The power of godliness is manifest

What is the necessity of ordinances and covenants? I posted about this recently but read this scripture and wanted to expand further. 

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

That's exactly why, as Mormons, we are given the gift of ordinances. The opportunity to make commitment that build character that leads to godliness. It's not simply a life for testing how compliant we are, it's a life for becoming more like God. It's godliness not Godliness. The process of discovering the godliness within us. The inner god. 

I consider the D&C to apply to me as a Mormon. But perhaps it's not something that has global, universal, application. Many other religions and philosophies have practices or principles where the "power of godliness is manifest." If this is the case, why would they need a baptism or an endowment which offers the same thing. 

Mormonism is clearly a religion for people who need little to no ambiguity. The word of wisdom, for example, is designed for the weakest of the saints and has very little ambiguity. Where ambiguity exists it has either been further clarified ('hot drinks') or often ignored ('meat sparingly'). The whole question of tithing as gross/net is too ambiguous for some people and they clamour for a clarifying announcement. The instruction to wear garments when it was reasonable to do so was again too ambiguous so 'yard work' was added in (in UK the only yards are 'builders yards' - so I guess we can continue going topless when weeding our garden grown for food-storage).

D&C 19:6-7 is a favourite scripture of mine where God briefly lets down his 'absolutist' guard around us Mormons. "Yes, I know I said endless torment... It was just more express that way. It had the desired effect and so it was fit for purpose."

So yes, the priesthood ordinances are very much in place to help us discover the power of godliness in us. It works because in the performing the ordinance we are making and keeping covenants of sacrifice and service (to God and fellow-man). The ordinances are not some arbitrary card-carrying, tick-boxing exercise in obedience. 

I embrace ambiguity. But also need to recognise and respect that I worship in a community of absolutes and need to be cautious to not undermine the absolutes of other people.

How the unpalatable dish of polygamy leads to a taste for cafeteria Mormonism

During the Hans Mattsson debate some people have incredulously cast doubt on his claim to have found Joseph's polygamy a surprise. "Hadn't he read D&C 132," they ask. 

Just because someone has read D&C 132 (including the section heading) it doesn't mean they know the full implications. You have to do lots more background reading for that. Much of which is not available from LDS sources. 

As such it's reasonable that someone who has faithfully served his whole life and focused his study on the scriptures, the Ensign and a few other books (the missionary library) would not have been negligent in their study, nor would they they be naive. But they almost certainly would be surprised to discover the detail of plural marriage (among many others).

The full detail is certainly unsettling. 

Marriages to teenagers (about 10 or them). Marriages to other men's wives (another 10 of them). Around 30+ wives in the records. 

The revelation now found in section 132 was recorded, in private, around 10 years after polygamy appears to have started. The section was not in the edition of the D&C that Joseph signed off in 1835, nor was it in the version that Joseph reviewed in 1843 that was published in late 1844 (delayed from its earlier publication date of mid-1844 due to Joseph's death) even though the revelation that would become section 132 had been recorded in 1843. In other words, Joseph had the opportunity to, but made no attempt to canonise it.

Are you still with me? My head's a muddle. 

The institute manual states: "The revelation was not made public until Elder Orson Pratt, under the direction of President Brigham Young, announced it at a Church conference on 29 August 1852. The revelation was placed in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876."

If you want to throw in an affair with their 17 year old house maid, Fanny Alger, to start the whole thing off in 1833 you could find some evidence to reach that conclusion, though many others conclude it was a plural marriage, not an affair.

Either way, it was done without Emma's knowledge and I am disturbed by both options. 

It's not a belief in infallibility that makes me consider Joseph a prophet. I consider him a prophet because the application of the scripture he dictated actually works. 

But... because I recognise his fallibility I also don't feel the need to accept every piece of 'doctrine' he revealed. Just as I am selective with the teachings of other non-Mormon 'prophets and wise men' (to quote a GA).

I am proudly a "cafeteria Mormon." But only because I am confident that God is my personal trainer and helps me choose the eating plan best suited to me. 

I have a hard time understanding anyone who believes there's a set menu for all of humanity. That simply makes no sense as is not borne out by taking a look at the diversity of the human family.

