Posted on 08/10/2002 5:45:29 PM PDT by JMJ333
**Note: it is difficult to outline any summary of Balthasar's thought, especially given the sheer magnitude of the Trilogy (15 volumes, each of which is over--often well over--300 pages!), not to mention the many other works which serve to elucidate and expand the central themes of the Trilogy itself thus the following is a rather selective survey of the Balthasarian corpus some themes are entirely passed over and others receive only scant attention .
Let’s return, then, to the basic problem of being which Balthasar sees as fundamental to human thought and philosophy. In particular let’s consider the problem of the One and Many which he sees as solved only in the revelation of the Triune God in the person of Christ in whom the concrete and the universal are joined.
The Problem of Being
Balthasar outlines three basic approaches that non-Christian philosophies have taken to the problem of being. First, there is pagan polytheism. Balthasar sees polytheism as essentially mythical. Myth functions to bring the transcendent into contact with our concrete world, representing, therefore, the immanence of the divine within the world or of the general within the particular. But in doing this the transcendent is reduced to the finite and becomes subject to human manipulation through magic.
Christ alone is the true myth, affirming that God may indeed be known in and through the world (true immanence) and yet is also truly transcendent and utterly distinct from any created thing. The formulation of Chalcedon affirms this and furthermore t hat Christ is no mere particular but a unique totality expressed concretely.
Second, there is mystical monism. Balthasar sees the reaction against polytheism in systems which posit the existence of a Unity, a transcendent "One." A version of monism is that of Buddhism and eastern thought which see this world as esse ntially maya, an illusion, leading to suffering due the failure to fulfill illusory desire. Only by setting aside such false desire and this illusory world do we arrive at the real, at nirvana—that is, nothingness. Balthasar notes that thi s is unsatisfactory since it cannot account for the origin of the illusion or why it causes us to suffer or why we suffer if suffering itself is an illusion. Moreover, its way of "salvation" is merely a kind of spiritual euthanasia.
The other version of the One is that of neo-Platonism which follows the via negativa, ascending to God by setting aside this world and its categories. This too is unsatisfactory since in the movement of the Many into the One, we are left withou t explanation of why the Many have arisen. Also it denies its own starting point in this world in order to solve the problem of this world. We are left, therefore, with a reality that is ultimately impersonal.
Third, there is Hegelian dialectics. This too is problematic since it denies the true transcendence of God since God needs the universe in order to express Himself as truly God. If that is the case, however. then God is not God. Furthermore, in Hegelianism the individual is sublimated within the Absolute and any individuality that is possible is only by a relation to the Other, but a relation in which the Other is reduced to a means of self-realization rather than an end in itself. Finally, Hegel is cheap on human suffering and death, turning them into a mere speculative necessity for some kind of negativity within the self-realization of Absolute Spirit.
Thus the choices we are left with are atheism (in its Buddhist, Platonic, or Hegelian versions) or Christ. All of the atheisms are essentially world denying, seeking for a solution a transcendent Nothing. Even Marxism places salvation in an ever post poned future. But in Christ the various antinomies of non-Christian thought are resolved.
Christ is both the eternal Logos and the eternally elected Man. He is God in human flesh. And this reality finds its origin in the life of the Trinity in whom Father, Son, and Spirit have eternally existed. Thus Otherness and difference are not exclu ded from ultimate reality. Since the Father has eternally been with the Son, Otherness has positive value and is the condition of possibility for the creation of a world which is not merely a falling away from the One or an accident of primordial violence, but is truly real in itself. Nor is the world a necessary self-realization of God’s own Absolute Being, for the infinite "space" of love between the Father and Son is already filled by the Spirit and it is into this "space" that the world is inserted.
So it is this Triune God, revealed in Christ, that is the solution to the problem of being—being which is beautiful, good, and true.
A Preliminary Overview
With these points in mind we can turn to Balthasar’s main aesthetic contention—God is supreme Beauty, who dwells in inaccessible light and has revealed Himself, become visible, in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ. It is of the essence of Christian faith to fix our eyes upon Jesus and in Him see the glory of the Father. Balthasar points to 1 John 1:1-2:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life, the Life made manifest and which we have seen and to which we bear witness and declare to you that eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested to us…
Of course, this is for us, to a certain degree, metaphorical "sight" since the theological organ of perception is faith, not sight, and faith comes by hearing.
Along with Balthasar’s love of music and musical metaphors, this explains his emphasis on hearing the Word of God and perceiving His glory by the "eyes of faith." Faith, after all, involves surrender and hearing is the perceptual mode of surrender. S ight, on the other hand, involves dominance and distance. He writes:
The eye is the organ with which the world is possessed and dominated… Through the eye the world is our world, in which we are not lost; rather, it is subordinate to us as an immeasurable dwelling space with which we are familiar. The other side of this material function denotes distance, separateness…Hearing is a wholly different, almost opposite mode of the revelation of reality…It is not objects we hear—in the dark, when it is not possible to see—but their utterances and communications. Theref ore it is not we ourselves who determine on our part what is heard and place it before us as an object in order to turn our attention to it when it pleases us. That which is heard comes upon us without our being informed of its coming in advance. It lays hold of us without our being asked…The basic relationship between the one who hears and that which is heard is thus one of defenselessness on the one side and of communication on the other…The hearer belongs to the other and obeys him.
According Balthasar, despite the biblical emphasis on glory seen by the eyes of faith, the aesthetic dimension of theology has been gradually purged from western theology, both Protestant and Catholic. His seven-volume Herrlichkeit is an attemp t to compensate for that loss.
