought by some that I shall be likely to tell many very remarkable incidents which attended his childhood; but, as nothing occurred during his early life except those trivial circumstances which are common to that state of human existence, I pass them in silence.” (“The Revised and Enhanced History of Joseph Smith by His Mother”, page 93).

Opportunists abhor a vacuum, so records emerged after the first apostles died. 50 years or more after the Gospel of John was written (which says nothing of the infancy of Jesus, those Gospels which do (Matthew and Luke) date even earlier) we begin to find reference to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of James (the actual documents themselves are much later, but this tells us that some of the contents were in circulation earlier). Later, another text gains popularity and is quoted by Jerome.  This is known as Pseudo-Matthew and borrows heavily from the other Infancy Gospels.

The James account describes the miraculous conception, and adds to it a miraculous birth (turning the cave into a temple with the “luminous cloud” of the shekinah and a bright light attending the birth). An angelic attendant encourages a doubting midwife to handle the infant as a cure. The story of the wise men is also affirmed. Other stories included in this text revolve around the birth and later marriage of Mary, and the the birth of John the Baptist with some miracles performed in his favor. Some of the content may be dubious, but overall it is faith-affirming.

The Thomas account tells of a 5-year old damming a stream to make clay birds. When a kerfluffle is stirred up over the child fashioning clay on the Sabbath, Jesus brings the birds to life and they fly away. Another boy destroys the dam so naturally Jesus curses him as He will the fig tree in the future. The boy withers and dies and the parents are quite distraught. On another occasion a boy hit Jesus’ shoulder and also suddenly found himself dead. When the neighborhood raised a fuss, they were all struck blind at Jesus’ word. Jesus is then taken to school where He is to learn His letters, but already He is a master! When His teacher admits that Jesus is His superior, the child laughed and finally released the town of their blindness. This experience proved a turning point for Jesus as He now started using His power for good. A child fell off a roof and died. Child Jesus raised him back to life (primarily to prove to others that He didn’t push the other child). Another person died from a self-inflicted axe-wound and Jesus raised him back to life. Then at the age of 6 (I’m sure you thought I had jumped ahead by now, but I’m still following the text’s chronology) Jesus went to fetch water and broke the pitcher when He bumped into someone else. Rather than cursing the other person to death (my, what growth we’re seeing), He filled his cloak with water and was able to fetch the same amount that the pitcher held. At 8 He plants and harvests a supernatural amount of grain to support the poor of the village and His family. He fixes Joseph’s carpentry blunders by elongating boards. In the course of performing other chores, He heals His brother James of a poisonous snake bite. Other accounts of His difficulty with teachers and of raising the dead are also included. Finally, the 12-year old Jesus is taken to the temple and that familiar story is told.

The Pseudo-Matthew account  combines the two and adds in other Gospel stories. Like the James account, it includes the miraculous conception and birth, complete with angelic attendant and doubting midwife. It inserts the testimonies of Simeon and Anna in the temple before moving on to the story of the wise men. A new story is introduced here about how beasts obey little 2-year old Jesus (“dragons”, lions, panthers, wolves, and other beasts). When Mary desires the fruit of a palm tree, at Jesus’ request it bends down to give her fruit and its roots share water with the travelling party. In return, an angel honors the tree by planting a branch in Paradise. Jesus then shortens the 30 day trip to a single day. Having arrived at Egypt, the idols fell down at His feet and the locals took that as a sign that this child is God of gods. The family returns to Galilee and here the text picks up the Thomas account. Jesus dams a part of the river to make pools for his clay birds. A child breaks the dam and Jesus curses him with death. This version of the story softens it by having Jesus raise the boy back to life at His parents’ request. Now 4, Jesus has His first trouble with teachers, and is told that He is already a master. Moving to Nazareth, we come across the story of the boy who falls off a roof and vindicates Jesus after getting brought back to life. At 6, Jesus miraculously fetches the water with His cloak and has the supernatural harvest. At 8 He parts the Jordan and crosses with docile lions. Once again, we have Jesus elongating a board to fix Joseph’s carpentry. Some time later (the timeline is no longer clear here, and we don’t have the temple scene to ground us relative to his 13th year) they move to Capernaum and raised a certain Joseph (who was wealthy) back to life. Then moving to Bethlehem, we have again the story of Jesus healing James of a viper bite. One additional mention of His youth was that Jesus led the prayers when it was time to eat, and the family would wait if He was delayed so He could offer the prayer.

Pseudo-Matthew seems to be trying to reconcile the various Infancy accounts that were available, while softening the heresy in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It is a mixed bag that needs a heavy dose of “enlighten[ment] by the Spirit” to “obtain benefit therefrom.” (D&C 91:5). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas seems to assume that Christ, as “God with us”, was fully charged with divine power at the moment of birth. It approaches the childhood of Jesus as a god learning to control his power. This stands in stark contrast with the testimony of Luke, who says that Jesus grew “in favour with God”, and with the testimony of His cousin John, who says Jesus “received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness.” (D&C 93:13).

