Original Sin

The term “original sin”, first used by Tertullian in the 3^rd century and also called ancestral sin, is the widely held Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden.  According to this belief, the very act of being born makes man guilty of sin by way of Adam and Eve’s acts in the Garden of Eden.

We can sufficiently see from the writings of early Christians such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and from early documents such as the Homilies, the idea of original sin was non-existent with the very early Christians.  It is easy to conclude that this was a doctrine born of the philosophies of men to harmonize with previously formulated doctrines that would otherwise not make sense to them.  Among other things, the loss of the doctrine of deification and of the pre-existence of man, as well as the new teachings on grace and the nature of Christ Himself, motivated the Greek to this conclusion.  As was common to the Greek mind, everything must make sense or it cannot be true.

We can trace the development of this doctrine to the era of Constantine.  Although it was initially difficult for him to swallow, it was Augustine who took the most supportive and even hardline acceptance of this doctrine, introducing the idea of total depravity.  This is the idea that we are not only born into sin, but we cannot even choose not to sin. 

Although there were many departures from this doctrine, it has been a part of mainstream Christianity ever since.  Ironically, some of those who attempted to leave this doctrine re-introduced the idea of a pre-mortal existence to more fully explain their theology.  But even though the doctrine of original sin was admittedly inconsistent, confusing, and appalling, none of the challenges lasted. 

What we are left with is centuries of grief and confusion.  Grief for those who have passed on without baptism, or accepting Christ—the most grievous is the thought of the passing of newborn babies.  I can only imagine the grief of parents, told by their ecclesiastical leader that their unbaptized infant, because of the sin they inherited from Adam, would burn in eternal torment.  It is this idea that caused many to attempt to deviate from it.  And secondly, confusion, in trying to combine original sin with the innate and scriptural idea that God is fair and incapable of this apparent injustice.  In 2007 Pope Benedict officially rescinded this doctrine, but only as it pertained to infants, not adults; and with no scriptural or doctrinal reasoning to back up his decision, not to mention the reason it had been firm doctrine in the first place.  What a mass of confusion and needless heartache!  (Pardon the pun)

Thank goodness for the Restoration!  Unlike many of the doctrines of the Restoration that were brought back and reformulated line upon line, this is one that was strong and consistent from the beginning.  As the 2^nd article of faith states, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adams transgression.”  What a breath of fresh air!  And to explain more fully the need for the circumstances that occurred in the Garden of Eden, the Book of Mormon, as usual, explains with great clarity, “And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.  And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created… And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.  But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.  Adam fell that men might be and men are, that they might have joy.”  (2 Nephi 2: 22-25)

The Fall was indeed a fall, but it was a fall forward, not just downward.  The idea that somehow one man, Adam, not only totally messed up God’s plan He had for man, but somehow was able to put a stamp of “sinner” on the forehead of every baby born from then on is atrocious to me.  It was a necessary fall that physically separated us from God for a time.  But in doing so it began the human race and allowed for our trial of faith and the great growth that could occur for every one of those children.  

The reality of a pre-earth life and the infinite nature of the atonement alone (going both forward and backward in time, among other things) makes the idea of original sin untenable.  God knows all from the beginning to the end, and what Adam and Eve did, even Satan’s part in it, was all known and planned on from the beginning.  "The precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb...was foreordained before the foundation of the world." (1 Peter 1: 19, 20)  If the need for Christ and His atonement was known and planned on from the beginning, then the fall of Adam, bringing on the need of it, was as well. 

Now some further explanation from an excellent paper, "Why did Jesus have to die?" found here.

If God did not want man to have a choice, why did he place the fruit of death within his grasp calling it the knowledge of good and evil?  Religious philosophers cannot answer this question. They can only make up reasons and attempt to explain it.   When the man and woman had partaken, the Gods stated that man had become as one of them. (Genesis 3: 22)

Was man's fall a failed effort of a divine creation, or of a short sighted deity? Was God's main plan that mankind live forever in a state of innocent paradise? If this was the case it would make Christ a "plan B" or a back up plan for mankind's salvation? Such is a common explanation of the viewpoint of sectarian Bible scholars and their reasoning.  Their conclusion would lead us to believe that Adam and Eve along with Satan actually thwarted God's original plan.  

Much if not all of historical Christianity has adopted the idea that Adam's transgression was a mistake or even a rebellion.   The New Testament however clearly teaches that Jesus was foreordained to be the Savior of the world.  Would not the fall also be foreordained? Was Adam's fall not part of God's plan?