The first volume, Seeing the Form, defines the general scope, method, and purpose of the volumes and includes a general discussion of what Balthasar calls the "form" or "Gestalt" of the Lord Christ. Volumes two and three (which I will la rgely pass over here since they are nearly impossible to summarize) are the unfolding of historical examples of this aesthetic form as it is explicated by the early medievals (volume two: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Styles) and by modern poets and lay thinkers (Lay Styles; a few of whom are not "lay" at all, but did lie outside of the mainstream of the Church). Included are folks such as Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Anselm, Bonaventure (in volume two) and Dante, John of the Cross , Pascal, Hopkins, and others (in volume three). Volumes four and five undertake to examine the larger metaphysical context in which the form of Christ appeared (volume four: The Realm of Metaphysics in Antiquity) and in which it now cannot appear (volume five: The Realm of Metaphysics in the Modern Age). Some of his insights here have already been sketched in my earlier comments. Volumes six and seven deal with the theology of the Old and New Covenants, respectively, examining such issue s as their interrelation, how the New fulfills the Old, the glory of God in Old Covenant theophanies and the glory of Christ’s sufferings in the New Covenant.
Form and Faith
The fundamental idea of the aesthetics is relatively simple: in the Incarnation the very form (Gestalt) of God was definitively revealed providing a measure by which every other form is to be measured. This revelation, contrary to the practical elaboration of it in modern theology, is not merely a pointer to so mething beyond itself, but rather a manifestation of the form of Beauty itself in Christ.
But Balthasar’s aesthetics is not the subjectivism of 18th century aesthetic theory with its focus on the acts of perceiving that project one’s own interiority upon the object, leading to a beauty perceived within the self. Rather Balthasar ’s focus is on glory of the object itself apprehended by faith. For Balthasar the illumination that produces faith is itself an aesthetic act. The very object of faith itself—Jesus Christ—draws the beholder providing its own interior light. God Himself is the light by which we apprehend Him by faith.
Thus faith cannot be theorized in a narrowly intellectualistic or propositional fashion, simply as a "believing that" or as the acceptance of a set of facts. More so it involves a receptivity to the object of faith whereby one is so impressed b y it that faith necessarily ensues in obedience. Here Mary is the model in her "fiat" to God’s word—an active receptivity analogous to the receptivity of the womb.
This, in turn, raises questions as to the relation between faith and reason. Balthasar uses marital imagery, proposing that reason—womb-like—gives itself to faith to be made fruitful, not arguing itself into faith but allowing faith to come to fulfill ment within it. He rejects an apologetic approach that either, on one hand, appeals to the objectivity of historical events as pointers to divine realities or, on the other, maintains a fideistic approach that begins with human subjectivity. He writes:
For [apologetics] the heart of the matter should be the question: "How does God’s revelation confront man in history? How is it perceived?" But under the influence of a modern rationalistic concept of science, the question shifted ever more from its pr oper center to the margin, to be restated in this manner: "Here we encounter a man who claims to be God, and who, on the basis of this claim, demands that we should believe many truths he utters which cannot be verified by reason. What basis acceptable to reason can we give to his authoritative claims?" Anyone asking the question in this way has really already forfeited an answer, because he is at once enmeshed in an insoluble dilemma…Christ cannot be considered one "sign" among others…the dimmest idea of what a form is should serve as a warming against such leveling.
Jesus is the objective manifestation of God but reason, on its own, cannot see this, according to Baltahsar. God’s grace is necessary and by it reason is drawn into faith wherein it can see what is objectively there to be seen—that is, the revelation of God. Seeing and believing are complementary.
To put it another way, reason is necessary to seeing, but for the revelation to be truly seen, the revelation itself must enlighten the viewer to itself by grace. So faith is not merely subjective since it is not the believer who makes a leap, but ins tead it is the object of faith that draws the believer to Himself by His form of beauty.
According to Balthasar the experience of faith and the assurance or certainty of salvation (especially as that was posed by Luther) are closely related. While faith is something that is experienced, it is not the experience of faith itself in an intro spective and experiential fashion that gives assurance. Rather by faith we know Christ and the power of His resurrection and press on to the goal—it is in the receptive movement of faith towards its object that assurance is possessed, but this is a moveme nt that turns away from the self, towards Christ, and is grasped by Him.
Another emphasis of Balthasar is the materiality of Christian faith. It is not a pure mysticism or non-physical thing since God is revealed in the cosmos and, ultimately, in the Incarnation. He even maintains that in the eschaton the Beatific Vision will be mediated through the humanity of Christ. Moreover, while our awareness of God in the creation has been marred by sin, in Christ it is possible to begin to restore the materiality of God’s presence. This is seen foremost in the actions of the sacr aments by which Christ makes Himself present, in a sexuality that is transformed from egoistic self-gratification into self-offering love, and in the self-sacrificial love for the neighbor in deeds of service.
It follows from Balthasar’s emphasis on the materiality of faith that the mystical contemplation of God (the awareness of His presence) is inextricably tied to a life of activity. It must leave behind any world-denying Platonistic notions in favor a G od who is active in history culminating in the paschal mystery of Christ. So Bultmann’s demythologization is a gnostic attempt separate faith from history which ends up positing a transcendence that reintroduces the very mythological assumptions that the Incarnation had put to rest.
Balthasar goes on to examine the specific form that the beautiful revelation of God takes in Christ. Jesus demands faith in Himself as the historical form of the eternal God, who in His divinity has universal significance and who, in His humanity, is conditioned by historical contingency. Nevertheless, Christ is the express image of the Father, revealing the very form of the Trinitarian life of God in contrast to all religions which posit God as a formless One.
The work of Christ, says Balthasar, is the living exegesis of the Father since Christ’s existence as Son consists in His obedience at every moment actualizing the immediate will of the Father. Moreover, Christ draws us into this work by union with Him . He writes:
By his prayer and his suffering the Son brings his disciples—and through them, all mankind—into the interior space of the Trinity.
This form of God, though within time and history, is the utterly unique measure of relationship between God and man. Yet merely empirical and purportedly neutral scientific methods, with their suspension of judgment, cannot see this form for what it i s. That is only possible with the eyes of faith and an openness to the obedience the form demands from faith.
Old and New Covenant
In the final two volumes of the aesthetics Balthasar examines the definitive revelation of beauty—the glory of God revealed in Christ—as that is authoritatively given to us in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The work of God as Creator is fulfilled in the work of God as Redeemer and so it is the creation itself which becomes of the means of God’s redemptive revelation. Human language, thought, actions, and the like are the very forms of God’s sel f-expression to us and so the form of revelation and the act of revelation are not to be separated.
