Of Blasphemy and Racism

Blasphemy!  Heresy!  Treason!  Racism!  All loaded words, used less to convey meaning than for their effect as weapons.  Few weapons in history have been as powerful.  They have killed thousands, perhaps millions, and silenced many more.  “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”  These will.  They are intended to.

Consider “blasphemy.”  It is a common hammer of religious leaders who are doubtful of their deity’s ability to defend himself.  These nervous clerics and acolytes step in to threaten and, where they can, inflict the harshest penalties against any and all they accuse of “blasphemy,” which usually means saying anything that the listeners consider untoward or disrespectful vis-à-vis their deity.  The harshness of the penalties, and the vagueness of what qualifies as an infraction, create a terror that intimidates both speech and action among others, which is the basic purpose of the label.  The religious leaders of Judea during the days of Jesus’ mortal ministry repeatedly tried to silence Him by hurling “blasphemy” at Him.   On the day of His death, they cried blasphemy to stir up the anger of the population—although they used another word, “treason,” when addressing the Roman authorities.  Several dozen nations today (with little opposition from the U.S. State Department or other executive branch officials) are seeking to make blasphemy a globally recognized crime, at least when touching upon Islam or its sensitivities.

“Heresy” has similar uses.  Rather than a crime of the impious, it is invoked in pious disagreements about whom or what is sacred.  The Spanish Inquisition comes readily to mind.  The accusation seems to be most commonly employed by those who lack confidence in the convincing power of their doctrines when faced with competing ones.  “Heresy” is intended to close ears, “heretic” to silence speakers, both intended to end the debate.

Next we come to “treason,” which can be a real phenomenon and a genuine crime against the nation or people, and when proved and the traitor caught usually answered with stern—if not brutal—penalties.  Genuine treason puts the nation or community at risk by exposing weaknesses to enemies. 

In former times, as well as in nations governed by authoritarian regimes, “treason” has been invoked, however, less to label traitors to the state and the society as to subdue opponents to the supreme leader.  Kings, emperors, czars, dictators, and others of the ilk sit nervously on their thrones—and for good reason.  They lack legitimacy yet enjoy immense power (or its illusion), which lures other would-be despots.  Nearly every one of the Roman emperors, for example, met death at human hands.  The Soviet Union never had a legitimate transfer of power from one boss to the next.  Tyrants, therefore, have little tolerance for opposition and are credulous of every rumor of resistance.  That makes accusations of “treason” powerful tools of terror for scoundrels in such societies to employ to settle grudges, dispose of enemies, steal lands and wealth, or otherwise gain advantage.  Many innocents have been so victimized.

Which brings us to “racism.”  This is a modern weaponized word.  Originally coined to identify people who would justify plunder and oppression by employing racial prejudices, it has been preserved long after such plans and schemes are suppressed by law and proscribed by social convention.  Indeed, the word only works as a weapon because of the universal social opprobrium already attached to it.  Its power as an epithet comes because no one in civil society considers it tolerable, any actual existence a bizarre aberration.  Calling someone “racist” is tantamount to accusing him of being unfit for public association and worthy of ostracism.  It is therefore used most commonly today, like the use throughout history of the other weapon words, to end debate, to intimidate opponents, to plunder wealth, and in general to gain advantage.  “Racism” is the modern world’s “blasphemy,” “heresy,” and even “treason.”  “Racism” is used to cause hurt, even where the absence of authentic racism causes none.  Worse, it is used by real racists to shield or camouflage their own bigotry.

Employed as a weapon word, racism is losing meaning.  When was the last time you heard a reasoned discussion and debate of racism?  Intellectual dialog is avoided for fear that raising the subject in an impartial way will court exposure to accusation, much as discussion of blasphemy, heresy, and treason in times past.  What is left, for example, when racism no longer means conscious prejudicial action but is applied—as it is by the Obama Administration—to mean manufactured statistical discrepancies among people who admittedly have no intention to act in a prejudicial manner? 