It is a fairly simple conclusion that Adam and Eve's decision to partake of the fruit would be necessary for the plan of salvation to be implemented.  It is evident that the whole story of Eden and what Adam and Eve knew is not in the Bible.

Adam was not created in a fallen state for a reason.  Yet he had to fall in order for salvation to come. The earth and creation of man was not a random event nor was Adam's choice unanticipated by God. 

Our first parents and we ourselves lived with God before the earth was created in a pre-mortal life.  Many preparations for this life were made at that time. It was then that Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior. 

Adam and Eve were chosen for the purpose of being the first to inhabit the earth.  Through an event dependent on their agency or freedom of choice, man fell from the paradise in the Garden of Eden.   Exposure to the knowledge of good and evil was the result and the only way they could exercise free will, also known as moral agency. This is the concept that we can choose and then be accountable for those choices.  

The knowledge of good and evil was received by partaking of one fruit on the same tree, not two trees in separate gardens.  It was not designated as an evil tree, simply one that had consequences associated with partaking from it.  The consequences were designed by God to allow for mankind to fall into mortality so agency could be given to them.  They would then have the opportunity to receive salvation and exaltation through the redeeming grace of Jesus Christ.  

Neither the creation or the placement of the tree were random events. The availability of this option and partaking in an act of self directed choice was designed by God to advance the human condition not to condemn it.  

God used Satan to advance his purposes by enticing Eve. Would a loving God really condemn humanity for all eternity because of what two individuals did? Did they frustrate the plan of the Almighty?  Orthodox theologian/philosophers have taught this for almost 2000 years.

The fall, however, brings an essential opportunity to gain experience through making choices and learning from the consequences. It is not condemnatory in nature.  The method of redemption was in place before the fall took place.

Without this life and its experiences, we would not receive the experiential knowledge or the physical body necessary for full development. It is through this mortal life that God gives mankind the opportunity to develop their intellect, gain experience and make choices that have real eternal consequences.  All things take place under the umbrella of grace provided by Jesus Christ as creator, his atonement and the perfect justice of his and our Almighty Father.

Do Early Christian beliefs match today's Christian beliefs?

We claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is a restored Church.  This would imply that its teachings were had among the ancients.  If this is true, it seems that this can be easily tested.  We can now look at the most ancient of teachings from the original parent religion and see how close it is to the claimed restored church.  To me it seems logical that if it were true then, it would be true now.  This simple test can add credence or suspect to any religion that has lasted through time or claims to have been restored.  In the case of Christianity, this would apply to both Protestants and Catholics as well.  

Lets look at some of the interesting teachings that we can actually verify were common (or non-existent) among the very earliest Christians—the most ancient of Christian teachings.  After all, who else can we say were more Christian than those who knew Jesus or lived in his day?  Here are some actual beliefs from very early Christianity:

The premortal existence of souls

Baptism necessary for salvation

Baptism by emersion

Baptism for the dead

Creation out of existing matter

An unpaid ministry

One God (No Trinity or any metaphysical teachings whatsoever)

God is a glorified man

The Deification of man

No belief in “original sin”

We are literal spirit children of God

Three heavens or degrees of glory

An esoteric teaching (Temple worship)

Qualify for Salvation through prescribed works

There are many others, but these are the major ones.  We should keep in mind that evidence suggests that an apostasy was going on very early, and some teachings may have already evolved upon any extant writing.  Although some of these doctrines can be said to have existed in ancient Judaism as well, and most of them were believed by mainstream as well as by sideline schisms.  Also a very revealing occurrence is that the earlier we go, generally the closer we get to LDS beliefs.

As amazing as this is, by far the most remarkable point to me here is that most of these teachings had been lost to mankind, or at least to the predominant churches of the day of Joseph Smith and were most certainly not available to him.  This is monumental to me.  How did he do it?  Ironically, Mormons are ignorantly harassed for believing these things even today—a day when we can have actual access to what the very earliest Christians believed—unlike in the day of Joseph Smith.  As Mormon and non-Mormon scholars alike have rightly assessed—Joseph Smith was either the greatest religious genius ever, or he was what he said he was—a prophet of God.  It is actually a much easier stretch for me to believe the latter.