According to Balthasar the Hebrew Scriptures in themselves are a puzzle, a promise pointing to a future that has not yet arrived. It is only in the light of the revelation in Christ that the OT makes sense. He writes:
The essential point is that Israel as a whole and existentially is an image and figure which cannot interpret itself.
The Old Testament poses the following problem: on one hand, God, who is faithful to His Word, the very Word by which the world was made, has called a people to Himself by mighty acts manifesting His glory. On the other hand, how can God remain faithfu l to His word in light of His glorious holiness when His people keep breaking the covenant He has established?
This Old Testament covenantal dynamic is seen in the increasing participation of Israel in the sphere of divine holiness (e.g., consider the 70 elders in the Pentateuch in contrast to Zechariah’s vision of the outpoured Spirit). At the same time, howe ver, the mighty acts of God, the evidence of the presence of His glory, become increasingly less prominent and more concealed (e.g., consider the deliverance of Israel in the Exodus as opposed to that which God worked through Esther). God presents Himsel f as ever more incomprehensible, yet, paradoxically, Israel is never surer of her God than when she seems to be forsaken by Him in exile.
The Old Testament leaves off with a fragmentary picture without any form by which the fragments may be brought together. Only with the revelation of Christ is a form given by which the Old Testament may be understood. Balthasar writes:
The individual forms which Israel established in the course of her history converge together upon a point that remains open and that cannot be calculated ahead of time on their basis of their convergence or their mutual relationship, especially since t hey stand in opposition to one another so often.
The revelation of Christ, therefore, is a manifestation of God’s glory that can embrace even the seemingly contradictory fragments of the Old Testament and this glory was ultimately revealed in Christ’s obedience even unto death on a Cross, in the ingl orious form of a slave. The power of God was manifest in powerlessness. This revelation is totally unexpected, beyond what could possibly be imagined.
First, however, is Christ’s claim for Himself not as One who merely points to a way to God but who is Himself the Way. Jesus brings people to crisis by His authority, by forcing the issue of the people’s acceptance or rejection of Him. His pre sence and questions make others transparent to themselves for this is the presence of One who is transparent to Himself. Jesus is therefore announcing Himself as God’s definitive Word.
In contrast to His authority, however, Jesus is also the one who became poor for our sakes and this theme of poverty can be seen in relation to three areas: prayer, the Holy Spirit, and faith. In regard to prayer we see Jesus offering Himself up to th e Father in Gethsemane. But in the "Our Father" that is given to us to pray we also have a similar model of humility before God and complete reliance upon Him (consider the petitions).
Jesus is also supremely gifted with the Spirit by whom He was conceived, who descended upon His in baptism, and so on. Yet Jesus not so much possesses the Spirit, but rather yields completely to the Spirit to be possessed by Him—from being driv en into the desert of temptation to finally offering Himself to God upon the cross through the eternal Spirit (Heb 9:14). By this total surrender to the Spirit He is able to give that same Spirit to us.
Balthasar, interestingly, also presents Jesus as a Man of faith—one who surrenders Himself to God in trusting perseverance, not by His own initiative, but in response to the prior faithfulness of the Father who, in grace, had chosen Him. Thereby Jesus is the "pioneer and perfecter of faith" (Heb 12:2), fulfilling the faith of Abraham even to the faithful obedience of the Cross, where, forsaken of God, He could only live by faith and not by sight. Jesus, therefore, is not merely a model of faith, but by our Baptism we are engrafted into the very faithfulness of Christ—Jesus believes in us so that we too believe and, in the work of faith, like Him, surrender ourselves to the Father.
Above all, however, it is the Johannine vision of Christ that most intrigues Balthasar: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). But fo r John, the cross and the glorification of Christ are inseparable realities—coming from the Father, the Son’s whole life is one of glorifying the Father through obedience moving relentlessly toward his "hour" of glorification in powerlessness upon the Cross.
It is in the formless, the deformity (Ungestalt), of the Cross that the very form of God’s glory (Ubergestalt) is revealed as the boundless, self-giving love that characterizes the very life of the Trinity. This form of glory unseats all worldly aesthetics and all classical notions of beauty as proportion and harmony, making way for a new theological understanding of beauty in the Trinitarian dynamic of cruciform love seen by the eyes of faith. And that is the fundamental point that Bal thasar expresses in his aesthetics.
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
OLIVER COWDERY
DAVID WHITMER
MARTIN HARRIS
From your "LDS Scriptures" page that you posted. You know, where you said "if it ain't here, we don't believe it." Well it was there, so I suppose that this is what Mormonism teaches, huh? Sounds like standard trinitariainism doctrine.
So, do you believe the Bold part as written, WM. Or is it necessary to explain this statement away?
Hey, PM, did any of these guys ever recant their "testimony?"
Also, their trinitarianism seems pretty standard, doesn't it?
---
Let me add this one to your post.
That's standard trinitarianism
But just when you think that mormonism teaches standard trinitatianism they teach this:
26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
31 And he said: An angel• hath made them known unto me.
32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
33 And he said unto him, Yea.
34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in• their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word.
35 Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not• save his people—as though he had authority to command God.
36 Now Amulek saith again unto him: Behold thou hast lied•, for thou sayest that I spake as though I had authority to command God because I said he shall not save his people in their sins.
37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins•; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no• unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal• Father of heaven and of earth, and all• things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
Sounds like "JesusONLYism" to me.
Anyway WM. What is the official position of the LDS Church. Is it that taught in the introduction to the Book of Mormon? Is it that taught by "Zeezrom" in the Book of mormon, or is it something taught by one of your latter day "prophets'?
Also, if there are many Gods and that God is only one of a gazillion Gods in the universe, how do you explain what your prophet Zeezrom had to say on the subject?
One day all Mormons will find out it just isn't so. Either the Father will call you out of the LDS darkness or He will leave you in your ruin and you will ackwnowledge the truth at the end.
