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.  

Evolution

One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8).  Is Peter trying to tell us that a thousand of our years is only one day to God?  Does this mean that the Earth was created in 7,000 years rather than 7 days?  Assuming this timeline, and using the Bible as our guide, the creation actually began 12,000 years ago, and the first man, Adam, was put on it 6,000 years ago.  Does this make sense considering the latest science of the day?  If this is so, why does the creation of the Earth date scientifically to 4.5 billion years ago?  The answers to these questions are obviously not essential for our salvation, but understanding them can increase our faith, and help us to face challenges to it.  Indeed we are commanded to seek wisdom in all things.

This topic often puts Creationism and Evolution at odds.  I remember taking a biology class at BYU.  On a test we were asked to either defend creationism or evolution.  I saw through the professor and defended evolution, which was much easier to defend, according to what I knew at the time.  Several students insisted on defending creationism and got zero points for this question, as they could not give valid science to do so.  I have to wonder how they would do now, as we know more today and understanding has increased in both fields.

We could just be a hard-line creationist and insist that the Earth is really just 6,000 years old and that the science of evolution is simply incorrect--that man and dinosaur once roamed together, and whenever science deviates from this we look the other way and label it as simply wrong.  Not that this would be a bad stance to take as many people do take this stance and are just fine, but we would have to close our eyes to opposition when it comes our way.  I believe that to understand how these two theories can coexist, we must embrace science, but also be a believer in God--or at least give Him a fair chance to explain.  At this point in our existence, we need both religion and science for anything close to a complete understanding.

Evolution does not have to be an enemy to the creation as told in the Bible.  We should not be afraid of science.  When fully developed and understood for what it is, it can only add to the light of truth.  We should remember that science is still developing, as is our understanding of the creation story.

While the science of evolution is valid for consideration, remember it is still only a theory.  In my view, it is a theory with incorrect conclusions.  What I mean by that is that it does exist in a God-given form, and it affects our world in a very real way, but the beginning of man and animal has nothing to do with it.  The theory of evolution is far overrated, far overused, and far too often stated as absolute fact.  The God-given form I speak of is this--changes are seen in life forms much more from natural selection and adaptation than from mutation, which the theory of evolution depends on heavily.  Mutation generally involves the extinction of the mutant form rather than it taking over the entirety of the species.  

The theory of evolution maintains that all life form came from a single cell which then evolved into all life forms we have today.  But how this single cell came into existence is by far yet to be proven.  For me this is the number one problem for evolutionists to reconcile.  To say that all life came to be from a spontaneously formed single-celled organism is impossible on many levels.  Antony Flew, the famous atheist turned theist said, "Even a single celled organism contains more organized information than all volumes of the encyclopedia put together.  There is simply no way it would have happened by chance.  It is like saying the library of congress came about from an explosion in a print shop."

According to Dr. Sy Garte, a biochemist, speaking on biogenesis, "Bio evolution does not make sense in that there is no natural selection going on and chemicals don’t self-replicate, as the theory requires.  In fact, in life absolutely nothing self-replicates except for cells." Then he asks, how did that self-replication get there?  "It couldn’t have evolved because there was no evolution and a cell would have to already be there to get the process going."  A video of Dr. Garte can be seen here.

However, the apparent effects of "evolution" can be seen at work right here, right now.  For example, roadside plants that develop in greater heat and greater water, have become different than those of the same species far away from the road.  When we introduce domesticated pigs into the wild, very quickly they grow much larger, grow large tusks and are much more ferocious.  But to say this is evolution at work does not make sense using its' own theory.  These are classic cases of adaptation, since mutation is much too random and would take much more time and need much more luck.  

Another great example of adaptation is The Bajau people in Indonesia.  They have lived and hunted in the ocean without any equipment for generations.  The lenses on their eyes have adapted to allow them to see under water twice as clear as anyone else can.

This adaptation is an innate ability that life forms have to survive in its given environment, especially when that environment changes.  I feel this myself living in a much warmer climate than most.  I seem to be able to take heat much better than those visiting from cooler climates.

