Tag: Nephi’s Isaiah

2 Nephi 32: 1-2

2 Nephi 32: 1-2:
“And now, behold, my beloved brethren, I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way. But, behold, why do ye ponder these things in your hearts? Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?”
It is the program of the Gospel that communication and understanding of God’s will should be obtained through revelation. That revelation comes from contact with, and communication by, the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is able to tell you “all things.” (Moses 6: 61; Moroni 10: 4.)
You don’t need another source once you are in contact with the Holy Ghost. It possesses the “record of heaven.” (Moses 6: 61.)
Nephi is assuring us that we can come into possession of the fullness of truth by the means he has been explaining as the “doctrine of Christ.” As a central, active part of that doctrine, the line of communication between you and God is opened. It is another reminder of counsel found in Deuteronomy 30: 11-14: “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.”
Forget all the cultural assumptions and extras you hang on to. Leave them all behind and keep it simple:
You were a spirit before you were born.  (Abraham 3: 22-28.) You were there when some were chosen to be “rulers,” or in other words, teachers. (2 Nephi 5: 19.) You have within you a spirit that was in that group. You saw and participated in what went on, and have that somewhere still inside you. It is kept from you by the “veil of flesh” now covering your spirit. (Heb. 10: 20.) Somewhere within you lies the “record of heaven.” Or more correctly, the Record of Heaven. (Moses 6: 61.) If you gain access to it, it has the capacity to teach you the “truth of all things.” (Moses 6: 61.)  Within it is such an abundance of truth that the things of God are not hidden from you, neither far off. It is not in heaven, so that you ask: who will go to heaven to bring it to us.  It is not beyond the sea that you should ask who can go to bring it to us? But is is very close to you, in your own mouth, in your own heart, that you can do what is asked of you. (Deut. 30: 11-14, above.)
Hence the saying of Christ that the Comforter will bring things to your remembrance. (John 14: 26.)
Christ taught the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17: 20-21.)
Why is it that the body is animated, with power of thought and communication, alive and vital while there is a spirit within it? But when the spirit departs, what then of the body? The power to live and breathe and move and do according to your will is gone at that point.  But from whence came that power? (Mosiah 2: 21.) If it is God who is “lending you that power” then how closely are you connected to God? How immediate is His presence within you?
If you can gain access to God, will you need to go out, or will you instead need to go within?
Our minds are corrupted. I’ve spent time dealing with the corrosive influence of cultures from Babylon to today in Nephi’s Isaiah. All that must be “ground to dust” and blown away. (Daniel 2: 34-35.) That will occur within you. You are the battleground where the conflict is being fought. You are potentially the Temple of God. (1 Cor. 3: 16.)
Awake and arise! Come to yourself and realize who you are. This “doctrine of Christ” will teach you all things you must know for life and salvation. But you ought not look to another to find what you already have. You must instead repent and return to God, who is your home.

2 Nephi 28: 3

2 Nephi 28: 3:

” For it shall come to pass in that day that the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord’s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord’s; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord—“

The Book of Mormon will become available to the remnant in a day when there will be “churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord.” Generally this is interpreted by Latter-day Saints to mean OTHER churches, but not ours. However, the context requires all, including our own church, to be considered at risk as well. Here are the questions bearing on whether we (LDS) are among those being warned:

-Is the prophecy limited to the time before the Book of Mormon comes forth? (No; it will reach until the time when other records of the Lost Tribes are to come forth–a future event. (See, 2 Ne. 29: 13-14.)
-Is the prophecy about only those churches created by man, and not one intended to become Zion? (No; see verses 21-24.)
-Can a church established by the Lord become one which is not built up to Him? (Of course; see Eze. 44: 10; Isa. 53: 6; John 5: 39.)

Does the promise that the Lord will never abandon His latter-day work (D&C 138: 44) mean that the church He established will not drift into condemnation? (See D&C 84: 55-58.)

