An Apostle's Easter Thoughts on Christ

Resource: Presidents of the Church

Thanks to @BrotherBrigham for bringing my attention to this resource on LDS.org.

It contains Basic Facts, Significant Events, Testimony, Quotes, and Images and Multimedia for the Presidents of the Church, all organized in one place. I think the signature images are really cool.

This is a great site to turn to if you want to more about the Presidents of the Church.

Some thoughts on the Language of Prayer

Noticed an interesting theme among some of the #ldsconf tweets that pertained to the discussion surrounding the usage of thee, thou, thy, and thine.

One person commented: "I would've hoped that a well-educated man like Elder Nelson would know that "thou" is, in fact, the familiar, not formal pronoun. I don't think he was suggesting it was a commandment. I agree with you, but it helps some people to use those words."

Another person wrote: "Disagree with the use of archaisms in prayer. Jesus didn't use them, and I don't feel the need to either. Sad that people confuse archaisms with sacredness. 'Thee' 'thy' 'thine' simply meant 'you' and 'your' in KJV times."

Now, I have to admit that although I was listening, I wasn't trying to remember every phrase uttered word-for-word. I cannot recall whether or not Elder Nelson said that "thou" was a formal pronoun. However, I believe both of these comments miss the point of the direction to use [what is now considered a formal pronoun, right? Wouldn't your friends think you were being formal or pretentious if you used those pronouns today?] "thou" when addressing God in prayer.

I imagine the leaders of the Church who counsel us to use these pronouns understand the history behind their usage. In fact, Elder Dallin H. Oaks wrote back in 1993:

The special language of prayer that Latter-day Saints use in English has sometimes been explained by reference to the history of the English language. It has been suggested that thee, thou, thy, and thine are simply holdovers from forms of address once used to signify respect for persons of higher rank. But more careful scholarship shows that the words we now use in the language of prayer were once commonly used by persons of rank in addressing persons of inferior position. These same English words were also used in communications between persons in an intimate relationship. There are many instances where usages of English words have changed over the centuries. But the history of English usage is not the point.

Scholarship can contradict mortal explanations, but it cannot rescind divine commands or inspired counsel. In our day the English words thee, thou, thy, and thine are suitable for the language of prayer, not because of how they were used anciently but because they are currently obsolete in common English discourse. Being unused in everyday communications, they are now available as a distinctive form of address in English, appropriate to symbolize respect, closeness, and reverence for the one being addressed.
(emphasis added)

I personally don't see his instructions as an attempt to equate "archaisms with sacredness." But more on instructions regarding the language of prayer shortly.

Again, it was noted: "Since Jesus didn't use them, I don't feel the need to either." I'm not sure if anyone has specifically asked the Savior which words He used and didn't use. And, if someone had, I would imagine that the Prophets and Apostles would be able to shed some light on the subject. I think this attitude towards the direction of prayer-specific language overlooks the blessing of continuing revelation. When Jesus instituted the Sacrament, He used wine. Today, we are instructed to use water. Understanding that Jesus used wine, would you therefore feel unsettled and disinclined to participate in the Sacrament because water is used?

Likewise, modern revelation has provided instruction relating to the language of prayer. While one may be inclined to continue to "not feel the need" to use the pronouns "thee," "thou," "thy," and "thine" in prayer, a study of the words of Church leaders can lead one to understand that such pronoun use is continually suggested, yea, even strongly admonished:

[U]se the sacred language of prayer. We should always address Deity by using the sacred pronouns thou, thee, thy, and thine. The late President Stephen L. Richards gave us this wise counsel:

“We have discovered … a lack of proper teaching with reference to prayer. I know that I myself have been shocked out in the mission field as I have heard missionaries called on for prayer who seem to have had no experience or training whatever in the use of the language of prayer. …

“I think, my brethren, that in the quorums and in the classes, you would do well, as in the homes also, to teach the language of prayer—‘Thee and Thou,’ rather than ‘you.’ It always seems disappointing to me to have our Father in Heaven, our Lord, addressed as ‘you.’ It is surprising how much we see of this. … I think you might make note of it, and avail yourselves of any opportunities that may come in order to teach the sacred and reverential language of prayer.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1951, p. 175.)

Let us teach our children to use the language of prayer.
(From Elder L. Tom Perry, 1983, emphasis added)

Speaking of teaching our children the language of prayer, Elder Oaks continued his message on prayer with the following counsel:

Modern revelation commands parents to “teach their children to pray.” (D&C 68:28.) This requires parents to learn and pray with the special language of prayer. We learn our native language simply by listening to those who speak it. This is also true of the language with which we address our Heavenly Father. The language of prayer is easier and sweeter to learn than any other tongue. We should give our children the privilege of learning this language by listening to their parents use it in the various prayers offered daily in our homes.

And,

We should also remember that our position on special prayer language in English is based on modern revelations and the teachings and examples of modern prophets. [...]