It is important to note that it has only been shown that this adapting, or "evolving" if you will, has only been shown to be within species, not from one kind into another--a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat no matter how small or large, light or dark, with long or short legs.  But a tree will never evolve into a cow.  The plants and pigs mentioned above will always be plants and pigs no matter how they may adapt to their environment.  In anthropology, the “in between” creatures in our ancient history that the theory of evolution insists on cannot be found, though many have tried with a few interesting cases, but for the most part this has been overwhelmingly unsuccessful.  These "interesting cases" can easily be labeled as another "kind" that became extinct, as in fact most organisms ever in existence have become extinct.  But these very few cases are a universe away from explaining the millions of organisms that have existed.  This is extremely significant and in my mind this also completely voids the theory of evolution.  This is yet another of the many problems with this theory.  

At this point, the scriptures of the restoration can help quite a bit.  D & C 130: 4 asks, “Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside?  Answer, Yes.” In Abraham 5:13, we are told, commenting on Adam’s condition before the fall that it, “was after the Lord’s time… for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning (of time)”.  So we know all the way up to the Fall in the Garden of Eden, time as we know it still did not exist for this world.  That would put a completely unknown time stamp on everything before that point in the earth's history.  In addition, we are not told when exactly Adam's reckoning of time was given.  This turns out to be extremely significant.  To know when the fall occurred and what the comparable time was before that moment would answer many questions.  But even then it could have been a gradual transition to our time stamp some time after the fall, making it even more difficult to reconcile.  

If we calculate from scriptural passages, and taking into account a ratio of one day to a thousand years, it can be millions if not billions of years.  We know Adam lived over 900 years but we do not know how much of that was before and after the fall.  If we assume he was 500 years old at the time, that alone would add over 182 million years to the age of the earth at the time of the fall.  Then if you add the time in our years it took to create the earth, it could get into the billions of years.

It is important to remember that God's time is not man's time, and the time stamp assigned to the earth during the creation period was different than it is today.  Also, as we shall see, there may be many problems with our current scientific methods of determining the age of the earth.

Many like to think about it as follows... The Earth was created in 7 days.  But does this have to be 7 of our 24 hour days as we know time?  In fact, in the Pearl of Great Price the creation story is given in terms of periods of time rather than days.  This can be significant and may explain it in part, but among other things we would have to explain the scriptural account telling us that death did not come until after Adam partook of the fruit--which we will do (see Romans 5:12, Alma 12:23).  If we understand these scriptures literally, that would be a problem for the dinosaurs.  Certainly, every creature did not live millions of years, then suddenly die when Adam finally showed up, though these scriptures probably only apply to man.  

Another way of thinking notes that when Adam partook of the fruit, there were many miraculous physical changes that seemingly occurred simultaneously.  According to Genesis 3, the woman would now have sorrow and bring forth children.  The ground became cursed, and weeds came on the scene with thorns and thistles.  With this came Adam and Eve’s mortality.  Their bodies changed, and they would die within a day (a thousand years) as the Lord declared.  Their minds became enlightened.  They became aware of their nakedness and they became as God, knowing good from evil (vs 22).  We can also surmise many other changes took place at this time.  Perhaps one of those changes—now hold on to your hats—is that the age of the Earth instantly changed as well.  Just maybe the sanctuary of the Garden of Eden was taken many years into the Earths future--even millions of years.  If God is omnipotent He is not bound by time, this would theoretically not be a problem.  

We would need to reclassify "death" as mentioned in the Bible as meaning from the Garden of Eden (or the creation of man) onward.  Any life before that we would classify in the preparation phase, or one of the previous "days" that do not apply to man on his prepared earth, and I am ok with that assumption.  We should also again emphasize that the scriptures above on death probably only apply to man--not any other life, as they do not indicate any other life but man.  

This theory would allow adaptation (not evolution) to take its course, except for placing Adam and Eve in the garden.  As for myself, I do not believe God to be a time traveler, except for being able to see it all, past, present, and future.

