Stay On Course

This Christmas I call your attention to one of the “players” in the Nativity story. The one I'm thinking about never broke into song with the "multitude of the heavenly host," didn’t kneel alongside the shepherds by the infant Jesus, nor did it bring any treasured gifts like the wise men. In fact, the “player” I have in mind remained at a considerable distance from that special scene—even light years away.

I’m referring to the star of Bethlehem, and here's why: 

In an article written for the Christmas season many years ago, Elder Neal A. Maxwell noted that on the night of the Savior’s birth, God didn’t just wave His hand and make a brilliant star appear out of nowhere. Thousands of years earlier, that star had intentionally been placed in a specific trajectory. By staying on its pre-determined path, it appeared exactly in the right place at precisely the right time. 

Like that star, your “trajectory” through this earth life was pre-determined, including the time and place of your birth. You showed up where and when you did because, as Elder James E. Talmage wrote, "God . . . knows what each will do under given conditions . . . [He] has a full knowledge of the nature and disposition of each of His children, a knowledge gained by long observation and experience in the past eternity of our primeval childhood."

Before you left His presence you told Him that you would do here what you’d committed to Him there. Elder Orson Hyde suggested that we may have even agreed in writing to what we committed to do here, saying,

"We understood things better there than we do in this lower world . . . It is not impossible that we signed the articles thereof with our own hands -- which articles may be retained in the archives above, to be presented to us when we rise from the dead, and be judged out of our own mouths, according to that which is written in the books" (Journal of Discourses 7:314-315).

But here I must point out an important difference between you and the star of Bethlehem. The star didn't have agency to wander off course. But you do. God gave you agency as a test to see if you will use it to keep the commitments you agreed to before you were born.   

So -- are you like the star--staying true to the course you agreed upon? Are you showing up when and where you said you would? Sadly, there are some who, once they get here, become so distracted by the noises, amusements, and influences of the world that their God-given navigation system becomes jammed. This is no accident. A very real enemy desires that you stray off your appointed course and that you "do your own thing." He knows that, just like the star, you have the capacity to make a difference in the lives of others. Knowing this, he will try to convince you to take a detour, to seek pleasure without restrictions. The enemy is particularly effective at persuading many that the detour is, after all, only temporary and that you can always "jump back on the train" whenever you want.

There are others who get sidetracked and lose energy, feeling overwhelmed by life's trials and stresses and because they doubt whether they really have what it takes to "stay the course." Of these Elder Neal A. Maxwell said:

"When in situations of stress we wonder if there is any more in us to give, we can be comforted to know that God, who knows our capacity perfectly, placed us here to succeed. No one was foreordained to fail or to be wicked . . . Let us remember that we were measured before and we were found equal to our tasks . . . When we feel overwhelmed, let us recall the assurance that God will not overprogram us; he will not press upon us more than we can bear" (Doctrine & Covenants 50:40).

I like very much this counsel from Elder Marvin J. Ashton:

“What really matters is . . . an understanding of who we are and what we’re doing here, and an absolute determination to return home. What young musician, after years of agonizing rehearsal, finally scheduled to debut in a [filled to] capacity concert hall, would, while en route to the performance, stop to join a long line forming at the latest hit movie, forgetting the thousands of people waiting to hear her? What world class runner, after training for well over a decade, would find himself in the Olympic finals, only to stop running halfway through his race to watch the high-jump finals taking place on the other side of the field?

“These examples may seem preposterous—but how much more tragic it is for someone who, equipped with a testimony of the truth and a knowledge of the purpose of life, becomes more absorbed in life today than in life forever . . . more concerned about his or her status and standing in mortality than in eternity” (“A Yearning For Home,” Ensign, Nov. 1992).

Please - stay true to the course you agreed upon. Remember: You gave your word. Straying into the dark and alluring emporiums and arcades of the great and spacious building is not what any of us signed on for.

Stay on course. Be known for doing here what you said you would do there. I assure you that marvelous blessings and opportunities will come your way once God knows that you can be trusted to do what you said you would. Be true.