Should we, therefore, consider these warnings to be equally applicable to us as Latter-day Saints as to the larger community of churches?

Nephi warns that each church will claim it is the Lord’s. Do we do that? Each will claim divine authority and approval. Do we do that? Each will assert it belongs to the Lord. Do we do that? But the question Nephi focuses upon is whether it is “unto the Lord.”

What does it mean for a church to be “unto the Lord?” What would the opposite be?

How certain are we that what we do as a church is building up to the Lord? Do the procurement practices of the church “build up unto the Lord?” Does the auditor’s report in General Conference even begin to allow you to make that determination? If some of the large and well-connected Latter-day Saint families own the businesses which contract with the church and have become wealthy by reason of trading with the church, is there some question which ought to be considered about “building up unto the Lord” in how business is conducted?

I explained how the church distinguishes between tithing money and “investment income” in a post on April 1, 2010. Does this seem consistent with the Lord’s parable about the talents? (Luke 19: 20-23.) If in the parable, all returns realized on the money were the Lord’s, why does the return on the Lord’s tithing now become investment money to be used for commercial projects developing condominiums, shopping malls, banks, and other income-producing ventures? Who is benefiting? What careers and fortunes are being made? What families are being benefited? Are they the Lord?

Assuming the purpose of a church were to “build up unto the Lord” what single purpose would be most important? In the Book of Mormon, as I’ve explained earlier, the writers seek to have you trade unbelief for belief; then to trade belief for faith; then to come beyond faith and receive knowledge. The knowledge it would have you obtain is of Christ. (See Ether 3: 19.)

The lack of knowledge condemns a people who claim to be the Lord’s. Nephi quoted Isaiah in 2 Nephi 15: 13: [You will not understand Nephi’s purpose in quoting Isaiah if you are unacquainted with Nephi’s Isaiah.] “Therefore, my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; and their honorable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.” Captivity comes from a lack of knowledge. Joseph Smith warned that “a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge.” (DHC 5: 588.) The ones who are considered “honorable” are “famished” because they lack knowledge. The “multitude” who follow the “honorable men” are in turn “dried up with thirst” because they are not taught enough to become saved. (2 Ne. 28: 14.)

If the Lord promises to never abandon His latter-day work (D&C 138: 44), does that mean men cannot abandon Him? Although men may abandon Him, can He work with you individually and “remember” His promises? Even if others are without knowledge, can you still obtain knowledge from Him? Though others may be “dried up with thirst” can you still obtain “living waters” from Him?

Can you rely upon the assertions from any church today that it is “built up unto the Lord?” How can you be “built up unto the Lord” even if you do not have any institution you can trust to bring to you that knowledge? Was the Lord always intended to be directly involved in your life? (Matt. 11: 27-30.)

If “captivity” comes from a lack of knowledge, and Joseph Smith tied knowledge to salvation, then why is the correlated curriculum of the church focusing less and less on doctrine? Why was the Relief Society and Priesthood Manual on Teachings of the Presidents volume on Joseph Smith carefully edited by the Correlation Department so as to support meanings somewhat different than Joseph’s? If you think meanings were not changed, then go to the sources quoted in the History of The Church and read each of the whole statements made by Joseph from which the excerpts were taken. I leave it to you to decide if the edited versions in the church manual were or were not both incomplete and misleading. [Personally, I was dismayed. But I have a sensitivity to words that is quite acute, and therefore something left out that is important to me may not be significant to you. You must decide that question for yourself. You will find it an interesting exercise even if you disagree with my conclusion.]

If a church claims to be built up to the Lord, but does not attempt to confer knowledge of the Lord upon people, then how are you to seek after this knowledge? [We are going to be discussing Nephi’s instruction to us about this very subject for the coming weeks. So keep the question in mind as we go forward.]

Remember this is the promised day when all are intended to grow into knowledge of the Lord, from the least to the greatest. (See, e.g., JS-H 1: 41 and Joel 2: 28-29; and D&C 84: 96-97.) “Those who remain” will remain because they have “knowledge” that will save them. Hence Joseph’s teaching about the link between “knowledge” and “salvation.” Also, the captivity spoken of by Nephi because people lack knowledge.