For the wielders of the weapon, the meaning of racism must be kept general and undefined to maximize the number of potential targets.  Feeding the outrage attached to it is a constant labor as is constantly finding new eruptions of racism where none exist.  The recognition of racism (especially where it is absent) must be automatic and assumed proven when employed—addressed if at all only by the mea culpa of the accused, followed by public contrition and the ceding of wealth or advantage to the accusers.

Where, I wonder, does the real racism lie?  Can racial distinction and prejudice wither when they are regularly conjured for personal advantage?   What does that do to a society where laws and culture already universally hold racism in contempt?  What is the appropriate term for the moguls of the racism industry who prosper by the preservation and promotion of racism?  When will the public immolations for private gain end?

Of the Arrival of Christmas and the Return of the Christ

Christmas came this year.  Nothing could stop it.  People could and did choose to ignore it, with varying success, but their efforts made no difference to Christmas’ arrival.  Neither poverty nor wealth could hold it back.  Merchants lamented the shortened shopping season.  Early wintry weather interfered with many transportation plans.  Irreligionists of many stripes raised their usual objections to the public symbols of Christmas and in some places succeeded in suppressing those symbols.  Wars and rumors of wars exerted their perennial presence to mock sentiments of peace on earth all the while proving its need.  On personal levels, challenges at work, demanding academic schedules, unexpected as well as chronic illness, the death of loved ones, and many other matters and intrusions of varying importance fought for the precedence of our attention. 

Many causes large and small could easily leave the feeling that there was no time for Christmas, this year or other years.  The distractions of life can all too easily make the sources of lasting value appear as distractions.

I am again reminded of the words of Charles Dickens.  He spoke through the mouth of young, idealistic Fred, in answer to his Uncle Ebenezer’s rodomontade against Christmas.  The not yet but soon to be converted miser thought his daily work focused on important matters, all the while missing out on the sources of joy in life.  Fred reminded his Uncle, as a prelude to a change of heart, how Christmas symbolized humanity’s worth in life’s lasting values, to which worldly wealth can serve as a facilitator but never a replacement.

There are many things from which I might have derived good, by which I have not profited, I dare say, . . . Christmas among the rest.  But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round—apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that—as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut up hearts freely, and to think of those people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.  And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!  (Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol)

And so this year, in 2013 Christmas came, inevitably, inexorably, as it has for some two thousand years, and many blessings with it.  The good and bad and indifferent that hitched along for the ride could not affect the driving core of Christmas, its fundamental, joyful message of hope of salvation for all, to one degree or another as each opens up—or not—to receive it.

It is in the driving arriving context of Christmas and the mission of Christ that it is appropriate to look to one of my favorite Christmas carols.  I confess that this is difficult to do without the music, essential to the power of the carol’s message.  I refer to the “Carol of the Bells,” a joyful Christmas message woven by Peter J. Wilhousky into the driving music of Mykola Leontovych’s Ukrainian song of Winter and the approaching Spring. 

I love this carol for many reasons.  One is that its origin of uniting Winter with Spring embodies the message that Christmas derives its meaning from Easter.  Jesus was the Christ, the Anointed One, because of His ultimate sacrifice and victory over death and hell, a mission for which He was chosen before the world was created.  Having fully accomplished His mission, as a resurrected God, Jesus declared, “I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world” (3 Nephi 11:11).  That is the reason for and fulfilment of our Christmas joy.

Here are the lyrics.  Importantly, as you read the words, feel their rhythm, central to the message:

Carol of the Bells

 

Hark how the bells,

sweet silver bells,

all seem to say,

throw cares away.

 

Christmas is here,

bringing good cheer,

to young and old,

meek and the bold.

 

Ding dong ding dong,

that is their song

with joyful ring

all caroling.

 

One seems to hear

words of good cheer

from ev’rywhere

filling the air.

 

Oh how they pound,

raising the sound,

o’er hill and dale,

telling their tale,

 

gaily they ring

while people sing

songs of good cheer,

Christmas is here.

 

Merry, merry, merry, merry Christmas,

Merry, merry, merry, merry Christmas,

 

On, on they send,

on without end,

their joyful tone

to ev’ry home.

 

Ding dong ding dong. . . dong!

