As we approach the Easter season, it may be valuable to reflect on the meaning of the season. It is, after all, Easter that gives meaning to Christmas, and the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ give meaning to Easter.
Few if any events of ancient history are as well attested as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. His rising from the tomb after His death at the hands of the Roman executioners is a hard fact. It is a particularly hard fact to grapple with if one is of the mind that religious phenomena are “spiritual”—by which critics mean “unverifiable.” Their efforts for nearly two thousand years have been to try to change the subject or impugn the witnesses or make the reality appear somehow merely symbolic, allegorical, or fabulous. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ remains as startlingly real today as it was to the Greco-Roman world of 34 A.D. The emergence in the 1830s of powerful new evidence of the Savior’s resurrection from the dead makes objections to its reality impossible to sustain.
The list of witnesses of the resurrected and immortal Christ is a long one, spanning continents, ages, and sexes. It begins with Mary Magdalene, in Jerusalem, who went to the tomb early on Sunday morning after Jesus’ execution, expecting anything but to see Jesus alive once more. She was there to finish the process of anointing the body, which she and others could only hastily begin on Friday evening. To her wonderment and sorrow the tomb was empty. Rather than expecting that the dead was alive once more, her one thought was to find where the body now was. To a joy that none but she could describe, Mary was told by Jesus Himself that He was risen from the dead. Mary also became the first to testify of the Savior’s resurrection, as she quickly reported her experience to the disciples (John 20:1-18).
The record reports how later, in the evening, the resurrected Christ appeared to these disciples, who included at least ten of His apostles in company with others of Jesus’ followers. As if to answer future skeptics, Jesus made a point of the physical reality of the resurrection from the dead. First, to attest to the death, he had those present handle the mortal wounds in hands, feet, and side (the last inflicted by the Roman soldiers to assure the death of Jesus before they removed His body from the cross), as He declared to them, “handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:36-40; John 20:19-21) Next, to demonstrate the full functionality of a resurrected body, Jesus ate a piece of broiled fish and part of a honeycomb (Luke 24:41-43). This is tangible evidence, intentionally offered by the Savior to emphasize the fact of His physical resurrection, with a very physical body.
Sometime that same day Jesus walked for an extended time with two disciples as they journeyed to the nearby village of Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). A week later the apostle Thomas, who had been absent the week before, was added to the list of physical witnesses, as he in turn was shown the mortal wounds of the risen Christ (John 20:26-29). Again in Galilee Jesus met His disciples for a meal of fish and bread and then taught them about charitable service while sitting with them around the fire. To these and other interactions of the mortal disciples with the immortal, risen Christ, is the record in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that “above five hundred brethren at once” saw the resurrected Christ, to which Paul adds his own personal witness (1 Corinthians 15:6-8).
The Book of Mormon, first published in 1830, is another witness, from a separate people on another continent, of the Christ who had lived, died, and been resurrected far away in Jerusalem. Across the ocean, in ancient America, Jesus Christ appeared to 2,500 more disciples who became personal witnesses of their resurrected Savior. “And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom was written by the prophets, that should come.” (3 Nephi 11:15)
To these ancient testimonies, the list grows with modern day witnesses of the resurrected Christ. Add the names of Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery, “That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:22,23; see also Doctrine and Covenants 110:1-10).
The testimony is sure. You can accept it or not, but you cannot change the fact that Jesus, once dead, rose again from the dead, as He and the prophets foretold and as He and the prophets since have reported. With that knowledge, Easter becomes more than a quaint relic of just another “faith tradition”. It becomes a celebration of the greatest event in the history of the world.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Of Jesus Christ and The Joseph Smith Papers
It is hard to praise too much The Joseph Smith Papers project. This is one of those rare endeavors that will grow in value as it proceeds and as time goes by. Preserving and disseminating the early documents connected with the rise of the Church of Jesus Christ in these last days—before they are lost page by page to the aggressive corrosions of time and the environment—is worthy of every support and encouragement. The dissemination of Volume 1 being a great success, many eagerly await Volume 2.
With Volume 2 and succeeding volumes, the editors would be wise to resist the natural impulse to contribute their own thoughts and observations. Instead, they should get right on to the documents. In Volume 1 it takes nearly 70 pages before you actually reach the documents. In something that suggests editorial excess, the actual Papers are preceded by a “Preface,” a very abbreviated “Timeline,” a basic map, a “General Introduction” that runs for some 25 pages, a “Series Introduction,” a “Volume 1 Introduction,” a section on “Editorial Method,” and a “Source Note” that runs for about 5 pages more. Sensing the monumental value of the underlying work, it is as if the editors would like to linger for some pictures alongside the monument.