Go back to the post on Lecture 6 of the Lectures on Faith, April 21, 2010. If your church encourages you to become part of a broad mainstream without asking for the sacrifice of all things, then it is not requiring you to take the steps necessary to develop faith to save you. Rest assured, however, the Lord still has the same requirements, and He will work directly with you to develop you into a person who has the required knowledge. It was always intended to be individual. It is your quest. Others may encourage you along, but you must confront the process for yourself.

______________________________

[Now, as a complete aside, I want to address the misapplication and overreaching misinterpretation of the idea one is “evil speaking” when a person explains something that concerns them. First, we are dealing with the souls of men. We are addressing salvation itself. If there is an error in doctrine or practice, everyone has an obligation to speak up, from the least to the greatest. (D&C 20: 42, 46-47, 50-51, 59, among other places.) Second, the “truth” cannot ever be “evil.” Though the truth may cut with a two edged sword, truth is not and cannot be “evil.” Therefore, if someone should say something that is untrue or in error, then correct their doctrine, show the error, but do not claim what is good to be evil, nor support what is evil by calling it good. (2 Ne. 15: 20.) Using a broad generalization to stifle a discussion of the truth is a trick of the devil, who is an enemy to your soul. It is not the way of our Lord. He was always open to questions, always willing to answer questions, ever willing to speak the truth even when it caused those with authority over Him to be pained by His words. We must follow Him, and not men, in that example. Even if we would personally prefer to not endure insults but remain silent. So, rather than condemn something as “evil speaking” that you believe to be wrong, explain the error and bring us all into greater understanding. But if something is true, then even if it disturbs your peace of mind, it cannot be evil.]

Why the occasional reminder (and she will probably do it again)

I can see my wife put up another reminder about the stuff I’ve written previously. I can tell you why she did that.

Some folks presume that a brief post contains all of an idea that I have spent many pages setting out a full explanation for elsewhere. They comment, challenge, criticize or contradict in a reply comment as if the whole of what I have to say about some topic is contained in the briefest of posts. It is apparent that if the person had read what I’ve written elsewhere they wouldn’t be making the comment they make here.

An example is the plural marriage notion. I’ve spent pages and given both history and scripture to explain what my explanation is for the position I take in the book Beloved Enos. There are persons who are obsessed with the whole plural marriage subject, and very well may be practicing plural marriage. My comments and views probably threaten them, because I do not believe it appropriate to practice plural marriage now that it has been banned by both the law of Utah, law of the United States, confirmed by the United States to be prohibited, and abandoned by the church as a practice.

The keys which allowed the practice are addressed at length in Beloved Enos, and it would be too long a discussion to take the subject up here. I anticipated that there would be those who practice plural marriage who would read what I have to say, and so I addressed their concerns in that book. So when they want to have a discussion about the topic, this isn’t the forum for that. I’ve written my understanding before and it becomes apparent that the person(s) replying do not understand my position because they haven’t read it.

I think my wife as Moderator gets somewhat exasperated with these comments, because they are something which she necessarily has to read before putting up and seem so contrary to the intent of doing this blog. I get vicariously frustrated as well as we discuss it.

I worry that some very good folks, with great comments, are thinking that their comments are not welcomed. That isn’t true, of course. What is true is that it is unfair and inaccurate to reach a conclusion about what I think or understand based upon the briefest of comments made on this blog. The comments would need to be read in light of lengthy explanations provided elsewhere and fit into the context of what I’ve already explained, before it is fair to react as if you understand my position. Some of you have taken the trouble to read what I’ve written and do understand a comment made here. Some clearly have not. Everyone is welcome to put a comment up in response to a post, but I’m not going to respond to all of them when the explanation is already provided elsewhere.

I hope that clarifies again the reasons behind the periodic reminders put up here.