Keystone and cornerstones. There's a big difference

If people's faith is built on expectations of peers, prophets, pioneers or the Book of Mormon then for some people the full history of the church will be too much to dismiss. It was for me. 

Many people get the perception at church that a testimony should be built on the Book of Mormon or the prophet Joseph. But that's risky, and where I went wrong as that's what mine was built on for most of my life. I've realised that I misunderstood the purpose of the different bricks in the building of faith. 

It's not a good idea to build on a keystone, especially if the foundation is sand. 

Christ is the cornerstone, the Book of Mormon is said to be the keystone. Only one is good for using as a foundation.

In 2011 I had a year of starting to establish a foundation on Christ. In 2012 my keystone of the Book of Mormon and the origins of the book and the church crumbled as I fully investigated their origins. The 'earthquake' of pain and uncertainty shook my building of faith and it came crumbling down. 

I am grateful that what was left in the rubble was a still strong cornerstone. As I work to rebuild my faith, with some old bricks and some new ones there will be elements that I recognise. It might even be in the same LDS neighbourhood and community. But I fully expect a new building with new features and different windows to let in the light. It will be less rigid. More able to adapt to new circumstances. 

The "earthquake" has got rid of the old one and I don't want it back any more. I celebrate the God-given opportunity to build a new one. 

Lunch with an apologist blogger and the choices we make

Richard Bushman probably knows more historical information about Joseph Smith than Hans Mattsson, the emiritus 70 who recently gave an interview with the New York Times expressing doubts about the church. He certainly knows more than me. And yet I side with Mattson in feeling concern and discomfort, to the point of a level of disenfranchisement. What separates Bushman from Mattsson or me? Is it only a longer list of facts?

It's a fair question and one I've asked myself several times.

 I had lunch with a fairly well-known "blogging apologist" recently and asked him if there was anything that he thought could break his testimony. Any undiscovered piece of evidence?

He didn't answer directly but admitted there were things from church history that had no good answer and bothered him deeply. "For example, when I get to the other side I'll have some serious questions about the practice of polygamy," he said "I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph offers his apologies for some gross errors of judgement in implementing it. Or maybe in it being needed at all."

He paused in thought and then continued: "But I don't let that drive me out of the church for two reasons: first, there is simply too much evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon for me. It more than counters the possible errors of human leaders to consider this all to be one big fabrication.

Second, I wouldn't want my wife to leave me because of my weaknesses and I wouldn't leave her for the few she has. Why should I leave the church because I find weaknesses in it? I'm not looking for something perfect.

The church is like a friend and I love being a member of it. If I left I would feel like I was stabbing it in the back."

I accept that in the end, with access the same resources, we make a choice. I don't accept that if everyone has the same information as Bushman that they would all stay (or become) Mormon. They would also need to share the same attitude and faith choices.

The historical information available to us, limited by the dichotomy of time, leaves us all with a choice based on spiritual experiences and faith.

I believe Elder Mattsson is sincere when he says he has gone through that process and appears to have reached a different conclusion to Elder Holland or Richard Bushman. One that he feels God is pleased with. I hope people will accept that I am also sincere when I say the same.

What are Mormon ordinances really for? And are they needed?

Is a ceremonial act going to save us and send us to heaven?

No. But the behaviour needed to keep the covenant might.

Matthew 25, the parable of the Goats and Sheep, describes the righteous, those who will have eternal life.

Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you... These shall go... into life eternal. (v. 34, 46)

What acts had the "righteous" done? Ordinances? Strict obedience?

The simple description is of people who had fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, took in the stranger, clothed the naked, visited the sick and the prisoner. They had served God by serving their fellow man. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Importantly this is not after an initial triage of checking membership cards. The parable starts by saying:

Matthew 25, the parable of the Goats and Sheep, describes the righteous, those who will have eternal life.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory... And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another

So what are the ordinances for? It seems to me that all of the covenants are a promise to serve God by serving others. In this service we develop charity and become more Christlike. To paraphrase the Givens, ordinances do not offer us the option to walk the 4 or 5 gates carrying some "celestial hall-pass" (to quote Givens2).

If you look at all of the ordinances, they are promises to serve God by serving other people.

Baptism
Sacrament
Priesthood
Endowment
Marriage

I think God is less interested in the ordinance and more interested in the commitment being kept that was made during the ordinance.