Some of this prefatory material is valuable and needed. A few words on what this is all about, the sources of the documents, and the editorial methods used are called for. The value of the rest of the introductory materials is not as apparent. Of course, many will choose to skip the introductory materials. Others will read them in the fear of missing something important. I read them, and having done so I can report that it is safe to skip them. Read them if you wish, but you need not fear that you need to do so in order to understand the documents. If you feel compelled to read any of them, then go ahead and read the section on “Editorial Method” so you can understand the various markings and typefaces that the editors employ in presenting the documents.
Yet, for all of their length there is something disturbingly missing from the extended prefatory sections of Volume 1. Perhaps I should more precisely say, Someone is missing. Read these sections carefully, and you will discover that the editors forgot to include Jesus Christ in the story. This is a curious omission for an introduction to a set of works intended to present the central documents—and many peripheral documents—relating to the founding and the founder of a major religious organization. I would have thought that what really gives these papers lasting worth is the presence of God in the work.
Do not forget that these papers have transcendental value—what makes them more than a collection of historical curios—because they are the papers of someone who unabashedly claimed to have been working under the immediate and constant direction of Jesus Christ, a claim supported by many evidences—evidences found in these papers and elsewhere. It seems to me inexcusably negligent not to include Christ in the story, for in documenting the work of His Prophet we look to see the hand of God and understand how God achieves His purposes through very mortal and fallible people.
You cannot tell the history correctly, fully, of Christ’s work on the earth while leaving Christ out of the picture. It seems to me worse than telling the history of the American Revolution while slighting the role of George Washington. Leaving the role of God to the side while attempting to tell the story of the Restoration results in a thin caricature, which is what the editors have produced in their essays. For example, their flippant treatment of the fall of such great church leaders as Oliver Cowdery and the treachery of Orson Hyde and Thomas Marsh take amazingly poignant and instructive real life tragedies and make them appear as inexplicable personal vendettas. Instead of a rich, insightful history that joins all of the sources of knowledge and information available, the editors have produced a crippled outline that too often does not rise above the level of silly.
The editors could have done so much better. Hopefully, their faithful preservation work will rise far above this error and save the materials to be used by themselves and other historians who will not fear to include spiritual information and truths along with all of the other valuable information to record a full and insightful history of God’s marvelous interaction with man in recent centuries. It is a rich treasury of history worth telling. You cannot understand Joseph Smith and his work without looking through him to the real Author of that work who inspired and supported and sustained the prophet Joseph (and those who followed in the years afterward), Jesus Christ Himself.
With Volume 2 and succeeding volumes, the editors would be wise to resist the natural impulse to contribute their own thoughts and observations. Instead, they should get right on to the documents. In Volume 1 it takes nearly 70 pages before you actually reach the documents. In something that suggests editorial excess, the actual Papers are preceded by a “Preface,” a very abbreviated “Timeline,” a basic map, a “General Introduction” that runs for some 25 pages, a “Series Introduction,” a “Volume 1 Introduction,” a section on “Editorial Method,” and a “Source Note” that runs for about 5 pages more. Sensing the monumental value of the underlying work, it is as if the editors would like to linger for some pictures alongside the monument.
Some of this prefatory material is valuable and needed. A few words on what this is all about, the sources of the documents, and the editorial methods used are called for. The value of the rest of the introductory materials is not as apparent. Of course, many will choose to skip the introductory materials. Others will read them in the fear of missing something important. I read them, and having done so I can report that it is safe to skip them. Read them if you wish, but you need not fear that you need to do so in order to understand the documents. If you feel compelled to read any of them, then go ahead and read the section on “Editorial Method” so you can understand the various markings and typefaces that the editors employ in presenting the documents.
Yet, for all of their length there is something disturbingly missing from the extended prefatory sections of Volume 1. Perhaps I should more precisely say, Someone is missing. Read these sections carefully, and you will discover that the editors forgot to include Jesus Christ in the story. This is a curious omission for an introduction to a set of works intended to present the central documents—and many peripheral documents—relating to the founding and the founder of a major religious organization. I would have thought that what really gives these papers lasting worth is the presence of God in the work.
Do not forget that these papers have transcendental value—what makes them more than a collection of historical curios—because they are the papers of someone who unabashedly claimed to have been working under the immediate and constant direction of Jesus Christ, a claim supported by many evidences—evidences found in these papers and elsewhere. It seems to me inexcusably negligent not to include Christ in the story, for in documenting the work of His Prophet we look to see the hand of God and understand how God achieves His purposes through very mortal and fallible people.
You cannot tell the history correctly, fully, of Christ’s work on the earth while leaving Christ out of the picture. It seems to me worse than telling the history of the American Revolution while slighting the role of George Washington. Leaving the role of God to the side while attempting to tell the story of the Restoration results in a thin caricature, which is what the editors have produced in their essays. For example, their flippant treatment of the fall of such great church leaders as Oliver Cowdery and the treachery of Orson Hyde and Thomas Marsh take amazingly poignant and instructive real life tragedies and make them appear as inexplicable personal vendettas. Instead of a rich, insightful history that joins all of the sources of knowledge and information available, the editors have produced a crippled outline that too often does not rise above the level of silly.
