Verba Hieremiæ Stoddardi
I would rather hear preaching from a plumber down the street who has talked with God face-to-face, than from someone with a degree in theology or biblical studies or “divinity.”
I am completely uninterested in preaching from someone who is paid or wants to be paid for their preaching.
Consider letting the collection plate pass by and giving your money directly to the poor instead.
Twitch-Con okazis en San Diego ĉi-jare; estus neeble, ke mi ne konus tion, ĉar ĝi kaŭzis multe da trafiko, kaj sekve mi alvenis hejmen pli malfrue je la unua tago (vendredo) de la kongreso de ludantoj. Sed tio memorigis min, ke mi havas konton ĉe Twitch, kaj mi decidis komenci elsendadon en Esperanto. Jen mia kanalo: https://twitch.tv/jstoddard.
Mi ankaŭ serĉis aliajn sekvindajn kanalojn, sed ŝajnas, ke estas malmultaj esperantistoj ĉe la retejo, kiuj aktive elsendas en Esperanto. Se vi nuntempe kaj nemalmulte elsendas Esperante ĉe Twitch, bonvolu sciigu min pri via kanalo. Mi povas promesi al vi almenaŭ unu sekvanton: mi mem. Mi volas apogi la konstruadon de Esperantaj komunumoj ĉie, kie io interesas min.
If Emma Smith had the right to interpret Joseph’s teachings in the same way Eve interpreted Adam’s prophecy, then perhaps we ought to take seriously Emma’s comments about the Church after the death of Joseph Smith, and perhaps any other statements from her about Mormonism that we can dig up.
The Lord said that the “scriptures are acceptable to me for this time” but also that they “yet lack many of my words, have errors throughout, and contain things that are not of me” and “you need not think they contain all my words….” It may be that one of the failures of the project to recover the scriptures was the failure to canonize Emma Smith’s words.
If, as has been taught, the role of the man is knowledge and the role of the woman is wisdom, the lack of Emma Smith’s words in the new scriptures may indicate an additional meaning to the statement in the Answer to the Prayer for Covenant that “mankind refuses to take counsel from Wisdom.”
If the failure to include Emma’s words is among the imperfections that the Lord mentioned exist in the recovered scriptures, then I assume we can begin to repent by taking Emma’s words seriously, much like I hope we have begun to do with Joseph’s words.
Ĉi tiu rakonto de la kreo estas laŭ mia kompreno de la mormonaj sanktaj skriboj, inkluzive la libro de Mormon, la traduko de Joseph Smith de la Biblio, la traduko de Joseph Smith de la libro de Abraham, la Prelegoj pri la Fido, aliaj diroj de Joseph Smith, kaj kelkaj vortoj de Denver Snuffer. Ne ĉiuj mormonoj havos la samajn kredojn pri la afero.
Je la komenco la ĉefdioj kunvenigis la diojn por plani la kreon de la ĉieloj kaj la tero. La ĉefdio nomiĝis la Patro aŭ la Kreanto. Lia edzino, la ĉefdiino, nomiĝis la Patrino aŭ la Saĝa. La dioj, kiujn ili alvokis, estas tiuj, kiuj jam antaŭlonge vivis kaj loĝis en aliaj mondoj. Ili dum mortemaj vivoj atingis honoron kaj tronojn, kiujn ili ricevis post sia reviviĝo, kiam ili havis nemortemajn korpojn. En la granda kunveno de la dioj, ili konsentis forlasi siajn gloron kaj tronojn kaj nemortemajn korpojn, kaj malsupreniri al la tero por helpi la spiritojn, kiuj naskiĝos kiel homoj en la tero, por ke ili ankaŭ atingu la saman honoron, gloron, tronojn, aŭ por ke ili almenaŭ havu iom da sperto por ke ili diiĝu kaj atingu tian honoron post kelkaj mortemaj vivoj en kelkaj mondoj. Tial, kaj la dioj kaj la spiritoj naskiĝis en la tero kiel homoj, kaj ni ne scias kiu estis dio kaj kiu estis nur spirito. Ankaŭ la dioj, dum ili estas mortemuloj, ne scias, ke ili estis dioj antaŭe. Sed tio ne gravas, ĉar ili riskis ĉion kiam ili venis al la tero, kaj se ili ne sekvas la saman vojon ke nepras ke eĉ la spiritoj sekvu por diiĝi, ili perdos sian diecon kaj gloron kaj tronojn.