The lyrics, like the tune, are repetitive, incessant, and by that technique insistent in rhythm.  On, on they come.  They demand attention.  Like bells, they are loud and piercing.  As someone knocking at the door, their message—and presumably the messengers—will not be denied.  The tune is joyful, but not light and airy.  Rather announcing a joy that comes from the soul, heartfelt, it is not the celebration of a party, but the celebration of a triumph, lasting and permanent, ever reaching out to more people, to every home.

So each year, onward Christmas comes, no holding it back, even as Jesus came into the world, as prophesied for thousands of years.  There was nothing to hold Him back or deter His mortal mission of redemption, not the jealousy of Herod “the Great,” the pusillanimity of Pilate, the hatred of the leaders of the Sanhedrin, nor the darkness of priestcraft and its traditions.  All was turned by God to assist in achieving the mission of the Christ.

And since then, onward marches the calendar, each year Christmas arrives, symbolic that the day of the Savior’s return, as prophesied by Himself and His prophets, inexorably approaches.  As Christ announced, only He and the Father know the precise day and time, but it is certain and each day closer.  The arrival of Christmas each year is a reminder to me, that the time of rejoicing is coming, the hope and assurance of which justifies rejoicing today, and every day.

Christmas will come again next year.  Ready or not, I am glad of it and will welcome it.

Of Agnostics and Manmade Religions

Atheism is intellectually weak minded, if it is what its professors claim it to be, that is the assertion or affirmation that there is no God.  The adherents of that religious doctrine (atheism must be acknowledged a religious doctrine, an organized system of belief with regard to God and man’s relation to God) do not merely believe for themselves that there is no God but make an unjustifiable claim to knowledge and then affirm and advocate what they cannot possibly know.  Surely they can choose not to believe that there is a God, but how can they know that God does not exist anywhere and that no one has met God?  Adherents to the atheist doctrine demonstrate a good amount of blind belief in unproven theories. 
 

The most that they can possibly prove or know is that they personally have not found God yet and that this lack of discovery has caused them seriously to doubt.  Unless they can be everywhere at all times and understand all things (which would be nigh unto godhood itself) they cannot say with intellectual honesty that God does not exist.  They cannot get further down the road of atheism beyond the signpost of agnosticism.  I understand the challenge of proving a negative, and affirming a negative is even bolder, but atheists themselves claim to have met this challenge, a claim that they have never substantiated.

Agnosticism is another thing, if engaged in honestly.  Honestly, it is an admission—or even affirmation—that one does not know.  The agnostic can explain why he does not know, what avenues he has unsuccessfully explored to know.  What he cannot honestly do is claim to know all that can be known or what others know.  The agnostic strays into the same errors of the atheist if he claims that because he does not know God then no one else can.  How could he possibly know that?  How can his experience circumscribe the experience of others, including the experience of those he has never met?  He can espouse theories as to why he disbelieves the claims of knowledge of others and even why he believes that others could not know, or even why he has lost hope that others know, but he cannot prove his theory, again unless he can be everywhere and know all things.  The agnostic cannot honestly pretend to knowledge that he does not have about the knowledge or experience of others.  Not all agnostics do.

Agnostics do have a point viewing the global and historical variety of manmade religions, which present a deep well of disappointment to those seeking evidence of the Divine.  When Jesus Christ spoke directly in person to the young boy Joseph Smith in 1820 the Savior ratified to Joseph much of the factual assertions of the honest agnostic.  The Savior declared to Joseph that all the religions then on the earth were creations of men, not of God, that “they teach for doctrines the commandments of men” having little more than “a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof” (Joseph Smith-History, verse 19).  Many of the religions of 1820 exist today, while inventive men have been working diligently since to create many more.

There was much justification for the agnostic in 1820.  There is increasingly less today.  The fact that all of the religions 190 years ago were manmade does not mean that God Himself could not establish—or reestablish—His own church and religion on the earth.  In fact, 2,500 years ago God promised that He would do just that.  When the prophet Daniel interpreted the dream of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, he prophesied that in the last days God Himself would establish on earth His religion, symbolized in the dream as a stone “cut out of the mountain without hands” that would roll forward until it filled the whole earth (Daniel 2:28-45).   Daniel then prophetically declared to the king, “the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.” (Daniel 2:45)

Which means that to honest atheist and agnostic alike, the message is beware lest you stop looking too soon, for the good news is that aside from the religions of men God has done His own work and revealed Himself to His children, as He promised long ago.  These things can be known today, certain and sure.