The fact that there would need to be a restoration was known by the prophets for many ages.  We can turn to the scriptures to verify this.  “For that day [the second coming] shall not come, except there come a falling away first.”  (2 Thes 2: 3)  “Behold, the day will come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.”  (Amos 8: 11)  The Reformers used these very same scriptures to proclaim their actions were justified in reforming the Catholic church.  

Even more than this, it was prophesied that there would be a restitution of all things, and that all the prophets knew of this.  (Acts 3: 21 and Eph 1: 10)  In other words, all the doctrines, covenants, practices, knowledge, and truth that were ever had by man through all the ages would be restored in the last days (including polygamy).  To me it seems only logical that, to present-day man, some of these restored things would be perceived as new, unusual and even evil.

For a much more detailed look at this subject, I would recommend Restoring the Ancient Church by Barry Bickmore.

Knowing God

This topic goes hand in hand with a true understanding of the nature of God as I discussed in another blog, so next I will attempt to expound on this aspect of it, and why it appeals so much to my soul.  Though I make a conclusion here, I do not feel that I can fully describe nor understand completely this subject, but I only wish to bring out from the scriptures and from the teachings of the prophets what we know about knowing God.  Clearly we do not have God here with us, at least in a way that we can see and ask questions to get to know Him.  We must rely on revelation—from those who did see, and did ask, and then wrote what they learned for all to see and know for themselves.  Then beyond that, we can have personal experiences with Him that can also go a long way in increasing our knowledge of Him.

A pivotal scripture when it comes to this subject is John 17:3, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”  Notice here that knowing God is equated with the most precious of gifts—eternal life.  We might ask, how is it that knowing God is eternal life?  Knowing God must indeed be extremely important.  But what exactly is it we must know about him, or maybe the question should be, what does it mean to know him?  

When we think of people we love, we can likely be sure that we know them--and know them very well.   The same can be said about God.  If we know Him, we probably love Him.  He is not mysterious to us.  We get to know Him by reading about Him, being obedient to Him, learning His attributes and how He interacts with us personally in the many ways He can touch our lives.  Eventually, this growing knowledge naturally becomes love.  But this process can only go so far with an incorrect concept of Him.

In John 4: 22, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well, “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”  But he says in verse 21, “the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.”  From this we can gather that the Samaritans had it wrong at the time, the Jews had it right at the time (especially since Christ himself was among them), and the time would soon come that the Jews would have it wrong as well.  He stresses that the Samaritans did not know what it was they worshipped.  This seems like a very strange statement to make to someone—you don’t know what you worship.  But can this statement also be made to us in this day?  For example, if we refer to God or His nature as a mystery, as many do, logically do we not deny ourselves the privelege of then turning around and claiming to know Him?  It seems to me it must be a very basic first step of any religion to know exactly what it is you worship.  If we can only see what the Jews had and then lost, as Jesus tells us, we may be able to add some light to this.

Luckily for us we can simply look at history to see what happened to the idea of God in this part of the world to see just how this saying of Jesus worked out as he told it.  First off, we can note that Christianity was born of the Jews, but then eventually completely split into two distinct religions.  Christianity then went from a Jewish religion to a Greek/Roman religion, which was then interwoven into all the Greek ideas and traditions.  

Not to be repetitive from another blog, but the following statement is both simple and overpowering; that through the first century A.D. the idea of God was strictly monotheistic with God the Father, Jesus His Son, and the Holy Spirit as three distinct and separate beings, yet one in purpose—all in a non-metaphysical sense, the way the Jews had always believed.  As I explained above, into the second and third centuries, this idea of God began to evolve. The cry of polytheism was thrown at this new Christian religion with a great deal of persecution and even death to those who believed such a "heresy".  Polytheism was a dirty word; one that was strictly prohibited by the Jews as well as in the Christians own scripture.  The Greeks came to the rescue.   The Greek philosophers solved the problem by forming the idea that the three were actually one all along—they were merely three extensions of the same being.  

The division and contention from this issue cannot be understated.  It enveloped all Christians and divided them in what should have been a very basic and united belief.  As I said before, Constantine attempted to bring this unity. 

Although many refused to believe in this new being, those who did not were literally exiled or killed until centuries later this idea of God was finally the orthodox belief for the Christian religion.  This being, as stated in the creeds, became a metaphysical God without body, parts or passion—a mystery.  He also became, “unknowable.”  Considering what we learned above, this was a critical error.  