In the LDS understanding you have a better chance to be called out of darkness and learn of him for even in the Spirit World you are still learning:)
Needs further study. All I know is that the LDS Church does not teach many of the doctrines taught in the BOM. And doctrines like Plural Marriage, the Temple Ceremonies, Plurality of Gods in the Universe, Baptism for the dead-- basically every unique Mormon Doctrine is NOT found in the Book of Mormon.
I guess it is the same silly way that Paul explained it.
"As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
BTW- Did protestant reformers forget to tell Paul there is one God only? The man seems confused here, One God and One Lord, kinda sounds like two here.
So, how does Paul explain this? All his life he worshiped One God. Then he became a Christian and had a God and a Lord.
Oh, and what about the Holy Ghost? Don't you think a strict trinitarian like Paul (yes, this is sarcasm) would be cautious enough to at least mention him in a "gods and lords" context?
From your reading of the Book of Mormon, it seems to me that the LDS are more trinitarian than Paul.
***************************************************************************
2 Ne. 31: 21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away•; and there is none• other way nor cname given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine• of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. That's standard trinitarianism
But just when you think that mormonism teaches standard trinitatianism they teach this:
*************************
Sounds like "JesusONLYism" to me. Anyway WM. What is the official position of the LDS Church. Is it that taught in the introduction to the Book of Mormon? Is it that taught by "Zeezrom" in the Book of mormon, or is it something taught by one of your latter day "prophets'? Also, if there are many Gods and that God is only one of a gazillion Gods in the universe, how do you explain what your prophet Zeezrom had to say on the subject?
***
WHAT DOES THE SCRIPTURES REALLY SAY?
THE SECOND BOOK OF NEPHI
CHAPTER 31
Nephi tells why Christ was baptized—Men must follow Christ, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end to be saved—Repentance and baptism are the gate to the strait and narrow path—Eternal life comes to those who keep the commandments after baptism. [Between 559 and 545 B.C.] 1 AND now I, Nephi, make an end of my prophesying unto you, my beloved brethren. And I cannot write but a few things, which I know must surely come to pass; neither can I write but a few of the words of my brother Jacob.
2 Wherefore, the things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I must speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying.
3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.
4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.
5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.
9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.
10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?
11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.
12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.
13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.
14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.
15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.
16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.
17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost. 18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
NOW THE LORD I KNOW SPEAKS PLAINLY! MORE OF WHAT THE SCRIPTURES REALLY SAY~
***
Luke 9:
26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.
John 5:
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
John 17:
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be bone, as we are.
6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.
10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement•—
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
3 Ne. 1:
13 Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets.
14 Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh. And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given.
15 And it came to pass that the words which came unto Nephi were fulfilled, according as they had been spoken; for behold, at the going down of the sun there was no darkness; and the people began to be astonished because there was no darkness when the night came.
16 And there were many, who had not believed the words of the prophets, who fel to the earth and became as if they were dead, for they knew that the great plan of destruction which they had laid for those who believed in the words of the prophets had been frustrated; for the sign which had been given was already at hand.
17 And they began to know that the Son of God must shortly appear; yea, in fine, all the people upon the face of the whole earth from the west to the east, both in the land north and in the land south, were so exceedingly astonished that they fell to the earth. Rom. 8:
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Hebrew 7
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
in·ter·ces·sion n. 1. Entreaty in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another. 2. Mediation in a dispute. –inter·cession·al adj
by S. M. Berry
You're having a conversation with Mandie, a slender, attractive young woman. It's a casual chat about nothing in particular between friends. You take out a package of cigarettes and immediately sense a change, as if the atoms in the oxygen around you were slowing slightly. Perhaps you hear an electrical snap, the kind of sound you hear when the air is charged with static electricity and you flip on a light switch. Your friend's body twitches slightly and her demeanor changes. Shoulders square, she puts her feet flat on the floor and assumes an instinctively masculine pose. Bracing her hands on her knees, she leans toward you, and says in a voice that has dropped two octaves, "Excuse me, ma'am. I really favor those cigarettes you got there. Mind if I have one? I'd be most beholdin' to you." Mandie is gone. Brent has popped in, literally. Perhaps you and Mandie are walking from your car to the grocery store. As you cross the parking lot her gait abruptly changes. Her steps are smaller, slower, clumsier. She grabs your hand and says, "This is a really big street with cars on it. We got to hold hands and look both ways." Little Emily has bumped Mandie.
Mind bending experiences, unless you live with someone who has multiple personalities, in which case they are everyday occurrences. For half a year I shared my home with Mandie, who in turn shared one body with forty-five "others" that she called the Insiders. Mandie herself was in her late twenties, single, of Amerasian heritage, while the Insiders ran the gamut from a crayon eating six year old girl named Emily to a rugged cowboy, Brent, who strove at all times to be gentlemanly. There was hard drinking Fayette, a true honky tonk woman, and Bull, with big muscles, a small brain and a heart of gold. Vera was a white witch who made "inside magic", a sweet natured woman who was all thumbs when dealing with the material world. Sam began as some type of indeterminate animal, then blossomed into a full human being, naming himself the acronym of my maiden name. Living with them forced me to re-examine my easy acceptance of psychiatric dogma and challenged my concepts about Self and Soul.
Modern psychiatry categorizes multiple personality disorder (MPD) as a "hysterical neurosis". It is often misdiagnosed as schizophrenia because auditory hallucinations -- such as hearing voices -- are common to both conditions. One psychiatric authority cites certain types of auditory hallucinations, for example, hearing a running commentary on the patient's actions or of voices talking about the person, which are strongly suggestive of schizophrenia. At the same time, DSM-III-R, the psychiatric trade manual that lists and describes all recognized mental and psychological disorders, says of MPD: "One or more of the personalities may be aware of hearing or having heard the voices of the other personalities." Another symptom common to both is failure to coordinate internal drives. Certainly several personalities in one body disagreeing with one another would appear to be a failure to coordinate internal drives. A key differentiating factor between MPD and schizophrenia, at least in terms of initial diagnosis, is losing time, having no memory of things that occur while an alter personality is in charge of the body. MPD is also associated with severe trauma during childhood, usually sexual and physical abuse; to cope with abuse, the child withdraws and allows another consciousness to absorb the pain. With repeated trauma, the integrated personality becomes splintered and the protective consciousnesses take on lives of their own.