Nepris elekti Mesion, kiu respondecos pri la kreaĵon, montros la vojon al la homoj por ke ili povu atingi honoron, gloron, kaj tronojn – tio estas, la eternan vivon – kaj savus ilin per sinofero se ili falus for de la graco de Dio sed poste pentus. Unu, kiu estis kiel la ĉefdioj, proponis sin esti la Mesio. Aliulo, kiu nomiĝis Lucifero ĉar li akiris multe da lumo kaj honoro dum siaj antaŭaj vivoj, ankaŭ volis esti la Mesio. Nu, tiu Lucifero volis esti la Mesio ĉar li volis preni potencon super la kreaĵo kaj forpreni la liberecon de la homa raso. La Patrino, kiu rajtas elekti la rolon de siaj idoj, elektis tiun, kiu estis kiel la ĉefdio, ke li estu la Mesio. Tiel fariĝis trihoma Dio: La Patro, la Patrino, kaj la Filo, kiu estas la Mesio.
Ankaŭ nepris elekti la unuan homon, kiu havos regrajto super la tero. Ĉar necesos, ke li liveros la regrajton al la Mesio je la fino de la mondo, Lucifero ankaŭ celis tiun postenon. Tiel li povus meti la samajn kondiĉojn antaŭ liveri la regrajton kaj preni la potencon, kiun li celis. Sed la Patrino elektis la ĉefanĝelon Miĥaelon kiel Adamon, la unuan homon. Tial Lucifero kaj liaj sekvantoj militis kontraŭ Dio, kaj ili estis forĵetitaj al la nova tero, kaj Lucifero iĝis Satano. Li ankoraŭ veturadas sur la tero celante forpreni la rajton kiu devenas de Adam por ke li povu detrui la homan rason.
La regrajton nur geedzoj povas havi, ĉar necesas kaj viro kaj virino. La dioj do faris du homojn sur la tero. Miĥael naskiĝis kiel Adam, filo de la Filo. Tiel li heredis la respondecon por la kreaĵo. Kaj la virino naskiĝis kiel filino de la Patrino; tiel ŝi heredis la potencon transpasi spiritojn trans la vualo de la karno, kaj venigi ilin el la spirita mondo al la mortema mondo eĉ post la falo de Adam. Tio estas la kialo de antikva moro laŭ kiu la virino estas vualita dum preĝoj: la vualo estas simbolo de la potenco donita al la virino per kiu la homa raso daŭras malgraŭ la falo de Adam el la graco de Dio. Adam nomis ŝin Eva, laŭ la nomo de sia patrino, ĉar ŝi estas la patrino de ĉiu vivanto.
La voĉo de Dio geedzigis Adamon kaj Evan. Ankoraŭ ne ekzistis la morto en la mondo, do la geedzeco de Adam kaj Eva devis daŭri eĉ post la morto. Dio volus ke ĉiu geedziĝo estu same, sed tia rito postulas la voĉon de Dio, kaj ekde la falo tiun voĉon la homoj malofte aŭskultas. Tamen, nepras ricevi tiun riton se oni volas diiĝi kaj atingi tronon, ĉar nur geedzoj povas havi regrajton kaj heredi tronojn. Tia honoro postulas kaj viron kaj virinon, ĉar sola homo ne povas esti eterna.
This morning, I stumbled upon a Wikipedia article on Yazidism, a religion practiced by the Kurds. According to Yazidism, Melek Taus is the chief of seven angels in charge of this world. He is said to have fallen from God’s favor and was later reconciled to God. Apparently, Muslims and Christians, pointing to the myths of Melek Taus’s fall from grace, sometimes claim that Yazidis are devil worshipers.
I am inclined to think that Melek Taus corresponds better with Mormonism’s beliefs about the archangel Michael than with the devil. Mormonism teaches that Michael – much like Yazidism’s Melek Taus – is the chief of all the angels and holds the keys of all the dispensations of the Earth. Moreover, Mormons believe that Michael came to Earth as Adam, the first man, and fell from God’s grace, but was reconciled with God upon repentance through the promise of a Messiah who would be a savior to mankind.