What should be undeniable, the creeds did not come to man in the same pattern as scripture did—revelation from God.   And certainly they could not be claimed as scripture.  Note that, although the sacred writings may have been available to some, assuming they were literate, the Bible as we know it did not come to be until nearly a century later.  The writers of this creed did not, and indeed admitted they did not consult scripture to solve this doctrinal issue, although 1 Corinthians 8: 5, 6 would have helped immensely.  I will expand on this scripture in a later section.

Now lets take a step back and examine Jesus’ statement to the Samaritan woman.  Remember—the Jews (or Christianized Jews) had it right at the time, but eventually nobody would know what they worshiped.  Sadly, this seems to be exactly how history played out.  By man's doing, the nature of God became a mystery to all.

Back to the scriptures for another clue.  1 John 2: 3, 4 (NRSV) tells us, “Now by this we may be sure that we know him, if we obey his commandments.  Whoever says, ‘I have come to know him,’ but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist.”  When I think about it, this makes sense. If you follow only in word but not in deed, you are not a follower at all.  Remember, if we know Him, we love Him, and if we love Him we will keep His commandments.  The importance of keeping commandments must be a part of our worship and will enhance our ability to know God.

Now, let’s get to know God through more scriptures.  In Genesis 1:27, we are told that God created man, “in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”  Can we, or should we try to explain this away?  Are we not literally created in the image of God—both male and female?  (And let’s not delete the word female.)  For some reason man cannot fathom that God is in his image, or is…gulp…a man!  Yikes!  Well, in Genesis 5: 3 we are told that, “Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.”  The same Hebrew words are used here to describe Adam’s son in his image, as in Genesis 1 to describe Adam in God’s image. 

As I stated in a previous blog, this debate of what exactly, "in the image of God" means has gone on for millennia.  But major denominations of today have concluded the question.  "There is but one only living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions."  (Protestant wording of the Anglican 39 articles, 1563.)  "God is without body, parts, or passions."  (From the Presbyterian confession of faith.) 

Any Christian must admit that Jesus himself was born, was an infant, grew as a child, and eventually died.  He experienced life just like a man.  In later chapters of the Old Testament we see that God gets angry, is joyful, is merciful and forgiving, demands obedience, grants blessings, and allows justice its natural course.  Of course in the New Testament we read of the many man-like passions of Jesus.  Often we hear of God’s body parts—his eyes, ears, hands and feet.  We can easily see from simple scripture that the confessions and creeds got it wrong—God indeed does have a body, as well as parts, and passion.  Else how can He love, have empathy, or even weep?  If we take scripture at its word and agree that God is a man, albeit a glorified and perfected man, this simple, yet profound idea takes us light years toward knowing God.  To me this indeed seems to be a God that we can get to know!

One key Biblical occurrence in this matter has yet to be adequately answered by trinitarians.  When Jesus was resurrected, He appeared to many.  He went to great pains to both show and tell them He was not a spirit, but was in fact a physical body, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." (Luke 24: 39)  He even ate some food in front of them.  So if He is only a spirit, what happened to this resurrected body? 

Now, let’s get to know God through the eyes of Jesus.  He tells us in John 5: 19 (NRSV), “The Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.”  What a great instruction sheet to our understanding of God!  Jesus is showing us what God is like through his very life.  So if we know what Jesus is like, we know what God the Father is like.  

We can go on and on with this, but to point out just how profound this journey can be, let’s examine the shortest verse in scripture, “Jesus wept.”  Certainly this is a man-like passion.  It shows sadness, it shows empathy, it shows love for mankind, and it shows that He is vulnerable.  If we get to know God through Jesus, why can’t we see that God too has passion?  And what of Jesus’ resurrection?  He went to great lengths to show his disciples that he died, yet has a body that you can see and touch, a body that eats and moves and acts just like a real man’s would.  An understanding that God is of the same species as we are is an all-important step in knowing him.

When Job saw the deep love God had for man he was puzzled.  He asks, “What is man that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him?” (Job 7: 17)  As Terryl Givens says in The God Who Weeps, “The astonishing revelation here is that God does set His heart upon us.  And in doing so, God chooses to love us.  And if love means responsibility, sacrifice, vulnerability, then God’s decision to love us is the most stupendously sublime moment in the history of time.  He chooses to love even at, necessarily at, the price of vulnerability.”