So goes the orthodox theory. The problem is that this answer raises more questions. Why don't all victims of child abuse develop MPD? And how do we explain MPD in people who were not abused or otherwise traumatized as children? Is this truly a mental illness, or is it a condition that is brought to the attention of mental health professionals because one or more of the alter personalities is dysfunctional or psychotic, prompting inappropriate generalizations to be applied to an entire group? I think of this as the Neanderthal error. The first remains of a Neanderthal found by anthropologists were those of a man who had been crippled by arthritis. His hunched back and bent arms and legs were presumed to be the norm for all Neanderthals for many years, a misconception that persists to this day in our images of "cavemen". DSM-III-R notes that, "[r]ecent reports suggest that this disorder is not nearly so rare as it has commonly been thought to be." Could it be that there are actually many people with multiple personalities living productive lives, with no history of abuse and no psychotic alter egos? And if that is the case, how did they get to be the way they are? What is the true nature of Self, and what is its relationship to Soul?
One of the greatest sources of spiritual understanding was Edgar Cayce, the Sleeping Prophet of Virginia Beach. In his readings Cayce did not directly address the issue of multiple personalities, though he spoke of discarnate entities who can possess the body of a living person, and discussed as well the impact of past lives on the life currently being lived. These encompass the primary spiritual theories regarding MPD. One theory holds that MPD is caused by spirits -- not necessarily benevolent ones at that -- taking over a person's body. (The currently used term for this is spirit attachment.) The Bible recounts several stories of people possessed by demons, and Jesus healed such a man, who when asked his name replied, "My name is Legion, for we are many." The other MPD theory is that past life personalities usually merged within the sum total of who we each are have splintered and re-established themselves as individuals. This theory suggests a physical predisposition as the cause of the splintering; in other words, some people are just born that way.
Of the forty-five Insiders, one stood discordantly apart and made a strong case for spirit attachment. Phantom was the embodiment of rage and self-hate. Mandie, and for that matter any of the Insiders who might be out at the time, could sense his coming the way we can feel a powerful summer storm building on the horizon. They feared Phantom, with good reason, and seemed powerless to stop him. Phantom came at weak moments and launched attacks on the body, muttering that it was "dead meat", burning it with cigarettes or lighters, or hacking at Mandie's wrists with kitchen knives or broken glass. During these attacks he was absolutely focused on harming the body, and although he never attacked anyone else, physically subduing him in these situations was dangerous. Several Insiders tried to set up defenses against Phantom, particularly Brent, Bull and another who called himself Gatekeeper, but they were rarely successful. While those Insiders who discussed the subject had confidence that each of them had a soul, they were equally certain that Phantom did not. (This is a measure of the distance and difference they felt toward Phantom.) They described him as a shadow, a reflection of something substantial that no longer had substance but regained terrible power whenever he overtook the body. Donna was an Insider who embodied all that is maternal and nurturing and who practiced the philosophy that it is better to say nothing than to speak ill of someone else. Even she complained about Phantom, noting that it was bad enough that they all had to share one body and then had to contend with him trying to kill it. To his credit, I suppose, once subdued, Phantom would leave when told to do so. The problem was that he kept coming back. He was an outsider among the Insiders.
But what of the rest of the Insiders? Were they a cluster of essentially benevolent spirits taking turns possessing Mandie's body or were they more deeply rooted within Mandie? Did they have individual souls, or did they and Mandie share the same Oversoul? Although many of the Insiders were fragmentary personalities with limited memory and ability to interact with the outside world, some were full, well rounded and yes, well balanced individuals. I found myself relating to them individually, finding a greater sense of familiarity with some than with others, the feeling that I had known certain Insiders before. My own experiences with past life recall served as a frame of reference, even though I did not consciously set out in that direction. The personalities of those I have been are an integral part of who I am now; those whose experiences lie at the heart of lessons I am learning (or re-learning) in this life have been spilling into my consciousness since childhood.
Sarah comes first to mind because her memories came first to consciousness in this life. She was a slave in antebellum Virginia who escaped to the north via the Underground Railroad, gaining her freedom but at the cost of leaving behind her children. During my earliest years, Sarah would look for them through my eyes, jolting both of us when we would catch a glimpse of the body in the mirror. Expecting black skin, brown eyes, black hair, we saw instead the opposite, fair skin, blue eyes, blond hair. I would stare at the image and repeat my name aloud until I felt that I came back together. Perhaps that sounds strange, but it worked. Gradually Sarah found her own place as a part of me, though one from which I draw in meeting today's challenges. Gaius is another past life personality within me whom I deeply feel. A lawyer during the demise of the Roman Republic, he saw what was happening and did nothing. Gaius' inaction was rooted in a desire to protect his personal status quo, and by the time Julius Caesar was assassinated it was too little, too late. The sense of sadness that descends over me every March 15 originates in Gaius. It is unlikely that he could have changed the course of history and saved the Roman Republic, but he never even tried, and that is the lesson brought into this life. There are others as well, ranging from resonant tones of remembrance reverberating through the core of being to wispy, fleeting fragments prompted by a breeze, a sunset, a scent that stirs memory.
What sets apart my past life personalities from Mandie's Insiders (with the notable exception of Phantom, of course) is the integration of these former expressions of my soul. I can sense them, draw as needed on what they learned and apply it to situations in the here and now. When the Insiders began to assert themselves, Mandie was pushed aside to what she called "the dark place," a place where there is no light, no sound and no time. That could have happened to me early in childhood when Sarah began to spill into my consciousness and to a degree, take it over. Fortunately it did not happen, though I have no idea why I was able to integrate these alter egos and Mandie was not. There was no trauma in Mandie's childhood to set off such a splintering. She -- and they -- seem simply to have been born that way.