Elder Talmage, agrees that much of the filler concerning Jesus’ childhood is uninspired (and uninformed) nonsense. “The silence with which the early period of the life of Jesus is treated by the inspired historians is impressive; while the fanciful accounts written in later years by unauthorized hands are full of fictitious detail, much of which is positively revolting in its puerile inconsistency…. Inventive writers would have supplied, as, later, such did supply, what we seek in vain within the chapters of the Gospels. With hallowed silence do the inspired scribes honor the boyhood of their Lord; he who seeks to invent circumstances and to invest the life of Christ with fictitious additions, dishonors Him.” (“Jesus the Christ”, chapter 9:The Boy of Nazareth). As I read this, I hear your words echo, “I just don’t believe it.”

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

Answer

Hello Xtian,

In our New Testament the Lord provided this truth for our profit and learning, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3) This scripture highlights the relationship between “knowing” (an element of true conversion) and our ability to receive “eternal life.” The attribute of knowing is what we would define as a testimony. Elder David A. Bednar provided additional information regarding the fundamental components of having a testimony, “Fundamental components of a testimony are knowing that Heavenly Father lives and loves us, that Jesus Christ is our Savior, and that the fulness of the gospel has been restored to the earth in these latter days.” In our modern day, three fundamental principles/doctrines of truth are necessary for true conversion and for us to obtain eternal life:

1) The knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves us
2) The knowledge that Jesus Christ lives and is our Savior
3) The knowledge that the gospel of Jesus Christ is once again restored

Elder David A. Bednar elaborates further on how our testimony will lead to true conversion and how being truly converted will cause us to never fall away, “The essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ entails a fundamental and permanent change in our very nature made possible through the Savior’s Atonement. True conversion brings a change in one’s beliefs, heart, and life to accept and conform to the will of God (see Acts 3:19; 3 Nephi 9:20) and includes a conscious commitment to become a disciple of Christ.” In the Pearl of Great Price we are informed that Abraham understood the correlation between our testimony (to know Heavenly Father and to know Jesus Christ) and true conversation when it is said, “And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge” (Abraham 1:2)

One of the fundamental elements of true conversion, induced by our testimonies, is the willing heart and mind that “seeks” after the Lord and his righteousness. Truly, if every year, every month, every week, every day, every hour, and every minute we were seeking a permanent change to our very nature through the Savior’s Atonement, would we ever fall away? The answer is apparent, no we would not fall away. We would gain knowledge. We would then repent and become even a greater follower of righteousness. This aspect of testimony (knowledge) and change (repentance) is emphasized in the “Tree of Life” vision as given by Lehi and Nephi in the Book of Mormon.

1) We are first surrounded by a mist of darkness (any trial, any weakness of flesh)
2) We pray for mercy (Ether 12:27)
3) Darkness is dispersed and we behold a “rod of iron”, or if we grab we gain knowledge (our testimony is increased)
4) We then partake of the fruit, or the love of God, which is manifest in God’s grace (the Atonement)

This cycle of our testimony increasing and a change of heart and mind (true conversion) is repeated again, and again, and again, until one day we will know Christ because we have become like him. This is highlighted at the end of the Book of Mormon when Moroni said, “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.” (Moroni 10:32)

Elder Bednar provides the same witness, the same knowledge, with different words, “Conversion is an enlarging, a deepening, and a broadening of the undergirding base of testimony. It is the result of revelation from God, accompanied by individual repentance, obedience, and diligence. Any honest seeker of truth can become converted by experiencing the mighty change of heart and being spiritually born of God (see Alma 5:12–14). As we honor the ordinances and covenants of salvation and exaltation (see D&C 20:25), “press forward with a steadfastness in Christ” (2 Nephi 31:20), and endure in faith to the end (see D&C 14:7), we become new creatures in Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:17). Conversion is an offering of self, of love, and of loyalty we give to God in gratitude for the gift of testimony.” Or, as simply put as Abraham, I desired to be obedient. I desired to possess greater knowledge. I desired to be a greater follower of righteousness. If we endure to the end (persistence and patience) with this mentality, this desire, this motivation, indeed, like those in the Book of Mormon, we would never fall away.

How then are we truly converted if we disobey God either from willful disobedience or personal weakness? Nephi’s words seem to properly address this question, “And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.” (2 Nephi 4:19) Our personal weakness will be shown as we come unto Christ. Our personal weakness doesn’t mean we are not truly converted. Our personal choices, when shown our weaknesses (Ether 12:27) determine if we are truly converted or not. God already knew we would disobey, and thus a Savior was provided that we might be brought back into our Heavenly Father’s presence. These are individuals who have removed themselves from the fold and are now foreigners and strangers; they have estranged themselves from the blessings of the Atonement.

Your last question is addressed by this verse, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” True conversion is personal and it involves our relationship with Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ; however, if we are truly converted then others will see that we are converted because our works will glorify our Father in heaven, and our works can indeed be measured (Matthew 25:32-40). In saying this though, it is not others that determine if we are converted, only God knows our full commitment, because he knows our heart and our mind.

Gramps