There appear to be some important similarities between Mormonism and Yazidism that merit further consideration. Perhaps if Mormons took an interest, Yazidis would be able to help them understand their own religion better. I hope to be able to look into the matter further at some point, if time permits.
I spent some time contemplating the Tao Te Ching over the weekend, especially the first chapter. The book is short; it can be read in a couple of hours (or less), yet it can also be pondered over a lifetime. “Tao” (or “Dao”) means “the way.” Jesus’s statement, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” may merit reconsideration after reading the Tao Te Ching. It may be more profound than initially understood from the western viewpoint.
The control of one’s passions is one central theme of the Tao Te Ching: “He who does not have desires sees [the Tao’s] mystery. He who always possesses desires only sees it superficially.” Similar themes are found in Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions, including the Mormon temple rites. A Mormon interpretation of the previous lines could be:
He who has bound his passions can fully contemplate the mysteries of godliness.
He who is bound by his passions cannot receive more than the lesser portion.
Another concept from the Tao Te Ching that ought to fit nicely into Mormonism: “The reason that Heaven and Earth can be eternal and enduring is because they do not live for themselves; therefore they can live forever.” Consider the saying of Jesus: “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” Laozi had previously written in the Tao Te Ching: “The sage puts himself behind others, yet finds himself in front.”
We have something familiar here, yet with the potential to change the way we look at what we already have.
I share the following with the caveat that I have but superficial knowledge of what I write, and therefore write it against my better judgment. On the other hand, I find the subjects fascinating, and if perhaps I can capture the interest of someone more prepared than I, it may be that we all benefit from that person’s wisdom on the matter.
In particular, I wonder if there is, or was at one point, a legitimate dispensation of the gospel at the heart of Islam. The movement, in both its doctrine and its history, should strike Mormons as something strangely familiar. Muhammed gathered those who believed in his revelations into the “Ummah,” or community, which was meant to be a civilization of peace while the rest of the world destroyed itself in war. Not only does it correspond extremely well to the Mormon concept of “Zion,” but it appears to have been about as successful as the Latter-day Saints have been at establishing Zion. Islam teaches that the Jews and the Christians had been given the word of God, but that wicked men had corrupted the scriptures, necessitating the provision of a new revelation – the Koran – to restore the truth that had been lost. Here then, is the Joseph Smith story over a millennium before the birth of Joseph Smith.
The events immediately following the death of Muhammed should look strangely familiar to careful students of Latter-day Saint history. The Ummah was led by Caliphs; much like Brigham Young called himself a “yankee guesser” rather than a “prophet,” and stated that the Latter-day Saints should only trust him insofar as he is right, the Caliphs affirmed that they were only to preserve and interpret the revelations received by Muhammed, and the community should only accept their decisions to the degree that they were correct, which, coincidentally, was always. God would not allow a Caliph to lead his people astray.
Muhammed taught that Islam was not compulsory; persuasion was the only acceptable tool to bring people into the religion. Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, faced with the practical necessity of keeping together a community going in a hundred different directions after the death of the prophet, made apostasy punishable by death. Muhammad’s teaching about non-compulsion was interpreted in light of practical necessity to apply only to initial conversion to Islam.
Abu Bakr and Omar, the first two Caliphs, set about to collect Muhammed’s revelations into an official compilation – the Koran. In doing so, they often discarded copies of the revelations that had been written down at the time the revelation was received, in favor of what their trusted companions remembered the revelations as containing. It was taught that the memorized versions were more reliable than the written versions. There were some concerns that the official version of the Koran was arranged and edited to suit the Caliphs’ interests rather than to preserve the revelations exactly as received by Muhammed. However, modern orthodox Islamic doctrine is that, by the grace of God, the Koran has been perfectly preserved to this day. On the other hand, anyone who picks up a copy of the reproduced manuscripts in the Joseph Smith Papers can immediately see that LDS scripture has been modified to suit the interests of the early LDS leaders.