Of Mountebanks and the Second Coming of Christ

I have been wanting to write this for months, but I have been reluctant. I have been wanting to write this ever since I heard the bizarre claim on the radio by false prophets that they knew the exact date of the second coming of Christ. I have been reluctant, because I did not want to help draw attention to these con artists and inadvertently stimulate the curiosity of an unwary reader that could bring him within their grasp. We are close enough, now, to the day when their deception will be revealed, so the chance of there being further victims is small.

Today is May 20, 2011, and I am still here. I will still be here tomorrow, the date that the diabolical deceivers have given out as the day that Jesus Christ would return to the earth in glory. These mockers of the Savior are correct that tomorrow will fulfill prophecy, for as it comes and goes they will have demonstrated the fulfillment of Christ’s warning given to His disciples shortly before His crucifixion. As the Savior sat on the Mount of Olives, overlooking the Temple, Christ prophesied of His return to the earth in the latter days. Jesus warned,

Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. . . . if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. (Matthew 24:23, 26)

The Savior then explained, that when He returns to the earth, no one will need to tell you, for all will see and know. It will be just as obvious and apparent as the sunrise:

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. . . .
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:27, 30)

Tomorrow will be the end of just one more in a long line of frauds. Unholy mountebanks, avaricious men and women in pursuit of power, wealth, sport, or personal aggrandizement, have played and will continue to play upon the emotions and fancies of those who mix their longing—and lack of patience—for the return of the Savior with a spiritual gullibility, unilluminated by an allegiance to the guidance of Christ and His prophets. These sheep, unwilling to rely upon the Savior’s promises on His own timetable and in His own ways, line up to be unmercifully shorn.

For us and for them it could be otherwise. Jesus Christ Himself gave an ironclad safeguard against these deceivers, a foolproof test that has protected believers for almost 2,000 years. If anyone tells you the day or time when the Savior will return, do not believe him:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matthew 24:36)

I consider it unwise to lay claims to more knowledge than the angels or to follow any mortal who makes such claims.

So tomorrow will come, and tomorrow will go. I will be here, and you will be here, but the leaders of the latest unholy fraud will likely be gone, long gone, probably along with much of the funds of their followers. But do not look for them in heaven; I recommend seeking them in some more earthly paradise, with swaying palm trees and drinks served with little umbrellas.

Of Blood Sacrifice and the Sacrifice of the Savior

For some 4,000 years the ritual sacrifice of a first-born, unblemished lamb played an essential part in the worship of the God of Heaven. This was an ordinance that dates from Adam, was practiced by Abraham, and was given renewed emphasis through the prophet Moses to the children of Israel, only recently released from slavery and oppression.

Also since the days of Adam, blood sacrifice as prescribed by revelation has been copied and horribly distorted by followers of many other religions not authorized by God. The disciples of these other religions, and also many less understanding subscribers to the religion of Jehovah, have acted as if they believed that the blood sacrifice itself did something, accomplished something, in some way mattered.

In truth, in the whole history of the earth there has been and will be only one blood sacrifice that matters at all, from an eternal perspective. That was the blood sacrifice of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the sacrificial Lamb of the Father. His sacrifice was the only one that in and of itself possessed any virtue, for that sacrifice made possible the forgiveness of the sins of men and women throughout time. All other sacrifices conducted under divine authority derived all of their virtue from that one sacrifice of the Savior.

That was why the Lord was so strict about how those sacrifices were to be conducted, so that each one referred directly to the Savior’s sacrifice. All sacrifices not conducted in the manner prescribed by revelation from God and under His authority were solemn hoaxes, pointing away from the Savior, diverting attention away from the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and were diabolical at their root.