Seeking Common Ground Is Not Really Our Goal

Many voices today are accusing Latter-day Saints of not being Christians. So in an effort to counter these charges, some of us try to prove to our detractors that we are just as Christian as they are. And we do it by pointing to references in the Bible on which we can both agree. This is known as "seeking common ground"--and it will ultimately bear no real fruit. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie once taught, the Bible is not common ground. It's a battleground. That's because for every reference we might find to bolster our case, others will find a reference that makes the opposite claim. (Isn't that why there are so many "Christian" churches today?)

Missionaries will forever spin their wheels using this "common ground" approach until they realize that the only real power to change men's hearts and bring about conversion is found in testifying of the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Restoration of the Lord's true Church, and the Book of Mormon. I know from experience that this is true--the power is real.

Think about it. If all we do is come up with something in the Bible to prove that we're just like other Christians, what reason would anyone have to be interested in our Church? Our job is not to find common ground. We don't put our profiles on Mormon.org to show the world that Mormons are nice, normal people who believe in Jesus just like other Christians do. We are ultimately charged with bearing witness that there's been a restoration of Christ's Church through the Prophet Joseph Smith, including a restoration of priesthood authority, the presence of real living prophets, and new revelations that clarify Biblical teachings that have heretofore created confusion and contention.

Does this make our detractors uncomfortable? You bet. Jesus made people uncomfortable too. But when He did, He didn't say, "Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to offend. Here -- let's find some common ground on which we can both agree." No, He proclaimed His message without apology, undiluted.

The quotes that follow were written by Joseph Fielding McConkie. I believe there is great wisdom here:

A woman called our home one evening to tell me that she was having a discussion with a nonmember neighbor—not an argument—and what she needed, she said, was a scriptural reference to prove that God has a body. I directed her to Doctrine and Covenants 130:22, which reads: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." Surely that is as plain and to the point as language permits.

My caller immediately objected. "What I need," she said, "is a Bible passage."

Now, I happen to know that there are more than five hundred passages of scriptures in the Bible that can be used to argue that God has a body, but I also know that such an argument is fruitless. We read our Bible text and say, "See, there's the proof." But no one ever responds by saying, "Wow, I didn't know that! May I be baptized?" What they say is, "The scriptures you are reading were not intended to be understood literally. They are simply figurative representations of God. If you are going to accept everything in the Bible as being literal, then when it says God is 'the rock of our salvation' you must believe he is a rock; or when it says he will keep us under the shadow of his wings, you must believe God is a bird and has wings." The discussion gets silly very quickly, and the silliest thing about it is that we allow ourselves to be a part of it.

So I told my caller that the way we knew that God had a body was that He told us and that we had no better authority than that. We hadn't learned it from the Bible. With a tone of disappointment in her voice she said, "Well, thanks, anyway. I'll see if I can find someone else who can help me," and hung up.

. . . A young man came to my office one morning before class and told me that he just about had his nonmember roommate converted. "All I need," he said, "is a passage of scripture that proves that marriages are supposed to be eternal. Can you help me?" he asked.

"That's easy enough," I said. "We have God's word on the matter in Doctrine and Covenants 132."

"No, no," he interjected, "what I need is a Bible passage."

"We are not practicing eternal marriage because of any Bible text," I responded. "We do it because God commanded us to do so through a living prophet."

"You mean you don't know of any Bible text that proves it?" he asked, tension and anxiety ringing in his voice.

"I don't even know a Bible text that I can torture into saying such a thing," I replied.

He responded, "I'd better see if there isn't someone else who can help me," and left.

The perspective represented by these exchanges, which is not an uncommon one, is a matter of considerable concern. It ignores the fact that there has been a restoration of the gospel. It represents a retreat to the Protestant position that the Bible is the final word on all things. It makes us a part of the argument over the meaning of the Bible instead of the solution to that argument. It is a way of saying that dead prophets outrank living ones and that modern revelation can be accepted only if Bible texts prove it to be true. This perspective short-circuits the conversion process and effectually denies the reality of the First Vision. It turns a deaf ear to every revelation we have received since the spring of 1820.

. . . The Book of Mormon testifies that many of the plain and precious parts of the Bible were taken from it before it went forth to the nations of the earth (see 1 Nephi 13:23-29). We can hardly be true to the book if we argue that all its doctrines can be found in the Bible. Such arguments remind me of the occasion when a very enterprising student came into my office carrying a manuscript of impressive proportions. He placed it on my desk and said he was anxious to take it to a publisher but wanted me to review it for him first. He explained that it was a defense of Mormonism in which he had proved all our doctrines by the Bible.

