Sunday, June 29, 2014

Why This Blog?

With so many LDS-themed blogs out there, why on earth do we need another one?

This is exactly the justification I've used for a long time to avoid doing this. Besides, I'm way too busy to maintain a blog and I don't have anything to say anyway. Been telling myself that, too.

Trouble is, there are some important things that need to be said, and I can't find anyone else saying them. Also, there are some critical things that others are saying, but they need to be said again. And again.

These are monumental times and incredibly important happenings are taking place right under our noses. Too many of us are asleep, unprepared, unredeemed.

It's time to come unto Christ--not in some etherial, spiritual way in our hearts, but for real.

I've been spending so much time writing emails to family and friends lately, I figure I can start writing them here. It really came home to me a few days ago when I wrote an 8-page email and realized it really needed to be presented as several blog entries. So here I am.

Who am I?

Nobody. I'm not important, I have no church authority and no right to tell others what they should believe.

But I can invite, explain and persuade. The Lord has asked me to do so, to the best of my poor ability. So here I am.

I invite criticism and correction. Please state your sources and let's learn together. I don't need or want praise.

OK, that's about the best introduction I can give. Let's get to more important matters.


11 comments:

  1. In the title of your blog, how are you defining "the remnant?" Is there a specific scripture that you're referring to?

    Thank you for your blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting question. The honest answer is I don't know. Both the title of this blog and the header scripture were given me by revelation. I'm still learning why.

      I am not, as yet, defining the remnant as any particular group of people, other than those who will repent and come unto Christ.

      Scriptures to ponder include:

      1 Nephi 10:14, 1 Nephi 15:13-14, 2 Nephi 21:11, 3 Nephi 5:23-24, 3 Nephi 16:4, D&C 109:67.

      Delete
  2. Just read through your entire blog and am grateful you have decided to start a blog! I completely agree with everything you've written and appreciate all the research you have done to support your points. I really appreciate your writing style of being non-judgmental and just seeking truth and to do God's will. I look forward for what is to come!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have a question. Why does D&C 121 say "no power or authority" when D&C 107 is replete with definitions of what offices have what power and authority and who is allowed to act when what authority is present?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great question, Micah. The answer could be an entire blog post by itself. But here's a synopsis.

      D&C 107 first tells what the actual powers and authorities of the priesthood are:

      18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—
       
      19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.

      (Know anyone doing that? What does this say about the state of us priesthood holders?)
       
      20 The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments.

      It then explains that there is a hierarchy in place to run the organization, and explains how all decisions must be made:

       30 The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long-suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;
       
      31 Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.

      This is entirely in keeping with 121:

       41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
       
      42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

      If we are to have power or influence, it does NOT come from a priesthood office. Rather it can only be by the tools mentioned in 107:30 and 121:41-42. This speaks to the difference between the “authority” of the priesthood and “power” in the priesthood. (I posted something about that in “Ordinances and Assumptions.”

      We may have a priesthood or an office conferred upon us, it is true, but this does not give any right to control, dominate, or compel anyone to do anything. Attempting to do so causes the priesthood to be forfeit. To be great, one must be the least and the servant of all. (Matthew 20:26-27)

      Delete
    2. Great points, and no I don't know anyone like that in the church. My wife an I came to the tentative conclusion that this authority structure exists, but it doesn't negate 121. If it is done in brotherly kindness and humility no one would try to assert any influence, even by virtue of their "rights" as the people got in the NT Church. I posted a response to my own question below before seeing yours.

      Delete
  4. I don't know if this is the case, but maybe this is the answer:

    21 paints a very broad brush when it says "no power or influence". Perhaps 107 is talking about authority by virtue of common consent as in "agreeable to the covenants and commandments of the church" which previously were set out as common consent. Those who vote are then accountable to God if those acting by their consent exercise unrighteous dominion over others.

    I know, despite 107, Joseph asserted no authority except as the people wanted him to. He asked at the conferences of the church if the people still wanted him to be their teacher or if they would prefer another (unlike today). They, of course chose him, and then he acted in the offices described in 107.

    So in my view 121 is not negated by 107, but the burden is just placed on all those who consent to unrighteous dominion and those who take and run with that consent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Adrian, what is the best way to contact you? I don't see an email address or a contact link on your blog.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just added a shiny, new contact me form to the right side of the blog. It will send me a private email.

      Delete
  6. I just read part of your article on Joseph Smith's Monogamy. Very well done. The last few paragraphs got me thinking "who is this man?! He thinks just like I do!"

    It was refreshing. Thank you.

    And inspires me to work more on my theological blog.

    Keep up the good work. Even if it isn't on this blog necessarily.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad you like the paper, but I didn't write it. Like you, I do agree with what is expressed. For the curious, here's the link to the paper in question:

      http://www.totheremnant.com/2015/11/joseph-smiths-monogamy.html

      Delete