Consider the sacrifice offered by Cain. Rather than offer the blood sacrifice prescribed by God by revelation, tied to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that would heal sins from Adam down to the last child born on earth, Cain offered a sacrifice of fruit. Cain acted as if there were some virtue in the sacrifice itself, rather than recognizing that a sacrifice could only derive virtue from the only sacrifice that could generate virtue, the sinless sacrifice of Christ. The Lord rejected the sacrifice and reminded Cain that he could not please the Lord without obeying the Lord (Genesis 4:3-7). Obedience to God was not part of the plan of Cain, who thereafter descended from his mocking sacrifice to the bloody murder of his own brother.

The sacrifice prescribed by revelation from God was rich in symbolism, the death of the unspotted firstborn lamb directly representative of the death of the firstborn and sinless Son of God. The actual death of the sacrifice was a powerful, real, tangible reminder for the disciples of Jehovah of the reality, the literalness, of the sacrificial death of the Messiah. The ordinance was intended to be impressive to the minds of the worshipers—the physical death not only representing the physical death to come of the Messiah but also driving home the point that matters of spiritual life and death were at stake.

These blood sacrifices were only temporary, however. For the people who lived before the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, they were intended to bring more reality to the promise of an event that had not yet happened. After His sacrifice and resurrection the Savior proclaimed an end to the ordinances.

And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings. (3 Nephi 9:19)

Modeled after the image of the Savior’s sacrifice, they were fulfilled when His atonement was accomplished. To continue the blood sacrifices after that would suggest that the Savior’s sacrifice was not sufficient, that somehow the Savior’s suffering for our sins was incomplete, that the sacrifice of an animal in and of itself could provide forgiveness. Remember, there never was any virtue in the sacrifices other than as they pointed to the future sacrifice of the Christ. Continuing the ordinances after Christ’s death and resurrection would actually be a denial of faith in Christ and His atonement rather than the expression of faith in Him that they were prior to His redemption.

Do we living after the resurrection of Jesus Christ have no need to be reminded of His atonement? Of course we do. In place of the blood sacrifice of old, the resurrected Savior called for a new sacrifice:

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 . . . (3 Nephi 9:20)

This sacrifice is also connected to the Savior’s sacrifice, for that is how we receive the forgiveness of sins that His redemption made possible. That is how we are brought within the circle of the atonement whereby Christ’s suffering takes the place of our suffering. Our sacrifice is to receive Him and qualify for His sacrifice in our place.

But the Lord still draws upon physical ordinances to remind us of spiritual realities. The night before the crucifixion Jesus instituted the ordinance of partaking of ceremonial bread and wine to remind us of the union of His sacrifice and ours. The bread points to the body of Christ, that He gave up in death and reclaimed in resurrection. The wine points to the blood that He shed in Gethsemane and on the cross.

The promise is pronounced in the words of the prayer that the Savior prescribed to be offered. As His disciples partake of tangible symbols of even more powerful spiritual intangibles, they do so in witness “that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them.” (Moroni 5:2) The saints of ancient days and modern times are united by powerful and appropriate ordinances in their focus on the central event of history, the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ.

Of Controlling Events and the Wrath of the Crowd

When Jesus Christ rode into Jerusalem on the Sunday before He was crucified, few in the crowd really knew who He was or what He was doing. Even his closest disciples little understood what was happening and unfolding. All knew it was momentous, but all but the Savior Himself misunderstood why.

To the cheering crowd Jesus was an unstoppable miracle worker come to change their political—and surely many even believed their religious—world. The Savior understood how fleeting this popular acclaim would be. His understanding was akin to that voiced by Oliver Cromwell some 1500 years later, when similarly the focus of the hurrahs of the streets Cromwell said, “Do not trust to the cheering, for those persons would shout as much if you and I were going to be hanged.” Jesus knew that the crowd would be shouting again on Friday.

None of this was accidental. It was all prophesied hundreds and even thousands of years before, and Jesus was in control of all of the events and the fulfillment of all of the prophecies. For an omniscient and omnipotent God, nothing happens by chance.