To help us understand who God is even more, we must understand how we are related to this glorified man.  The prophet Joseph Smith said, “If we do not know our Heavenly Father and our relationship to Him we become little more than the brute beasts.”  Again the importance to our knowing God is expressed here, but a bit more is added—our relationship to Him.  Joseph speaks of Him as our Heavenly Father.  If He is truly our father, again here is another morsel that we can easily digest.  Most all of us know what it is like to be a parent.  How, by our very bloodline we can suddenly teach, forgive, and love unconditionally, and put all of our time, effort, and worry, and yes, even put our vulnerability on the line for the sake of these, our offspring. 

As mentioned earlier, in the first vision of Joseph Smith we learn many things, not the least of which is the nature of God.  In this vision, He had the form of a man in every way.  He spoke as one man speaks to another.  This seems to fit very well with Moses’ experience, “The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.”  (Exo 33:11)  Yet He was different.  He was, “whiter than noon day sun,” Joseph tells us.  He was a man, but a glorious man.  We also learn a little bit from the words He spoke to Joseph at the time.  When speaking of the religions of the day, Joseph was told that, “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.”  Let me point out again, he did not say their religions were an abomination, but that their creeds were.  Certainly, as we learned, the very reason the creeds came to be is in their spurious attempt to define the nature of God.  This attempt was devastatingly wrong.  They took away the Fatherhood of God, the very being that He wanted us to know him by, and that we must get to know.  Here it was revealed to a mere 14-year-old boy an all important key to eternal life, that the greatest minds of the previous 18 centuries could not get a hold on.  And as it was in all of history, it took revelation to get it right.

 

We mostly begin to know God through the influence of the Holy Ghost, “the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom” and which “beareth record of the Father and of the Son” (Doctrine & Covenants 20:27; 39:6).

Experiencing “the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer” (Moroni 8:26), makes it possible to “grow in the knowledge of the glory of him that created you” (Mosiah 4:12). Deepening our commitment to serve God ever more effectively, we become the “friends” of Jesus, a celestial category of servants who labor alongside Jesus in the ministry of saving souls (John 15:14–16; Doctrine & Covenants 84:77–79). This course in life involves the experience of knowing Jesus personally.

Latter-Day revelation confirms the biblical account of God as the literal father of the human family; as a being who is concerned for the welfare of mankind, and a Personage who hears and answers prayers.  That He is approachable.  That He is a perfected and glorified holy man.  A being that we can aspire to be like (1 John 3: 2), not just because we know what it’s like to be human, but also because we now know that He knows in a personal way what it’s like to be human.  (Romans 8: 14-18)  And He not only knows how we can be like Him, He wants us to be like Him, as any normal father would for their own children.  (Matt 5: 48) Knowing that we can be like him coupled with our success in doing so, it turns out, is the very essence of eternal life.

Our worship of God can only go so far with an incorrect conception of Him, but with a true understanding of His nature and with the companionship of the Holy Ghost, we can, as Jesus tells the woman at the well, “worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4: 24)  And, “through the knowledge of him… ye might be partakers of the divine nature.”  (2 Peter 1: 3, 4)  

A broken heart and a contrite spirit

In Psalms 34 it reads, “The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.”  What exactly is this broken heart and contrite spirit?  In this scripture it is linked to our salvation, so it must be important.  Lehi tells us in 2 Nephi 2, “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. 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.”  Again we see that salvation in linked to this broken heart and contrite spirit.

To understand the meaning of this today, we need to understand the principle of sacrifice. In ancient Israel, the Aaronic priest officiated at the sacrificial altars in behalf of the people. He offered bulls or lambs or doves as a blood offering to atone for the sins of the men and women of the congregation. It was not the blood of the animals that saved them but rather what the blood stood for—the precious blood of the Messiah that would be shed in the meridian of time. If the people brought their offering in the right spirit, presented it to the priests, and repented fully of their transgression, a remission of sins followed.

In our day, the Aaronic priest likewise officiates at the holy altar. We go to church and present our offering, which today is a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and the priest officiates in our behalf.  It is not bread and water that save us but rather what the bread and water represent. If we can attend sacrament meeting with a broken heart and a contrite spirit (meaning that we are repentant and eager to rid ourselves of our sins), focus our thoughts and our feelings on the atoning offering of Christ our Savior, and covenant once again to keep the Lord's commandments and plead for his strength and goodness to enable us to do so, then healing and cleansing take place. It is as though we can enjoy a rebaptism every Sunday. Participation in the ordinance of the sacrament is an occasion for meditation, introspection, self-analysis, and covenant renewal. It is the main reason for attending sacrament meeting.