I asked him to close the door and in hushed tones said, "We have to get rid of this as quickly as we can!" There was obvious alarm in his voice when he asked what I meant. I said, "Look, if you have proven all of our doctrines by the Bible, then there is no need for Joseph Smith and the revelations of the Restoration." I added, with some emphasis, "This thing could destroy everything we stand for!" He grabbed his manuscript and made a quick exit.

. . . Our commission is to bear witness of the restored gospel in all the world. Any time the adversary can get us to substitute something else for that message, the victory is his. It is not our purpose to convert people to programs, to activities, or to a Latter-day Saint culture. Nor can we modify the message the Lord gave us in an attempt to be more acceptable. To make such things the focus of our efforts is to lose sight of our destiny and purpose and will eventually cause us to lose our own way. . . We can go out under the guise of telling the world about family home evening, but Christ did not shed his blood on Calvary, nor Joseph and Hyrum Smith theirs in Carthage, so that we might take the family home evening manual to those of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. As wonderful as that program is, it is powerless to remit sins or seal families for time and eternity . . .To properly present our message requires that we testify that Joseph Smith is the great prophet of the Restoration. There is power in such a testimony, and every effort is made by the adversary to keep us from bearing it. Perhaps his most effective ploy is the notion that we should not testify about Joseph Smith for fear that people will think we worship him instead of Christ. The idea is to emphasize our faith in Christ while avoiding reference to Joseph Smith.

. . . Recently my wife and I were invited to speak to a group of seminary students on the subject of preparing for missions. Before we spoke, two of their number, a young woman and a young man, were asked to bear a brief testimony, apparently without warning. Obviously, the hope in calling on them was to simulate the opportunity they would have as missionaries and to invite the Spirit into our meeting. Neither student handled the situation very appropriately, and the hoped-for end was not accomplished. Because of that, as I began my talk, I suggested to the students that if they were called on, as two of their peers had just been, they could assure themselves and those present of a positive spiritual experience by testifying that Joseph Smith is a prophet. I assured them that if they would do that, the Spirit would quicken their minds and let them know what they should say.

After the meeting, one of the teachers asked if he could speak with me privately for a moment. He asked delicately, "Would it not have been more appropriate to tell the students that when called on unexpectedly to speak, they should testify of Christ and then extend the promise of the sustaining support of the Spirit?" He seemed stunned when I answered, "No."

I went on to tell him that the fact that Christ is the foundation of our faith is beyond question, nor can the importance of his role as our Savior or Redeemer be overstated. Every principle of the gospel stems from his atoning sacrifice. We are saved through his grace, and without his saving labors in our behalf there would be no salvation. Such principles cannot be compromised. Why then testify that Joseph Smith is his prophet? Because it is in the Book of Mormon that we find our knowledge and understanding of both the Fall and the Atonement (see 2 Nephi 2; 9); and because it was from the Prophet Joseph Smith that we learned that all principles of the gospel are simply an appendage to the Atonement.We exist as a church because there was a Joseph Smith. It is because there is a Book of Mormon, it is because John the Baptist came to the Prophet and gave him keys and authority, and because Peter, James, and John did likewise. Our testimony of Christ grows out of these truths; it cannot stand independent of them. We cannot bring people to Christ without bringing them to these principles. We testify of Joseph Smith because he is God's choice to be the revelator of Christ for this dispensation. We testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon because it is the pure source, given by God to our dispensation, to learn of his Son. We testify of the appearance of those who held authority anciently to Joseph Smith, because that evidences that God has given us the same knowledge and authority had by the ancients. If we are going to ignore those principles in the testimony we bear, then it is a reasonable assumption that the Spirit will ignore us when we attempt to bear that testimony. "You shall declare the things which have been revealed to my servant, Joseph Smith, Jun.," is the Lord's direction to us (D&C 31:4).