The editors could have done so much better. Hopefully, their faithful preservation work will rise far above this error and save the materials to be used by themselves and other historians who will not fear to include spiritual information and truths along with all of the other valuable information to record a full and insightful history of God’s marvelous interaction with man in recent centuries. It is a rich treasury of history worth telling. You cannot understand Joseph Smith and his work without looking through him to the real Author of that work who inspired and supported and sustained the prophet Joseph (and those who followed in the years afterward), Jesus Christ Himself.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Of Incentives and Jobs
Weird things happen when we decide by law who should have jobs and who should not and we order how people and businesses should spend money. I am not referring to the legality of telling people who receive money from the government how to live their lives and run their businesses. I am referring to the wisdom of it. And by "weird" I really mean "bad."
On Friday a press release came across my desk, issued by seven travel-meeting-event industry trade associations. Their basic message was that the public beating up of companies over the meetings they hold and the incentive programs that they have for employees is killing the travel, tourism, and meeting industry and the people who work in it. They estimate that 200,000 jobs were lost in that industry in 2008, and a larger number of job losses are predicted for 2009.
Even the old communist governments figured out that workers respond to incentives. Under the power of incentives people work harder, smarter, and more creatively. They may even enjoy their work more. Sometimes incentives that take the employee out of the normal routine can be very powerful. If left to their own devices, businesses will experiment with different packages of incentives to guide their employees into the most efficient ways to accomplish company goals and objectives. Will they get it right? Often they will not. When they get it wrong, they try something else.
What is the best set of incentives, and should the incentives include travel and recreation programs? I do not know, and neither do you. No one has enough information, smarts, or involvement to know. You may know what works for you, but are you willing to say that others should be offered the same rewards or that you should be given the same incentive program designed by someone somewhere else or in some other line of work? Everyone meeting company goals gets a set of golf clubs. That may work fine for Harry, but how about for you?
While it may be lots of fun to rant about businesses sending employees to Florida for a weekend, do we have any idea how that might figure into the incentive programs in those businesses? If you take that option away, what other option will work as well or as efficiently? Again, I do not know, and neither do you.
Up until recently, I did not have to know or pretend to know. We left it for businesses and their employees to figure out. In view of the efficiency of our businesses--which efficiency continued to improve and lead the world even in 2008--American businesses have been getting the incentives much more right than wrong. When we decide to make those decisions for other people, especially when we try do so through government force, we can be pretty sure we will get it wrong. Who wants to explain to the 200,000 travel and tourism industry people who are in danger of losing their jobs why businesses should not be holding meetings in Williamsburg or San Antonio or Nashville? Step up now; a frozen turkey if you get it right.
On Friday a press release came across my desk, issued by seven travel-meeting-event industry trade associations. Their basic message was that the public beating up of companies over the meetings they hold and the incentive programs that they have for employees is killing the travel, tourism, and meeting industry and the people who work in it. They estimate that 200,000 jobs were lost in that industry in 2008, and a larger number of job losses are predicted for 2009.
Even the old communist governments figured out that workers respond to incentives. Under the power of incentives people work harder, smarter, and more creatively. They may even enjoy their work more. Sometimes incentives that take the employee out of the normal routine can be very powerful. If left to their own devices, businesses will experiment with different packages of incentives to guide their employees into the most efficient ways to accomplish company goals and objectives. Will they get it right? Often they will not. When they get it wrong, they try something else.
What is the best set of incentives, and should the incentives include travel and recreation programs? I do not know, and neither do you. No one has enough information, smarts, or involvement to know. You may know what works for you, but are you willing to say that others should be offered the same rewards or that you should be given the same incentive program designed by someone somewhere else or in some other line of work? Everyone meeting company goals gets a set of golf clubs. That may work fine for Harry, but how about for you?
While it may be lots of fun to rant about businesses sending employees to Florida for a weekend, do we have any idea how that might figure into the incentive programs in those businesses? If you take that option away, what other option will work as well or as efficiently? Again, I do not know, and neither do you.
Up until recently, I did not have to know or pretend to know. We left it for businesses and their employees to figure out. In view of the efficiency of our businesses--which efficiency continued to improve and lead the world even in 2008--American businesses have been getting the incentives much more right than wrong. When we decide to make those decisions for other people, especially when we try do so through government force, we can be pretty sure we will get it wrong. Who wants to explain to the 200,000 travel and tourism industry people who are in danger of losing their jobs why businesses should not be holding meetings in Williamsburg or San Antonio or Nashville? Step up now; a frozen turkey if you get it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)