Joseph Fielding Smith has said, “Every baptized person who has fully repented, who comes into the Church with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, has made a covenant to continue with that broken heart, with that contrite spirit, which means a repentant spirit."

We should strive to bring a truly broken heart and a contrite spirit to our partaking of the sacrament every Sunday so that accepting the emblems of the body and blood of Christ is a spiritual event rather than just a ritual.  Even though these events are the kind that brings us closer to God, they seldom bring us the admiration of others. They are more powerful and enduring, but they are also more modest, internal, and are rarely known by others. It is in these moments of spiritual privacy, where real and humble intent prevails over pleasing appearances, that righteous purpose comes to us.

In ancient times when people wanted to worship the Lord and seek His blessings, they often brought a gift. For example, when they went to the temple, they brought a sacrifice to place on the altar. After His Atonement and Resurrection, the Savior said He would no longer accept burnt offerings of animals. In 3 Nephi 9, the resurrected Savior tells us, “And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away.  And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost.”

The gift or sacrifice He will accept now is “a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” As you seek the blessing of conversion, you can offer the Lord the gift of your broken, or repentant, heart and your contrite, or obedient, spirit. In reality, it is the gift of yourself—what you are and what you are becoming.  Sometimes, fasting can help this process along.  As we fast, the physical appetites fade, and spiritual things come easier.  In Helaman 3 it says, “Nevertheless they did fast and pray oft, and did wax stronger and stronger in their humility, and firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ, unto the filling their souls with joy and consolation, yea, even to the purifying and the sanctification of their hearts, which sanctification cometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God.”

Burnt offerings are no longer accepted, the only offering that is accepted of the Lord is a broken heart and a contrite spirit before Him.  It is only in this state that we are truly converted to the Lord.  In Alma 5 we read, “And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?”  When we are in this state, we would never take lightly things that are sacred, but only with great reverence and respect.  When we are in this state of contriteness, our disposition to Him becomes clear.  It is in this state that we become willing to, “take upon us the name of his Son, to always remember Him and to keep His commandments”, as said in the sacrament prayers.  This is what truly determines our access to the atonement and the great powers that are then channeled to us directly from Him.  It opens access to the spirit which in turn helps us to know for ourselves, the current direction that we are in, and at what pace we are going.  As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:9, “My strength is made perfect in weakness”.  We receive not just forgiveness from sin, but power over our sorrows, our pains and other difficulties, as we find in Alma 7 that Christ also took upon Himself our pains, our sicknesses, and our infirmities.

"Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law,"—now note this plain and precious declaration—"unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered" (2 Ne. 2:6-7). The doctrine is perfect. It needs no tailoring to fit comfortably alongside the necessity of individual responsibility. There is no cheap grace here. On the one hand, no one will be justified by the law. We are all imperfect and thus tainted by the effects of sin. Our righteousness will not save us. We are all dependent on the mercy of Christ, on his merit, and his grace. Nevertheless, the fulness of that mercy, merit, and grace is extended to those, "who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit and unto none else" (2 Ne. 2:7). In inspired words given by Joseph Smith, we are told that Christ rose from the dead "that he might bring all men unto him, on conditions of repentance" (D&C 18:12).  “Thus," Amulek said, "he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.  And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption" (Alma 34:15-16).

Redemption comes only on Christ's terms, and his terms are "a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Ne. 2:7). That spirit comes to us in a covenant relationship. Therefore, the principles of faith, repentance, and baptism become companions to the doctrine of grace. "How great the importance," Lehi said, "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.”

A broken heart and a contrite spirit does not mean that we are depressed or sad, rather in this context it means to be submissive, teachable, and humble, willing to accept counsel just as a child does.  It does not mean that to repent we must sink into despair and waste away our lives in remorse. It does mean that we have a sense of obligation toward those who we have wronged, both God and man. David's plea to the Lord in Psalms following a realization of his gross sinfulness expresses this feeling of regret and of a broken heart, but in a constructive way. 