Jesus had long been warned not to go to Jerusalem, that the local leaders would seek His life. In apparent avoidance of the reach of the authorities in Jerusalem, Jesus had largely confined His ministry to Galilee, beyond their jurisdiction. In a surprise move one time before (and in demonstration that He was always in control of events), the Savior had quietly gone to Jerusalem for the Passover, but once there He made His presence public. On that occasion the authorities were too awed by Jesus’ popularity to move against Him. He came and left His city without harm.

For this final visit of mortality, the Savior made His approach well known. His fame, especially of His miracles, had been building. It was brought to a crescendo shortly before and only a short walk away from Jerusalem when the Savior, before a large crowd, called forth Lazarus from the dead. That Lazarus had been dead, just as Jacob Marley, “dead as a doornail,” there was no doubt; he had been in the tomb four days. That Lazarus was alive again was apparent to all. What kind of a Man was this?

As Jesus entered Jerusalem, in clear token of the Messiah, “the Son of David,” the people filled the streets. But their cheering had little to do with yielding their hearts to God and doing the works of righteousness. It was the expectation of having a Messiah who would do their will, One who could and would feed the thousands, heal the sick, and even raise their dead, and maybe restore the greatness of the kingdom of David. Christ would do all of these things, but only on His terms, and those terms the people were not ready to accept. When that became clear, they would call upon the hated Roman rulers to crucify the last real King of the Jews.

Jesus knew and expected this reaction. With the power of God to make all things work for good, through that unfair sacrifice Christ made His “soul an offering for sin, . . . bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:11, 12), as He and the Father had planned from before the creation of the world. On the third day, Jesus the Messiah Himself rose from the tomb. The Christ had gained the victory over all, including death and hell, and extended that victory freely to all—before and since His sacrifice—who will receive it and Him, on the terms of Him who paid the whole price alone.

Of Churchianity and Priestcraft

While driving to church meetings this past Sunday I was surfing through the radio stations to find something wholesome and uplifting, in keeping with the spirit of the Sabbath day. That is not so easy to do. At least, I seem to remember that when I was a child Sunday morning radio and even television were almost reserved for worship programs. It is easier today to find politicians and sports figures—and their commentators—on Sunday morning radio and television; I will leave it to you to conclude whether those are the new predominant objects of worship.

With a little persistence I did find a couple of programs on the AM dial, and their messages were memorable. The first featured a religious figure with a call-in talk show in which he gives religious-psychological counseling to troubled callers. The one example I heard was from some woman who was living with a man, the father of at least a couple of her children, who was now involved in a sexual affair with some other woman. The caller wanted out of the relationship, but she was dependent on financial support from the non-husband father. She felt trapped, and indeed she was. The host of the program gave what seemed to me some sensible advice, which he admitted was common sense counsel that just about anyone could have given to the woman.

After that point I guess that the caller line must have thinned out, because the host proceeded into a prolonged criticism of organized religion, what he called “churchianity.” He took pride in the fact—pride is the right word—that he was not associated with any particular religious denomination. His argument, to sum it up, was that Jesus did not belong to any church and did not form any church, that He just went around counseling and helping people and then moved on. As the host explained, some people “fell away” but others “made it.” The host complained that organized religions are just businesses, and people do not need them. He took a while to say all of this, but that is the gist of it.

It is a wise practice to consider that in every criticism there is at least an element of some truth, and it would be wise to look for it and profit from it. The kernel of truth, however, does not justify accepting all the rest, any more than the bait justifies swallowing the fisherman’s hook. The churchianity critic is correct that too much of religion today, as was also found anciently, is a business. Paul and his missionary companions were menaced by mobs in Ephesus when his preaching of the resurrected Jesus Christ threatened to upset the business of the idol makers for the cult of the Greco-Roman goddess Diana. Martin Luther was driven to his break with the Roman Catholic Church in great part due to the church’s apparent selling of forgiveness. The Prophet Joseph Smith was martyred in Illinois by a mob inspired by local clergymen worried that restoring the ancient church of Jesus Christ was threatening their trade in manmade religion. And there is no lack of examples today of preachers seeking popularity for praise and profit.