So which answer is correct, which explanation true? Is MPD (a) the result of spirit attachment or (b) the expression of unintegrated past life personalities? I choose (c) all of the above. Moreover, at least in Mandie's case, I think the two are interrelated. The splintering of past life personalities into separate identities created a vulnerability that enables other entities such as Phantom to enter and take over.
More pressing is the question of how to address the situation. While the stated treatment goal for MPD is to reintegrate the disparate personalities into one, host personality, practitioners who specialize in the disorder have found that while some of the alter egos would merge, three to five well developed, highly individualized personalities would remain for life. The practical approach then becomes teaching cooperation among the strong personalities and with the host, in order to achieve maximum function within society. Mandie began this process in treatment, reintegrating fragmentary personalities and fostering cooperation among those who were highly individualized. Bumping Mandie aside into the dark place was not allowed; Insiders had to ask her permission before coming out, and created the cabin a safe place in the mind where any of them could go as needed. They learned how to co-presence with Mandie and each other, allowing several Insiders to be out and interacting with the material world at the same time. This further encouraged cooperation, the keystone to their success.
And what of Phantom, the angry spirit bent on destroying the body he took over? He was included in the integrative efforts. Phantom was called out in a calm and supportive atmosphere and encouraged to express himself in a positive way. He had a great deal of difficulty at first. His speech was flat and monotonous, and he had little to say on any subject. Phantom gradually disclosed that his sense of separation from everyone and everything else was at the root of his rage. Both in treatment and at home, the message sent consistently to Phantom was positive and affirming: You are a reflection of God from whose Mind you sprang, a power for good. Phantom began to respond. He worked hard at speaking with inflection as a first step toward restoring a range of feeling instead of only rage. The anger began to drain away. The fear felt by Mandie and the Insiders ebbed as well. Phantom came less often and more gently, until he stopped coming at all.
The full answers to the questions surrounding MPD may not come in this dimension. The best responses to it, however, are found when Science joins with Spirit to meet the needs of the Soul.
Return to Spirit Scripting Return to Home Page
Now do you care to respond DIRECTLY to my question of whether the LDS Church believes in trinitarian doctrine as set forth in the introduction to the BOM, whether they believe in "JesusONLYism" (that Jesus and the Father are the same Person) or if they believe in some other doctrine as enunciated by the latter day prophets?
Also how do you reconcile the fact that Zeezrom specifically stated that there is only one God and that God is the Father of Heaven and Earth and everything that is in them? Doesn't that intrude upon the soverign territory of other gods?
No name calling rest. Just answer the questions. And don't quote your prophets unless you consider them to be authoritative of the "official" LDS position.
The principle of union. The principle of union . . . is one of the most delightful features connected with this Church. I would not give much for a system of religion that did not make its followers one and did not unite them, because it would fail in the most essential feature. One cannot conceive of a pure religion that would lack the great qualification of making those who believed it and espoused it one in their feelings, in their faith and their actions.
All our ideas of heaven cause us to feel that dissension and division, strife and factional differences and contention concerning any important point are effectually excluded from that blest abode. We picture hell, when we picture it at all, as a place where devils contend and quarrel and fight and where union and love are entirely absent. We cannot conceive of hell being a place of love and oneness, because if love reigned it would cease to be hell. If love did not reign in heaven, nor union and peace abound there, it would not be heaven.
Therefore, inasmuch as religion is given for the purpose of preparing us to dwell eternally with God our Eternal Father, it is natural that we should expect that religion would have the effect upon mankind to give them a foretaste of that bliss and union and love and peace, the full realization of which is expected to be enjoyed in heaven. I think I am justified, therefore, in saying that if a religion does not produce union among its followers, it is unworthy of the acceptance of mankind and of very little value to any of us.
A distinguishing feature. The distinguishing feature of the religion taught by Jesus was that it would make His followers one; and He gave this as one of the evidences by which the world might know it was true. His last prayer was that His disciples might be one, even as He and the Father were one, thus showing that, according to the idea of the Great Founder of religion, it was capable of making us one, even as closely as the Father and Son are one. When we come short of this ideal perfection and union, we come short of being the people of God.
Contention to be avoided. Whenever factions exist among us, whenever disunion prevails, whenever there is opposition in views concerning points of doctrine or concerning counsel, it may be set down as indisputable that the Spirit of God is not in our midst and that there is something wrong. Whenever two men in this Church differ upon points of doctrine, they may know and others who may be acquainted with the fact may know also that there is something wrong; for the Spirit of God will not teach two men different ideas. If it teaches one man a truth, it will not teach another man something that is opposite to that truth. If it gives to the presiding officer in the Church, or to a man in authority, certain counsel to give to the people, it will not give to another man different counsel. If there should be a difference, the very fact that there is such a difference ought to convince the parties themselves that the Spirit of God does not reign in their hearts.
Is it right for Latter-day Saints to contend and to have arguments? It is not right; it is not according to the mind and will of God. Whenever two Elders contend and argue, they may know and everyone may know that the Spirit of God is not there to the extent that it should be, because where the Spirit of God reigns there is no contention, no controversy. Men may differ in their views, but after they have expressed these differences then contention should cease; in fact, it should never exist. (Aug. 3, 1890, DW 41:484)
Spirit of oneness should characterize disciples of Jesus. It is evident that the Savior designed that the spirit of oneness and of love and union should characterize His disciples and those who obeyed His commandments. He says. . . , "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another," and He continued, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:34-35.) They were to be distinguished as His disciples by their love one for another. If this characteristic should be absent, there would be nothing, according to these words, to distinguish His disciples from those who were not His disciples. John has also recorded that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. As disciples of the Lord Jesus, we should show our love for Him by keeping His commandments. Those who love Him not will not keep His commandments.
These features which the Lord Jesus impressed upon His disciples are the attractive features of the Gospel which He preached; and where this love and this union, which He so beautifully describes, are absent, then there is evidence that His commandments are not being kept and that those who are in that condition are not His disciples.