In Matthew 18, the disciples of Jesus asked him an interesting question, and as usual they got a profound response.  They asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?  And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”  Why is it that a little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?  The Lord tells us we should humble ourselves as a little child.  The opposite of humility is pride.  President Ezra Taft Benson has told us that, “The proud do not receive counsel or correction easily.”  When we are prideful, we feel we already know the necessities, we have what we need and we can make it without any help.  In this state we become unteachable, and it is difficult for us to receive counsel.  No one who thinks he can work out his own salvation has the necessary humility to receive the cleansing of Christ's atonement: "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.”  When we come to understand our true status with the Lord and our absolute dependence on Him is when our heart becomes broken and our spirit longs for His help.

 

Baptism itself is an outward expression of our inward submissiveness to bring us into a covenant relationship with Christ.  In fact, in the days of Moroni, he tells us that they did not receive any unto baptism, “save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins.”  It is no different in our day.  In Doctrine and Covenants 20: 37, we learn that, “all those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end… shall be received by baptism into this church.”

Neal A. Maxwell has said, “The gospel requires us to yield our minds as well as bend our knees.  However, minds are often more arthritic than knees.  Jesus rejoices in our genuine goodness and achievement, but any assessment of where we stand in relation to Him tells us that we do not stand at all—we kneel.”

The Masons and the LDS Temple

Joseph Smith said that the Masons, sometimes called Freemasons, were a group with an apostate form of the endowment (a portion of the LDS Temple ceremony), just as sectarian religion of the day was the apostate religion.  That pretty much sums it all up right there.  You can stop right here if you want, or read on if you are interested in more.  On faith, I take that statement as truth from the beginning and learn from there.  I have come to enjoy learning about the Masons.  As I do I see more that his statement is indeed true.  In understanding them, I think we can learn an important principle.  

Joseph Smith and many of the 12 apostles in Nauvoo were Masons, and I think it is significant to point out, none of them nor any other person previously a Mason questioned the similarities.  Now Joseph probably joined for brotherhood and some community protection, but I believe that the Masons were shown to him for the same reason that religious excitement was in the area of his youth.  These things caused him to seek out the Lord for understanding.  This is the same method that prophets have always learned—something comes up they have a question on, and they go to God for the answer.  As the answers came to Joseph, they came to the world, and the restoration of the gospel, including the restored Temple is the result.  The majority of the Doctrine and Covenants came to us in the same manner.  Pray about life lessons—get an answer—write it down and live the law.  As a matter of fact, much of scripture came to us this way.

I have 2 complete writings of the Masonic ceremony.  There are some very stark similarities, but mostly vast differences.  Most of the ceremony of the Masons would seem unfamiliar and strange to the LDS.  However, the similarities are sometimes exact and make no mistake of the fact that at least parts of the two ceremonies are from the same source.  Enemies of the LDS church therefore love to claim that we stole the Masonic ceremony from them, but was it the chicken or the egg?  You might as well say that Protestants stole the religion of the Catholics, which is actually much closer to the truth.

As Augustine wrote in his Retractions, "What is now called Christian religion has existed among the ancients, and was not absent from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came in the flesh: from which time true religion, which existed already, began to be called Christian."  The gospel of Jesus Christ has been had by people of God off and on and in various forms from the time of Adam.  Man has taken it and time and time again has changed or lost it, including Temple knowledge.  There are bits and pieces of similarities to the gospel and its temple found with many different peoples all over the world, not just the Masons.  Therefore, to say that the gospel or any part of it is new and derived from something similar is what many would like to conclude, but that is simply not the case--it is a restoration.  There are and have been literally thousands of Temples of many beliefs throughout history.  I believe they all came from the same original idea.

The dictionary says that a mason is one who works with stone.  The brotherhood of the Masons claims to have been formed out of the stone workers on the Temple of Solomon.  This is probably not true.  But what should be tested and can be tested is whether these things were had anciently.  The similarities they have only go up to the order of the Aaronic Priesthood as seen in the LDS Temple.  The people in the time of Solomon only had the Aaronic Priesthood, therefore this makes perfect sense.  The men that worked on this Temple formed an alliance and worked on many other buildings through the ages.  They were so good at what they did that they were given authority to travel freely from one country to the next to do their trades—thus the name Free Masons.  But again, we should ask, did the Masons get them from a more ancient source, or can we indeed find any?  Yes!

Just as an example, Cyril of Jerusalem very accurately describes what we see in the Temple in the washing and anointing when speaking to new initiates.