It is true that Jesus Christ never intended His religion to become a business. He railed against professional preachers who made a business out of salvation. That is called priestcraft, and it was the leadership of the corrupt priestcraft of His day who conspired to have Jesus crucified. It is wrong, however, to conclude that Jesus Christ did not establish a Church. As Jehovah of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ called prophets and priests, had them ordained under divine commission, and by revelation instructed them on their duties. You have to overlook much of the books of Moses and reject Moses himself not to acknowledge that.

Similarly, during His mortal ministry on the earth, when the priesthood among the ancient Jews had become corrupted and turned into a business, Jesus Christ withdrew his authority from the old priests and established a new Church, with apostles and prophets. Observe how the Apostle Paul described it to the members of the Church of Christ in Ephesus:

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye are also builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22)

I am not sure how more clearly Paul could describe an organized religion, “the building fitly framed together”. If Jesus Christ did not build a church, then what do we do with the apostles whom He ordained, and the Seventy whom He called to assist the apostles? In fact, without the Church of Jesus Christ, we would not have the scriptures that tell of His ministry nor the spreading of the gospel of Christ throughout the Roman world and beyond.

It would perhaps not be inappropriate to mention at this point that the churchianity critic concluded this portion of his commentary by mentioning that regular payments from his listeners of $5 and $10 would allow him to continue his campaign against the business of religion. In another post I may discuss the other program I heard yesterday, where the announcer offered the exact date of the Judgment Day.

Of Prophets and Modern Times

One of the most appealing and powerful messages of Christ’s Church in the latter days is the proclamation that prophets are once again on the earth in modern times, men through whom God speaks directly, clearly, and specifically on subjects relevant to man’s current conditions. This message is also one of the objections raised against the Church. It is curiously raised most often by some claiming a belief in God and Christ and in the words of the ancient prophets. Such objectors have to ignore a glaring logical inconsistency, of rejoicing in the word of God spoken long ago while resisting what the Lord might speak in their own day and time and in their own language. What is it about modern times that makes revelation from God less attractive or valuable?

Praise for prophets of the past while denouncing contemporary revelation from God is not new. Jesus faced the same attitude in the A.D. 30s. In the last days before He was crucified the Savior inveighed against such hypocrisy. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” That compares very closely with many today who flock to monuments and shrines to ancient prophets (or even pieces of ancient prophets), people who roundly condemn the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Jews, and Romans who persecuted and killed the prophets of old and crucified the Savior, people who picture themselves as being faithful disciples had they just lived in those days. With His perfect insight, Jesus rebuked their bluff. “Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets,” he said, “and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city” (Matthew 23:29, 30, 34). Many defenders of a dead Moses were unwilling to accept a living Christ--or the living prophets He promised to send them.

A common argument of believers in prophets who are conveniently dead is that the purposes of the prophets have ceased. In this view, the role of prophets was to prophesy of Christ and His mission, explain the doctrines of the faith, and pronounce commandments. That sounds nice and plausible only if you are careful not to study what the ancient prophets did and said.

Many of the prophecies of Jeremiah, for example, were focused on giving the Jewish leaders important political advice, such as encouraging the Jews not to double-cross the Babylonians by siding with the decrepit Egyptian empire. Isaiah was probably the most explicit and detailed in prophesying of Christ and His mission. Yet much of Isaiah’s prophesies were also devoted to counseling the leaders of Judah on how to respond to threats from their belligerent neighbors. The Jewish prophets of the Babylonian captivity counseled the people on how to draw close to God and stay out of trouble with their rulers. The prophets in the ancient Americas warned their people of invasion, advised their armies on how to defend against their enemies, and counseled them against the terrorists of their day.

That is to say, that whenever the Lord has had prophets on the earth these prophets have always been a precious resource for the daily lives of the people, their communities, and their nations, helping them to deal with what was then the here and now. Why would the Lord deny such blessings to His children today? Why would people embrace ancient divine revelation but recoil at it when offered in real time?

Revelation from the Lord has always been given in what were modern times, because those are the only times in which God’s children live. Just as it takes real food, not stories of food, to satisfy any current hunger, modern revelation from contemporary prophets is most important to those of us living in modern times. The great joy for us is that our loving Father offers us today a great feast equal to any He has spread in the past.