In these words that I have read we have the means of testing His Gospel and of proving who are His disciples. When men say they want some evidence concerning the truth of the Gospel, they have in these characteristics the tests by which they can ascertain for themselves whether those who profess to be the disciples of the Lord are such in reality. (Nov. 14, 1897, MS 60:146)
The power of a united people. Now, what have we to fear? The only cause of fear in my mind is concerning ourselves-- divisions, differences of views, ideas concerning the course that should be pursued that may not be in accordance with the mind and will of God. It is of the utmost importance to us as a people that we should be united. Our strength, our prosperity, our success in the past have been due to union. It is the union of the people that has been hated and that has brought upon us the persecution that we have had to contend with. That is all that gives us importance in the earth. . . .
The fact that these people are united creates a dread in the breasts of those who dislike them. It is this that has given us influence, that has given us importance, that has made us what we are, that causes us to occupy the position that we do. Take this away from us, and we are indeed . . . like salt that has lost its savor, good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled under foot of men. Take away from us as a people the principle of union, and you take away from us the salt that makes us the savor that we are today. And it is of the utmost importance for us as a people that we should keep this constantly in view. (Dec. 2, 1883, JD 24:361)
The oneness of the Father and the Son. Now, can you conceive of a oneness more close, more complete than the oneness that exists between the Father and the Son? It is impossible for the human mind to get the faintest idea of any difference of opinion or expression or action between the Father and the Son. We worship them as one God-- not three Gods, not two Gods but as one God. The Father and the Son are the two personages of the Deity, with the Holy Ghost as their ministering Spirit or agent. We worship them as one. We do not separate them in our thoughts and in our feelings. . . .
While they are two Personages, they are but one-- one in feeling, one in thought, one in mind, one in everything, in fact, in every direction in which their power is or can be exercised. And in all the records that have come down to us from the Son of God there is one thing that stands out clearly and prominently throughout all the teachings and acts of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and that is His entire devotion to the Father, His complete submission to the will of the Father and His oft-expressed desire to know and to do that will. It is wonderful the submission that the Savior manifested in His life, when we think of His great dignity and the position that He occupied. . . .
Disunity the source of our troubles. Can any of you put your finger on any serious trouble that we have had that has not had its origin in professed Latter-day Saints dissenting from us and turning against us? I tell you . . . there is no power on earth, there is no power in the domains of the damned that can shake or disturb this people if they are only united. No matter what course we may take, so long as it is in righteousness, if we are united, we can stand against the world and all its assaults. We can stand not only against visible enemies, but we can stand against the invisible hosts of darkness which Lucifer has at his command; and we can stand unshaken and unmoved amid the tempests that may break upon us, or whatever may be the character of the assault that may be made upon us. . . .
When dissension comes in our midst, when disunion manifests itself, when you see men who call themselves Latter-day Saints yielding to the spirit of Satan and rebelling in their feelings against the Spirit of God and the work of God, then there is cause for apprehension and for us to tremble, if we ever do tremble, because that is and always has been the fruitful source of our troubles, and it always will be.
Chief cornerstone of Church superstructure. Union, therefore, ought to be the keynote of the entire people as it is the chief cornerstone of the superstructure of the Church. It ought to be more desirable than anything else among us. How shall we obtain it? Shall we have it by each man having his own way and carrying out his own designs? Was that the way Jesus, our great Exemplar, did?
"Ah! but," I have heard it said, "that takes away man's independence." There are some people who seem to have the idea that rebellion and disobedience are evidences of independence and of manhood. Well, I am glad to know that, so far as I am concerned, I never took that view. I always felt that I was just as independent in being obedient, and I know I felt much better than I could possibly feel if I were disobedient. It is not necessary to be disobedient to show independence.
A united presidency speak will of Lord. There are at the head of this Church, chosen by the Lord, three men who constitute what is called the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One is the President. The other two are his counselors. But all three are Presidents, according to the revelations. One, however, holds the keys. President Woodruff is distinguished from every other one of us by the fact that he possesses the keys of the Kingdom on the earth. He represents the Supreme authority. His voice to us, in its place, brings to us the voice of God. Not that he is God, not that he is infallible. He is a fallible man. His counselors are fallible men. The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible.
God is infallible. And when God speaks to the Church through him who holds the keys, it is the word of the Lord to this people. Can President Woodruff do this without his counselors? I do not know what he can do, or what he might do, but I know that he does not do it. I know that President Young did not, nor President Taylor. I know that President Joseph Smith did not. He sought the counsel of his counselors. They acted in concert. And when the First Presidency act in concert, they are a power. . . .
Now, how is it with the First Presidency? Do we have a mind of our own? . . . It is our duty to make our thoughts known upon every subject. But we should not be hard in our hearts; we should be soft and tender so that the Spirit of God will influence us. It does not do for us to be opinionated and set in our feelings and think that our view is the correct view; but to hold our hearts open to receive the manifestations of the Spirit of God.
I suppose each one of us is fond of having his own way. I know I am. I am willing to confess that I like to have my own way. But I do not like my own way well enough to want it in opposition to my brethren's way. That is our duty as the First Presidency of the Church. It is the duty of every presidency throughout the Church.
All who preside should act in unity. The Presidents of Stakes and their counselors, the Bishops and their counselors and all who act in presiding positions should be united. It is our duty as the First Presidency of the Church to seek for this spirit of union for which the Savior prayed and to be one, to bring our feelings in subjection, and when two agree on a thing and the third cannot see it, let him say, "I am going with you. No feeling that enters into my heart shall stand between you and me."
Suppose that one man has more wisdom than another; it is better to carry out a plan that is not so wise, if you are united on it. Speaking generally, a plan or a policy that may be inferior in some respects is more effective if men are united upon it than a better plan would be upon which they were divided.
But some may ask, where comes in the inspiration of God in such cases as this? We should understand that God uses men as instruments in carrying out His purposes. He uses them according to their capacity. He gives them opportunity to exercise their agency and to work out self-development. . . .