I provide only a brief overview of similarities. Even in minor points of doctrine some striking comparisons can be made. For example, the Koran teaches that God perfected the seven heavens (2:30); Joseph Smith stated that he visited the seventh heaven. I suspect that Mormons would benefit from a thorough study of Islam.
This doesn’t apply only to Islam, however. Zoroastrianism reveres Ahura Mazda as the supreme God. The name includes a masculine and a feminine word. The masculine word “Ahura” means “Lord,” and according to Zoroaster it referred to God as the creator. The feminine word “Mazda” means wise, and thus according to Zoroaster God is also the “wise one.” The different genders show that God’s nature is all-encompassing. Mormons believe that God is a Divine father and mother, and at least one branch of Mormonism includes the teaching that the father represents the creative power, and the mother represents wisdom.
Joseph Smith taught that Mormonism is intended to include all truth. He spoke of digging up the ancient records and bringing them all together in one place. My own brief glance at a couple of religions suggests that other religions may indeed have something to bring to Mormonism, if we will only take them seriously. I am surprised that I didn’t have to dig far at all before treasures started appearing. What rich treasures of knowledge await us if we make some small effort to uncover them? Here I am, a nobody in the extreme southwest corner of the United States, mostly disconnected from the covenant community and more concerned about stumbling over the practical needs of day-to-day life than the things of God; how much more could we obtain if someone smarter, more diligent, or more inspired than me – that is, anyone in the covenant community – were to look into one of these religions and dig up and share with the community the hidden knowledge that it contains? Shoot, if all of us did it, I imagine that the remainder of the Book of Mormon might as well be unsealed by the next conference, such would be the knowledge poured out upon the covenant people.
But I may be getting carried away. Finding a little knowledge, after all, is an exciting thing.
Perhaps I’m late to the party, but this morning I noticed an interesting pattern in a portion of the answer to the prayer for covenant (the pattern begins at paragraph 2 of T&C 157). It looks to be somewhat chiastic in form, and recites A) the beginning/a new beginning; B) breaking the original covenant and continued work necessary to reobtain the original; C) the Lord’s effort to reestablish the covenant; D) the requirement to love one another as brothers and sisters rather than to be angry and harshly criticize; E) the Lord’s desire to provide his people with light and truth/understanding; F) the Lord’s admonishment and reproof of his people; G) contentions and disputes among the Lord’s people; H) the need for those who love the Lord and have well-intentioned hearts to do better/follow Wisdom in aligning their behavior with their hearts; I) a commendation for diligent labor; and J) a covenant offered for the Last days: the Book of Mormon.
I wonder what the purpose of this pattern is. I assume it’s not a mere show of rhetorical skills, but rather suggests a deeper meaning that can be extracted from the text with study, prayer, and pondering. It’s certainly something to think about.
A. I covenanted with Adam at the beginning,
B. which covenant was broken by mankind.
C. Since the days of Adam I have always sought to reestablish covenant people among the living,
D. and therefore have desired that man should love one another, not begrudgingly, but as brothers and sisters indeed,
E. that I may establish my covenant and provide them with light and truth.
F. For you to unite I must admonish and instruct you, for my will is to have you love one another.
G. As people you lack the ability to respectfully disagree among one another. You are as Paul and Peter whose disagreements resulted in jarring and sharp contentions.
H. Nevertheless they both loved me and I loved them. You must do better.
I. I commend your diligent labor and your desire to repent and recover the scriptures
J. containing the covenant I offer for the last days.
J. For this purpose I caused the Book of Mormon to come forth.
I. I commend those who have participated, as well as those who have offered words of caution,
H. for I weigh the hearts of men and many have intended well, although they have spoken poorly. Wisdom counsels mankind to align their words with their hearts, but mankind refuses to take counsel from Wisdom.
G. Nevertheless, there have been sharp disputes between you that should have been avoided.
F. I speak these words to reprove you that you may learn, not to upbraid you so that you mourn.
E. I want my people to have understanding. There is great reason to rejoice because of the work that has been done.
D. There is little reason for any to be angry or to harshly criticize the labor to recover the scriptures,
C. and so my answer to you concerning the scriptures is to guide you in other work to be done hereafter;
B. for recovering the scriptures does not conclude the work to be accomplished by those who will be my people:
A. it is but a beginning.
I hold two unpopular opinions on current events.