. . . Had Joseph Smith sought answers in the Bible, instead of on his knees in a quiet grove, we would still be waiting for the restoration of the gospel promised in the Bible. Similarly, in missionary work, as long as we attempt to show people the path of salvation as stemming from the Bible, we become nothing more than another of the squabbling sects of Christendom. Our responsibility is to teach investigators to pray and to show them how answers come. The well-trained missionary will answer investigators' questions by finding the simplest and most direct route to the Sacred Grove. It is not common ground we seek in giving answers, but holy ground. Those who have a Bible need now to become as those of whom we read in the Bible; that is, they need living prophets and the faith to call down the revelations of heaven upon their own heads.

. . . As Latter-day Saints we must know clearly where we stand. If our message is simply a reworking of key Bible texts for which we have gained some insights that others overlooked, then why not abandon the offensive notion that there was a universal apostasy, or that there is but one true church, and get on with the matter of mending fences with historical Christianity? If, on the other hand, we are serious in testifying that there was indeed an apostasy, that it was universal, that it included the loss of the priesthood and the saving truths of salvation and the knowledge of the very nature of God himself, then we must be prepared to stand alone. We are not attempting to rebuild out of the theological rubble of the past. We have no borrowed doctrines. We have no priesthood, no keys, no power, no authority that we have received from the world. Such being the case, we have no right to proclaim our message to the nations of the earth by seeking common ground. We must stand independent. Indeed, it is not common ground that we seek. We seek sacred ground, and upon that ground we must stand.

[Source: Joseph Fielding McConkie, Here We Stand.]

"This Space Reserved" . . . Not

Even though she's much shorter than I am, "Sister X" is someone I really look up to. Now in her 80's, hers has not been an easy life, having suffered many trials and family tragedies. But through it all she has never complained. Many admire how she has faithfully hung in there, a great example of what the Lord expects us to be -- a faithful friend, kind, charitable, willing to serve anywhere the Lord asks. Her life shows she takes seriously the words of our 13th Article of Faith: "We hope to be able to endure all things" -- with one exception: She cannot endure it when someone sits in her spot in the chapel.

"Sister X" is not alone. Many there are who act as if the seats they claim as their own were earned through their faithfulness in the pre-existence. To be forced to sit somewhere else is tantamount to asking Queen Elizabeth to carry her own luggage! Inconceivable!

Members who stake a claim to certain pews bring back memories of a college class where we studied the practices of churches in the 1700's. To help defray the costs of building a church, the more well-to-do could contribute a sizable sum, and in return they'd be allowed access to their exclusive "family pews," many of their own design. One of the benefits, of course, was that they'd be guaranteed to sit in the same spot week after week. 

The more conservative ones looked something like this -- a simple enclosure with a door on the end.

St. Margaret's Church, Felbrigg (Photo by Derek Lamden)

But this was nothing when compared to many parish churches in England. Some of those pews had backs so high nobody could see you. They gave their owners total privacy, some with curtains and high, ornately carved walls. Your neighbors couldn't tell whether you were awake or not!

Here are some examples:

Ferneley Family Pew, 1828.



Barnardiston Family Pew, Sts. Peter and Paul, Kedington, assembled in 1610 from pieces of the medieval screen that once separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the church, but dissembled for the more fitting purpose of constructing a private sitting place for Important Persons.




Interior of Kederminster Family Pew, decorated with coats of arms, and containing hat pegs and benches.



(The preceding 4 examples, including captions, were found on http://laudemgloriae.blogspot.com/2009/11/family-pew.html )

These photos call to mind a 1955 article about reverence in church meetings by President David O. McKay. Commenting on the rudeness of young people who leave church meetings before dismissal, he said, "They should have lived in colonial days when just to make sure they stayed through the service young men were locked in their pews by their superiors."

Christopher Wren, one of the most highly acclaimed architects in all of England and the designer of famous cathedrals and palaces, hated the notion of family pews which afforded fashionable privileges to the rich, leaving standing room only or limited space in the upstairs galleries for the poor. After all, he reasoned, the gospel should be available to all without class distinction. Eventually the practice was discontinued.

But back to our day. I cannot deny that sitting in the same place every week lends continuity and stability to our Sunday worship. But seriously, folks -- can we really feel justified in reacting in red-hot anger when a stranger "jumps our claim"? Or refusing to budge when they ask that we (gasp!) move to the center of the pew?

Our tithes and offerings do not guarantee season tickets. Let us walk the charitable walk and not just talk the talk.