Finally let me reveal what I believe about the mystery of the creation of the earth.  First I will say I admit I do not have the complete story.  There are still many holes that have yet to be revealed.  I have often and will probably in the future alter my ideas, but here goes.

Through the scriptures, including the scriptures of the restoration, we can learn a great deal more about the creation.  To me it is wonderfully simple, yet can be as complex as we are willing to search.  We do not need to instill the stretch of time travel, though it is essential that we accept that God's time is not man's time and that God is not in a hurry and has eternal patience.  An excellent source for most of these can be found in the book, Earth in the Beginning by Eric Skousen, and also in the video series, Is Genesis History?.  

"All things are created and made to bear record of me... things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." (Moses 6: 63)  There have been three catastrophic events forming the earth as we know it.  The creation process, the fall, and the flood.  These can sometimes be hard to differentiate in the record.  

First, we will consider the fossil and rock record.  These records tell us volumes.  The lowest layer in the earth's crust is as we would expect, the oldest.  It also contains the most simple of life forms.  As we move upward, the life forms become more complex and the age becomes more recent--but these are in the millions of years if not billions.  This alone seems to support the theory of evolution.  But of course, it is not that simple.  

As some creationists would explain it, a flood moving first through lower, water-containing levels would first overtake marine and simple life forms forming a layer, then overtaking more and more larger life forms as it takes the flood further up on land to those more able to escape.  But even the simple life forms on the lower levels are still very complex--and they arrive suddenly, with no in-between life forms suggesting evolution.

Anyone who has seen the Grand Canyon would know that these layers are horizontally level and without any gouges in them that would suggest evidence of erosion before another layer appears over it.  This is another problem with the evolution theory--for a layer to sit for millions of years and have absolutely no evidence of erosion is inconceivable.  Another problem is that there are millions of years of missing time between several of these layers.  In other words, one layer may date to 2.3 billion years ago, and the next right on top of it dates to 1.5 billion years ago.  This in known as the Great Unconformity.  Rather than being gradual, there is 800 million missing years here, suggesting either a problem with our method of dating or understanding how it happened, or both.  Also of note, again these layers are level, signifying the next layer came quickly, geologically speaking.  We cannot say a missing layer was completely gouged out (by glaciers for example) because it would be uneven at the top. 

Finally as I mentioned, the life forms from layer to layer arrive suddenly and stay consistent from layer to layer (no evolution).  Again, the overwhelming observation is--there is no sign of gradual evolution from one kind to another.  Most scientists try to force that into the record, but that is not what the earth is telling us.  What we see is the same life form existing through great amounts of time, with little or no change.  The missing link to make the theory of evolution complete is simply non-existent in all organisms.  Even Charles Darwin admitted this problem, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chains; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” A scholarly video on this subject is here.

These things are not adequately explained through either evolutionary scientists or orthodox religion creationists today, who claim this is all evidence of the flood of Noah.  This view has great value, but it does not solve timeline problems.  The time from us to Noah is fairly well known Biblically, but can we really say the earth's crust was formed in one huge flood with each layer dating to a much different time than the one on top?  

However, I will interject one interesting phenomenon in their favor.  Fossil footprints are fascinating evidence of a global flood that evolutionists just cannot explain.  Dr. Marcus Ross, a paleontologist explains that, “Although fossil footprints were not unusual in themselves, it’s where they occur in relation to other fossils that’s so unusual: trackways consistently appear in rock layers below the bones and teeth and shells of the animals that made them.

But why is that curious?

If you think the earth is billions of years old, then those layers of rock represent millions of years of history. How is it possible that footprints could appear millions of years before there’s any evidence of the hard parts of the same animals that made them? If there are footprints, there have to be creatures – where are their fossils? How could millions of years pass with millions of creatures dying (all with bones and teeth and shells) and none of them remain behind?

But there’s another solution. If you think the earth was covered by a global flood, then finding trackways below body fossils makes a lot of sense. Those animals that made the trackways were lifted up and carried higher, their bones and teeth and shells eventually being buried by the rising floodwater.  As a result, their body fossils would be found consistently higher than their tracks.  It’s a pattern we see everywhere.”