First, I think the prosecutor did the right thing in the Jussie Smollett case. I would like to see prosecutors dropping charges more frequently when the accused does not likely pose any future threat. We ought to be slower to accuse and quicker to forgive.
Second, I think Theresa May has done an admirable job. She has had to deal with two intractable beasts: the European Union and the U.K. Parliament, and her efforts to serve the U.K. are commendable. Her failure is more attributable to the foolish pride of self-centered, bickering politicians more interested in being right than in acting in the best interest of their constituency, than to any fault of her own.
I don’t know if I could convince anyone else that my opinions are right. I’m not really interested in pushing them onto others who disagree with me, and I certainly can’t persuade the majority to prefer mercy to condemnation and compromise to partisanship. So, in reality, the fact that I hold these two opinions doesn’t mean much in the world. But here they are, for whatever they’re worth.
Continuing my discussion on the Baghdad sections of the Restoration scriptures, I want to continue looking at the statements under the assumption that Baghdad is a symbol representing the world, including the society in which we live. It has been written that a symbol is a “this” pointing to “that,” and we lose its value of we assume that “this” is in issue instead of “that.” Thus, if my understanding that Baghdad is a symbol in these texts, then we’re missing the point if we think that they mean a terrorist group taking over a city in Iraq will be the catalyst for the end of the world. On the other hand, there must be some relationship between the symbol and its meaning, and understanding that relationship would likely aid in understanding the text. Thus, there is value in thinking about the city in Iraq if we keep it in proper perspective.
It is worth considering again the latter part of the “Lamentation for Baghdad,” which reads: “Distress shall overtake them, for those who come shall have no pity.” Keeping in mind that Baghdad is a symbol, this suggests to the mind a comparison with Nephi’s reworded version of Malachi’s prophecy:
“For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea and all that do wickedly, shall burn as stubble; for they that cometh shall burn them, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” T&C 1, JSH 3:4.
Could “those who come” in the lamentation be the same as “they that cometh” in Nephi’s version of Malachi’s prophecy? In the one, “those who come shall have no pity,” and in the other, “they that cometh shall burn them… that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” Could the latter be properly described as having no pity? If they that come shall, by their nature, burn the proud and the wicked, and – even if they don’t desire to cause that suffering – they come anyway because the salvation of their family takes priority over the comfort of those whom they know not, would it not be accurate to say that they “have no pity” on the proud and the wicked? This certainly looks like a prophecy about a side effect of the establishment of Zion on the wicked in the last days.
With this in mind, I would suggest that it now becomes appropriate to consider the “this” part of the symbol. Could terrorist attacks on a city in Iraq be illustrative of the fear and danger on the proud and the wicked of the last days? Imagine the terror that a group like ISIS inflicts on the inhabitants of a city under siege. The suffering when the inhabitants are subjected to strict new laws that they are unaccustomed to following. Although ISIS is wholly evil, there is likely some analogy between the suffering under that kind of terror organization, and the suffering experienced by the proud and the wicked in the presence of holy beings. Of course, terrorists “have no pity” because they delight in cruelty, while the visitors to Zion “have no pity” because they are performing a mission and can’t help the fact that the proud and the wicked are unable to bear their presence. “This” is a symbol for “that” fit for a limited analogy, but they aren’t the same thing.
“Flee to Zion” indeed. These texts are admittedly somewhat frightening to me, who fits the description of “proud” and “wicked.” I find in them an urgent call to repentance.
The Baghdad texts in the Restoration Scriptures are certainly interesting. They seem like prophetic literature akin to what we find in the scriptures, with symbols and depth of meaning that can be extracted through study, prayer, and pondering. I hope Denver Snuffer won’t take offense at the fact that I am not inclined to credit him for this. I find his own writings helpful and clarifying most of the time, and at other times obtuse (perhaps because of excessive care in choosing his words), but not necessarily having the same qualities or fruitfulness upon continued examination as these or other texts that appear to be revelations. I consider this to be a sign of God’s work in the present day. Its existence should give hope to those who wish to commune with God in this life.
Jeremiah Stoddard 