However, we should be considerate of those who have not yet learned, or who have not yet become comfortable with the "language of prayer." While not using the proper pronouns should not get one "banned" from, or mocked in, public prayer, we should both remember that we each are at different parts of the journey along the Gospel path, and that our leaders teach us the ideal that we should strive for. Elder Oaks continues:

We are especially anxious that our position on special language in prayers in English not cause some to be reluctant to pray in our Church meetings or in other settings where their prayers are heard. We have particular concern for converts and others who have not yet had experience in using these words.

I am sure that our Heavenly Father, who loves all of his children, hears and answers all prayers, however phrased. If he is offended in connection with prayers, it is likely to be by their absence, not their phraseology.

When one of our daughters was about three years old, she did something that always delighted her parents. When we called her name, she would usually answer by saying, “Here me is.” This childish reply was among the sweetest things her parents heard. But when she was grown, we expected her to use appropriate language when she spoke, and of course she did. As the Apostle Paul said, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (1 Cor. 13:11.)

The same is true of prayer. Our earliest efforts will be heard with joy by our Heavenly Father, however they are phrased. They will be heard in the same way by loving members of our church. But as we gain experience as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we need to become more mature in all of our efforts, including our prayers.

With all the informality and abbreviations creeping into our everyday language (how many of you can understand, or have used, the following: ur a qt pi; ttyl; we went to his house b/c ur rents were in da way), and all the new words and phrases joining common usage (Googling, Twittering, surfing the Net, etc.), should it really be that difficult to learn and to master a few more words and their usage so that we might be able to speak in the language of prayer?

I'll end this post with the following, again from Elder Oaks:

Men and women who wish to show respect will take the time to learn the special language of prayer. Persons spend many hours mastering communication skills in other mediums, such as poetry or prose, vocal or instrumental music, and even the language of access to computers. My brothers and sisters, the manner of addressing our Heavenly Father in prayer is at least as important as these.

RB: Ceremonial Clothing and Temple Worship

I discovered this article through a Twitter friend and thought I'd share it here. I provided a few excerpts below, but you should go see the post on its original site.

The Lord has always used clothing as an avenue for teaching symbolism. As early as in the book of Genesis we learn that the “garment” or coat of skin was a symbol of that which would cover. Unlike the fig leaves, or fake covering, the coat of skin taught of the sacrificial covering, pointing to Jesus Christ and the Atonement as the full covering of nakedness, or sin.
[...]
The changing of clothing is symbolic of the progression one must make to enter into the presence of the Lord. It represents ones willingness to leave this world behind and seek for that of a better one. It is a beautiful way to learn about the application of the Atonement and the ability one has to “change”. It can be seen as easy as a simple “change of clothes.”

The prophets have declared that "all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him" and that "all things are created and made to bear record of [Christ]"--both temporal and spiritual.

Thus we see how, in many different ways, clothing can remind us of the Savior and help us better understand principles of the Gospel.

Why We Have Temples

Harvard Vid Goes Viral

Another digression from teaching:

In case you haven't already seen it, check out this video of a student, Rachel Esplin, who was interviewed at school as part of a forum on faith.

Have you seen it? What do you think?

Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose - 3. Rachel Esplin from Harvard Hillel on Vimeo.

And some notes about its spread to [LDS and other] Internet users inan article from Boston.com

A message from The Newsroom

I digress from my typical thoughts on teaching to bring you this public service post, courtesy of The Newsroom.

Many of you may be aware of the upcoming HBO episode that--despite previous claims to make no ties between the non-Mormon figures and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--continues to blur the line between television fantasy and real-world reality. While recognizing the right of others to enjoy the freedom of speech, I am saddened by the insensitivities shown by those who propagate such "appallingly bad" portrayals. I think it shows disrespect to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; disrespect that has--in my knowledge--no contemporary parallel.

Do throngs march on the Vatican when the Pope issues edicts regarding the sanctity of life? Do they storm the gates during the concave and seek to expose the workings of the leadership selection and process? Do they gather Papal robes and vestments and strew them in the streets?

Do non-Muslims insist that they have the right to visit Mecca? Do they send hidden cameras inside to record a visit on false pretenses and share it with the world?

My list is brief and imperfect, but perhaps it will start you on your own train of thought.

As I choose to worship "how, where, and what I may," I also reserve to others the same. I also, however, expect to participate in religious devotion that I find sacred, and hope that others will honor my convictions. In an About.com article about Mecca, the author(s) wrote the following:

Mecca and Madinah are cities of great importance in Islamic tradition -- centers of pilgrimage and prayer, sacred places where Muslims are free from the distractions of daily life. [...] Restricting access to Mecca and Madinah is intended to provide a place of peace and refuge for Muslim believers and preserve the sanctity of the holy cities. At this time, millions of Muslims visit the cities each year, and additional tourist traffic would simply add to the congestion and detract from the spirituality of the pilgrimage visit.

I can understand this desire to be free of the distractions of daily life and the need--especially in the turmoil in which we often find ourselves today--to have a place of peace and refuge to go to to find solace. The temple to me is such a place.

SALT LAKE CITY 9 March 2009 Like other large faith groups, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes finds itself on the receiving end of attention from Hollywood or Broadway, television series or books, and the news media. Sometimes depictions of the Church and its people are quite accurate. Sometimes the images are false or play to stereotypes. Occasionally, they are in appallingly bad taste.