Lord sustains counsel of united leaders. The First Presidency ought to have in the first place their hearts single to the glory of God, to have no personal feeling that will influence them in any policy but have their motives pure, and then when they unite on anything and give any counsel, I tell you that God will sustain that and carry it through; He will supplement it by His wisdom and power and make it effective.
The First Presidency are but mortal men. We can only see a certain distance. God sees to the utmost limit. There are no bounds to His sight. But there are bounds to ours. Does He require superhuman wisdom of us? No, only as He gives it to us. He points out the path, and if our motives are pure and we are united on any plan or policy, He will bless and sanctify that, and He will make it successful. That constitutes the strength of the First Presidency, their unity and the purity of their motives.
They may err-- and who does not? As I said, we are fallible men. Whatever my views may be concerning the Church and its infallibility, I suppose there are none of the officers of the Church who claim infallibility. Certainly, I do not claim it for myself. But when we are united, our motives pure and we divest ourselves of every personal desire and bias and ask God to take away all hardness from our hearts and all blindness from our minds and then supplicate Him for His blessing, it will surely come. Then the Twelve Apostles and the other officers of the Church, when they carry that counsel out unitedly and in the same spirit, will be blessed, and the Church will be blessed, and, as I have said, God will supplement our weakness by His strength and our want of knowledge by His infinite knowledge and His great power. . . .
Occasionally men arise who tower above the multitude in the extent of their knowledge, such as the Prophet Joseph and others whose names I need not mention; for, as the Lord revealed to Abraham, there are differences in spirits. He spoke of the Kokaubeam or the stars and of the difference manifest in them, that one star was greater and brighter than another until Kolob was reached, which is near the throne of the Eternal; and He said it was so with the spirits of men. . . .
Our duty to seek counsel. The First Presidency must be united. The Twelve must be united, not among themselves alone but with the First Presidency. They should come and ask counsel of the First Presidency. . . . When men do things in secret and are not willing to bring that which they have into the light of day, there is always cause for fear. We should have our hearts open and be willing for all our brethren to read our hearts and our thoughts. We should enter into no arrangement nor have any connection with anything that we have to conceal. It is not the Spirit of God that prompts concealment. Nor should we enter into things without being willing to ask counsel respecting them, no matter what they be.
It is our duty to ask counsel, to seek the mind and will of God; for God does speak through His servants, and He does give counsel through them unto the people. The Twelve ought to be in this condition. They ought not to shun the society and the counsel of the First Presidency. Do we want this for our self-glorification? The Lord knows we do not. But it is the order of the Church that the Twelve should seek counsel from those whom God has placed to preside. And they should be free in asking counsel and not do anything without it.
In the same manner the Presidents of Stakes and their counselors should ask counsel; the Bishops and their counselors should ask counsel; and the seven Presidents of the Seventies, in their place, should ask counsel also. They are under the direction of the Twelve Apostles, who are their file leaders, under the First Presidency of the Church. And one man should not give counsel without consulting his fellow servants. (Apr. 7, 1895, DW 50:641-44)
Gospel draws people together. There is no power of human origin that can bind men to men for any length of time. There are occasions, when some great exigency or peril arises, when people will cling together. When nations are attacked and when all their liberties and perhaps their lives are at stake, they will then move forward animated by one common impulse, and they will cling together with wonderful tenacity. . . . But apart from these great crises in the history of individuals and nations, there is no power among men that will unite and hold men together. They will differ in a little while; they will separate.
We see this in the religious world. As soon as men attempted to reform religion, as soon as they dissented from the mother church and began to establish reformed religions, they began to differ, and they went on differing and separating until now the whole of Christendom is filled with churches, among which there is no union, notwithstanding they call themselves the churches of Christ. They have not the secret of union with them.
Now, the difference between this Church and other churches is this: when men receive this Gospel, wherever they may be, however widely separated they may be, as soon as they are confirmed members of the Church, they receive a spirit that fills them with that union, and when they are brought together from the ends of the earth, they feet alike and are drawn together. True, they have their failings and their weaknesses; but they possess a spirit of union that no human being is able to impart unto his fellows. It comes from God. It is the power that reigns in heaven. It is the power that makes heaven the glorious place that it is described to be by all who have any conception of it, in contradiction to hell, the place of misery and torment. . . .
If we were not united, we would not be the people of God. It is the true sign by which the people of God may be found. I do not care what we may claim or what our pretensions may be, we are not the people of God when we are not united. Union is one of the fruits of the Spirit. (Apr. 17, 1897, DW 55:33)
Satan hates a united people. The devil does not want the will of the Lord done. He does not want the people united. He seeks for division, for contention and for strife. He hates the Latter-day Saints because they act together. All his followers hate them for the same reason. If we would split up and divide, refuse to listen to the counsel of the man of God, then the devil and his followers would rejoice. He tries to persuade the people that it is true independence to divide up and every man go for himself and to refuse to do as the servants of God say.
But remember, this is a step towards apostasy. Whenever you see a man disobeying the counsel of the Lord through the Holy Priesthood, you may know that unless he repents he will apostatize. It is a sure sign of apostasy. A man may be an Apostle, a Seventy, a High Priest, an Elder or a Bishop, yet if he tries to divide the people and persuades them to disobey the Prophet of God, he will surely fall, unless he repents with all his heart. The Lord asks us to obey Him. He tells us how to do so. He does not ask for blind obedience, because He gives His Holy Spirit to all who ask for it to show them that it is right to obey.
Unity in political matters. But some men think that it may be right to be obedient and united in church matters but in politics it is not so necessary. They act as though it was all right to divide and quarrel in political matters. This, however, is a great mistake. The Lord says to us that we must be one, not in church affairs alone but in all things.
It would be a blessed thing for the Latter-day Saints if the Lord would choose their officers for them, and they would accept those whom He should choose. Does not the Lord know what is best for us politically? He certainly does. (Mar. 1, 1878, JI 13:54)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.