I know of a couple of LDS scholars who are also Masons.  One of them, James Carroll said, “I am working on a comparison of common elements between the Masons, Mormons, Greko-Romans, Egyptians, and Gnostics. How anyone could deny an ancient origin to the Endowment is beyond me. The question is always asked "Why is the Endowment similar to Free Masonry?" The question that is never asked is "What elements are similar, and do those elements have a more ancient source?" What is staggering to me is the consistency with which Joseph removed those things in Masonry that had no ancient origin, and kept only those elements that did! Joseph was amazing. If he was not inspired he was the best guesser ever!”  What he is saying is that if you know what things are truly of an ancient origin, the similarities and differences tell us that if you believe Joseph borrowed from the Masons, then you must ask how this unlearned farm boy knew to take only what was truly ancient religious symbolism, exclude what was modern, then add even more ancient to come up with the Temple we now have.

As I alluded to, there are many societies besides the Masons that have bits and pieces of the Temple as it has been passed down by man through the ages.  Though most of them would not have a clue, even Catholics had many parts of this teaching as it is known today in the LDS Temple.  A related article of interest is "The Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon Temple" by Marcus von Wellnitz.  This can be found in BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No.1, Winter 1981, pp. 3-35.  He shows that a variety of elements in ancient Catholic rites and architecture are shared with the LDS Temple. For example, rituals of washing and anointing were important, and the oil was applied to specific regions in a specific order with blessings being spoken that all reverberate remarkably well with the modern LDS Temple. (See especially pages 10 and 11 of Wellnitz.) Then, after application of water and oil, the Christian would receive a new white garment.

Other aspects of ancient Catholic rites discussed by Wellnitz include:

q  the giving of new names to those entering monasteries

q  the ancient practice of keeping men and women separate in the church, just as they were kept separate in the temple at Jerusalem.

q  the use of a veil or covering for women's heads

q  the atrium of the church as a symbol of paradise or the garden of Eden

q  the porter at the door of the chapel in the primitive church to ensure that only worthy persons entered

q  details of ritual clothing and related symbolism

q  altars and veils in church buildings

q  the use of the All-seeing Eye as a symbol in Renaissance and Baroque churches (shown in photographs of two old churches in Germany)

q  the raising of the hands of the priest done anciently

q  the hand symbol of a hollowed palm in the left hand when approaching the altar (see Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:21-22)

q  the prayer offered for the church and the world by the priest which was repeated by the congregation, praying for names of those in need.

q  people written on folded parchments (diptychs), especially for those who were ill or needed special consideration

q  the ritual embrace and "kiss of peace" to welcome the initiate into the community

q  ritual knocking (three times) with a hammer on the portal of a door, now acted out in the ritual of the Porta Santa at St. Peter in Rome, representing entry of the children of God into the presence of the Lord. (To this day, every 4 years the Pope will come to a predetermined place at the wall, knock three times, wherein a hand is extended to him through a passageway and he enters heaven in behalf of all in the Catholic church.)

Note also the interesting ways in which some orthodox Jews act at the Temple wall in Jerusalem:

·       The men and women are separated

·       The men are seen to put on a certain kind of paper hat

·       They will take off their coat, put it over their left shoulder and tie the arms at the waist

·       They will anoint with water at certain parts of the body

Only those familiar with the modern Temple will recognize these acts that surely must seem strange to the rest of the world looking on.

I hope the point can be seen that one can claim the Temple came from any number of people besides the Masons.  The Bible itself tells many of these things apparently unknown to the rest of Christianity.  Some that have indisputable similarities besides the Masons and Catholics are the ancient Essenes, the early Druids, the Odd Fellows, Egyptians, and Native Americans.  Even ruins in Central America and Mexico show that “Masonic” secrets were known to them.  There have been verifiable "Masonic" symbols found, among other places, at the base of ancient Egyptian obelisks, which would predate even the Masons.  With this we can ask, did the Masons actually steal these things from the Egyptians?  This is yet another mystery to the world, but what the world does not realize is that these symbols do not predate Temple ordinance symbolism.  Modern Masons discovered these symbols and had one of these obelisks relocated to Central Park in New York City.

In the first decades of this country the Masons were still known for their will to do good, for brotherhood, vows to be honest, and help others in the community and the world.  Many great and honorable men were Masons, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.  Much of the Masonic ceremony today is very different from even Joseph Smith's time.  By the late 1800’s their reputation was marred by members that were caught killing to keep their ceremonies secret.  A secret society itself became suspect of evil doing.  They have made a bit of a comeback in recent years, but I don’t think they are quite what they were in Joseph’s time.