As Catholics, Jews and Muslims have known for centuries, such attention is inevitable once an institution or faith group reaches a size or prominence sufficient to attract notice. Yet Latter-day Saints – sometimes known as Mormons - still wonder whether and how they should respond when news or entertainment media insensitively trivialize or misrepresent sacred beliefs or practices.

Church members are about to face that question again. Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creators and HBO executives assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons. However, Internet references to Big Love indicate that more and more Mormon themes are now being woven into the show and that the characters are often unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous. And according to TV Guide, it now seems the show’s writers are to depict what they understand to be sacred temple ceremonies.

Certainly Church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding. Last week some Church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which, like HBO, is owned by Time Warner. Certainly such a boycott by hundreds of thousands of computer-savvy Latter-day Saints could have an economic impact on the company. Individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series. As Elder M. Russell Ballard and Elder Robert D. Hales of the Council of the Twelve Apostles have both said recently, when expressing themselves in the public arena, Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness.

Not only is this the model that Jesus Christ taught and demonstrated in his own life, but it also reflects the reality of the strength and maturity of Church members today. As someone recently said, “This isn’t 1830, and there aren’t just six of us anymore.” In other words, with a global membership of thirteen and a half million there is no need to feel defensive when the Church is moving forward so rapidly. The Church’s strength is in its faithful members in 170-plus countries, and there is no evidence that extreme misrepresentations in the media that appeal only to a narrow audience have any long-term negative effect on the Church.

Examples:

During the Mitt Romney election campaign for the presidency of the United States, commentator Lawrence O’Donnell hurled abuse at the Church in a television moment that became known among many Church members as “the O’Donnell rant.” Today, his statements are remembered only as a testament to intolerance and ignorance. They had no effect on the Church that can be measured.

When the comedy writers for South Park produced a gross portrayal of Church history, individual Church members no doubt felt uncomfortable. But once again it inflicted no perceptible or lasting damage to a church that is growing by at least a quarter of a million new members every year.

When an independent film company produced a grossly distorted version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre two years ago, the Church ignored it. Perhaps partly as a result of that refusal to engender the controversy that the producers hoped for, the movie flopped at the box office and lost millions.

In recent months, some gay activists have barraged the media with accusations about “hateful” attitudes of Latter-day Saints in supporting Proposition 8 in California, which maintained the traditional definition of marriage. They even organized a protest march around the Salt Lake Temple. Again, the Church has refused to be goaded into a Mormons versus gays battle and has simply stated its position in tones that are reasonable and respectful. Meanwhile, missionary work and Church members in California remain as robust and vibrant as ever, and support for the Church has come from many unexpected quarters — including some former critics and other churches.

Now comes another series of Big Love, and despite earlier assurances from HBO it once again blurs the distinctions between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices. Such things say much more about the insensitivities of writers, producers and TV executives than they say about Latter-day Saints.

If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

[emphases added]

Witnesses at all times

When the Savior visited the New World, he called twelve disciples. Them he taught with, and separately from, the multitude that had gathered to hear His words.

In the morning of the day following the Savior's first day of ministry spent among the Nephites, these twelve provide an example to all who have been called to be teachers. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland writes:

It is interesting that the twelve disciples did not have to be commanded to teach but accepted that responsibility instinctively because of their commission to be witnesses of Christ at all times and in all places. What they taught, not surprisingly, were the same lessons they had been taught the day before, "nothing varying from the words which Jesus had spoken." In the spirit of the counsel the Savior had left the night before, the twelve disciples commanded the multitude to kneel and pray to the Father in the name of Jesus, "and they did pray for that which they most desired; and they desired that the Holy Ghost should be given unto them."
(Christ and The New Covenant, Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1997, 277-78.)

One of the things Gospel teachers need to remember is that they are to teach the words of Christ - as He taught them, and as his prophets have taught them and recorded them in scripture. Gospel instruction of any kind--seminary, Sunday school, primary, Priesthood or Relief Society, etc.--should follow this same pattern. Teach the doctrines as they are found in the scriptures, the basis for each course of study, and ponder how to use the doctrines and principles that are mentioned in the lesson manuals to bless and edify the class. As an instructor of mine reminded us during CES training, "Stick to the [gospel] trunk; avoid the branches."

Another thing that should be noted is that these disciples realized how important the Holy Ghost was for them as well as their students. They desired, and prayed for, the presence of the Holy Ghost so that the gospel truths could be taught with authority and could be carried unto the hearts of those who heard them.

Lastly, I'll suggest the Elder Holland's mention of the "why" these disciples chose to teach the words of Christ to the multitude don't apply only to those called and commissioned as disciples or apostles - but to all of us who have entered into a covenant with the Lord through baptism. Remember the words of Alma at the Waters of Mormon to those who were desirous to come into the fold of God, explaining the covenant into which they would enter through the ordinance of baptism:

...and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, ...

As disciples of Christ and members of His Church, we have covenanted to be His witness. One way we can do this is by being a witness to others of who He is by emulating His gospel teaching and sharing with others what he taught.