We also can in fact find evidence of dinosaur and human footprints side by side as seen here.

Only through restored revelation can we see a little more clearly.  Remember, there were three catastrophic events, not just one.

What we know is this--that God created the earth, not in this solar system with its' corresponding sun, man's time and 24 hour days as we know it.  He created it in His way, in His time, and in His backyard.  And He did not simply make it "ex nihilo", or out of nothing.  The Greek word "create" in the Bible is actually translated to mean "organize".  He took from available matter and organized it.  This may have been from matter never before used on any planet or from planets that were no longer in use--we can only speculate.  

The earth stayed near unto God and His dwelling place, not here in our solar system, and did not take on time as we know it at least until the Fall of Adam.  Among other things, this alone can better explain the age of rock, of pre-fall organisms, as well as the age of starlight.  Not only did Adam fall, but the earth did as well.  All of the life forms until this time were for the preparation of the earth for man.  They all served their purpose and were needed for this preparation--even those that seem to be somewhat similar to man from their bone structure had their purpose and were within this unknown time system before the fall.  In the meantime we were all preparing ourselves for life on earth and beyond.  All of this was obviously on God's timetable, not ours.  The special condition of deathlessness was probably not very long at all, and it was not introduced until after the earth was sanctified and Adam and Eve placed there.  There is still much we do not know that will be revealed in more detail in the Lord's due time, but in the meantime He has given us much to chew on.

Now just a note on our current method of dating-- radiometric dating.  There is great discrepancy in dating the same substance using different methods, sometimes in the billions of years, suggesting we have on open system which therefore cannot be trusted with the simple methods we currently have.  We simply cannot use the present to judge the past when it comes to dating the earth. 

To understand radiometric dating, an understanding of the structure and decaying of isotopes is necessary.  We know by observation how long it takes for certain isotopes to decay into something else.  This may work very well in many cases, but as alluded to above, as we extrapolate that into the distant past it does not apply so well.  Many assumptions are made in using this system that can dramatically change its' accuracy, especially in dating the earth, not the least of which is the assumption of the original make-up and source of the crust.  It is also assumed that:

• The earth has been part of this solar system and its specific time stamp since it was created.
• There has been no contamination of the chemical elements.
• The environment, especially in terms of cosmic radiation, has always been the same. 

None of these assumptions are true.  

Also, carbon-14 dating can only apply to living life forms.  It begins its decay from the moment of death.  We can examine how much is left in any dead life form and extrapolate its age based on how much carbon-14 is left.  But we see a problem when we examine dinosaurs for example.  Carbon-14 will only last in any organism 90,000 years, so we are forced into using alternative, less accurate methods. Conventional scientists date dinosaurs as millions of years old, but just one problem with this is the fact that actual elastic, protein-containing tissue has actually been extracted from some dinosaurs!  It is inconceivable for tissue to last thousands of years, let alone millions.  

Another issue exists when using this method beyond 1,400 BC, according to archaeologist Doug Petrovich PhD, we see an offset.  When we have a historical record to compare with corresponding organic material, the actual historical or written record is not as early as what carbon-14 dates, and the earlier you go this gap gets exponentially worse, making this a huge problem in dating accuracy.  It seems to some scientists that something must have happened cosmically around this time that is not understood to cause this split.  Not understood at all with scientists, but better understood to those who have all the scriptures at their disposal.

The earth is not a closed, but an open system that has been affected by several things that conventional science does not know or will not take into consideration.  For a lecture from a geologist arguing a young earth, go here  For a discussion from 3 experts speaking of the problems of evolution, go here.  To hear two possible alternative theories, go here.

As I said, there is still much we do not know, but to completely assume one theory and force it into the evidence the earth is giving us is being closed-minded at best.  In my mind, the story that Genesis gives us, especially with the scriptures of the restoration, is more believable than what the theory of evolution gives us.