Carl's talk on covenants

Carl gave a talk in sacrament meeting two weeks ago on covenants. I was really pleased with it; he had a lot of good stuff in there. The day he wrote it I started typing things up from it but it's taken forever so this morning I just finished it up and I'm posting it. I'm including the specifically Mormon stuff he said, but if you're not LDS but still Christian I think you can still read the rest of it and get good things out of it. So I'm paraphrasing.

The talk was based on this general conference address and this scripture, which reads:

I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

Carl started us off in Matthew 7:21-23, which reads:

21 ¶Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

How is it that a person can prophesy of Jesus and do good works in His name, and yet still have the Lord not know him?

The answer lies in the original text of the Bible: in the original Hebrew, the word "know" is "yada," which can (and I think here absolutely does) imply a covenant. What the Bible is teaching here is that just loving the Lord and doing good works in His name is not enough: for Jesus to accept you, you need to have covenanted with him.

Interestingly, the Greek word for covenant is the same word as the word for testament (pronounced "dee-ath-ay-kay"). A covenant is a written agreement between two parties; a testament is basically a will, a document explaining what someone wants to have done with their legacy after his or her death. Depending on the circumstance, one translation may seem more appropriate than another, but in the end, what we know as the Old and New Testaments may be translated alternatively as the Old and New Covenants. This would make The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ to read instead The Book of Mormon: Another Covenant of Jesus Christ, which makes a lot of sense in the context of the scripture instructing us to "repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon."

In other words, our covenantal responsibilities and blessings are outlined in the scriptures--so it behooves us to study the scriptures and understand what our obligations are. It is only by first making, and then understanding and keeping our covenants that Jesus knows us and accepts us into the kingdom of heaven (as explained in Matthew 7).

Carl then turned to D&C 130:20-21:

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

Carl explained that these verses show that covenants bring blessings you can't get any other way.

He then read the sacrament prayer, the prayer used to bless and sanctify specifically the bread in our church's communion/sacrament/Eucharist ceremony, whatever you call it:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

Carl used the sacramental covenant here to explain that covenants help up exercise faith: we're making promises to God to exercise faith.

He also pointed out that when we make covenants, we're not promising to never ever mess up. We're promising that we are "willing" to take upon us the name of Jesus, and to always remember Him, and keep His commandments. In return we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. God knows that we will mess up, but the important thing is that we are willing to keep the covenants and that we do our best. When we do mess up, we have the opportunity to repent--and when we renew our baptismal covenant through the taking of the sacrament, our repentance can be complete.

At the end of his talk, Carl told the story from Alma 24, where a bunch of bloodthirsty killers become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and covenant with God that they will never kill anyone ever again--and then they bury all their weapons. Their whole story is very cool but this blog post has taken like two weeks to write so I'm ready to be done now.

Suffice it to say, covenants are important, and when we make them and understand them and keep them we are blessed. And Carl's talk was good. The end.

authority: or, why I could be Catholic

Over the past few weeks I've thought a lot about authority, and tonight, I couldn't sleep without writing about it.

So here goes.

In the Old Testament, specifically Exodus 40:15, the tribe of Levi is anointed, sanctified, and given the Aaronic, or Levitical Priesthood. This authority enabled the Levite priests to preside over burnt offerings and other temple rites. In Numbers 25:13, the Levitical Priesthood is described as "everlasting."

In the New Testament (John 15:16), Christ specifically mentions ordaining His disciples--ordination is how one receives the priesthood.

In ancient times, according to 1 Chronicles 23, Aaronic priests were in charge of offering burnt offerings, and were in charge of caring for the tabernacle, among other things.

Hebrews 7 is an incredible chapter of the New Testament, dealing entirely with the Aaronic Priesthood and the need for the Melchizedek Priesthood. If you are a practicing Christian and haven't read it, you should.

Paul explains in verse 11,

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

In other words, if the Aaronic Priesthood were enough to save the people, why would they also need the Melchizedek Priesthood? The implication is that not even just one, but two priesthoods are necessary for salvation. I would quote the entire rest of the chapter, but you should really just read it yourself.

Paul goes on to explain how Jesus took the oath of the Melchizedek Priesthood:

And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

In Psalms 110:4, it is written:

The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Jesus held the Melchizedek Priesthood, and additionally conferred it upon his apostles (as mentioned in John 15:16). This is the key Jesus gave to Peter in Matthew 16:19: "the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Peter had the power to bind and loose both on earth and in heaven by the power of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood.

So where is this Priesthood today?

Well, before we even answer that question, it's important to remember that Paul taught in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that Christ would not return again except there be a falling away first. In other words, part of His everlasting gospel would be taken away from the earth, and then restored at a later date.

To get back to the main question: where is the priesthood today?

Only two Christian sects claim to have access to priesthood power on the earth today. The Catholics claim that Peter, as the holder of the keys of the kingdom of heaven after Jesus's leaving the earth, conferred that power on the next leader of Jesus's church. Catholicism holds that the priesthood power has been passed down through the Popes since that time, and they trace their priesthood lineage through Peter and thereby Jesus Christ.

The other Christian sect that claims to have priesthood power is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The believers of this religion claim that the priesthood of the Lord was lost, as a part of the "falling away" promised in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Latter-day Saints believe that the priesthood was restored to the earth on 15 May 1829, when John the Baptist conferred it on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on the banks of the Susquehanna River.

As far as I know, no other Christian denomination even claims to have the keys of the priesthood. This is important. The priesthood is necessary, at least according to Hebrews 7. It is a key doctrine of the gospel of Christ.

That is why if I weren't LDS, I'd have to be Catholic. I don't understand how any Christian could be satisfied with attending a church that didn't even claim to have the "keys of the kingdom," or the authority to act in God's name. Obviously, over a billion Christians in the world actually don't care about that, and that is fine for them, but I'm just saying that I personally don't understand that. I feel that the Holy Bible makes it clear that there is a priesthood power necessary for the proper running of Christ's church on the earth. After all, right before Christ confers the priesthood upon Peter in Matthew 16:19, in 16:18 He says that this is the rock upon which He shall build His church. If your church doesn't claim access to the priesthood, then it is clearly not built on the rock that Christ says His church is built on. And therefore, wouldn't it not be Christ's church? Again, just my logic here. Take it for what it's worth. Your logic is more important than mine.

Priesthood authority is necessary today for the same reason it was necessary in the time of Moses and the time of Christ. It is necessary because it is "everlasting," and because it is the foundation, or rock, upon which Christ's church is built. Proper authority is necessary for everything--even driving. If you don't have a driver's license, you don't have the authority to drive, even if you know how.

As an analogy, to me, seeing a church led by someone who doesn't claim priesthood authority is like seeing a regular guy pulling people over on the highway and giving them speeding tickets. Even if the people really are speeding, you have to have the proper authority to pull people over and give out tickets. If you're not a police officer, you don't have that authority.

The priesthood is important because it is the authority that God gives to man to act in all things. If your spiritual leader doesn't claim to have the priesthood, then he is not really qualified to be your leader, in my opinion. Emphasized because I know that my opinion doesn't matter as much as your opinion, and also because I know that lots of people are just fine and even happy with following spiritual leaders who don't claim to have any authority from God. And that's fine.

But to me, I couldn't take that. I believe in the Holy Bible, and I believe that the inconvenient matter of the priesthood is just as important now as it was when the Bible was originally written. I believe that the priesthood is, as is written in both the Old and New Testaments, "everlasting." And I know for a fact, and so do you, because I told you, that two Christian sects claim access to it: Catholicism and Mormonism.

To me, those are the two options. That's why if I weren't Mormon, I'd be Catholic.

I guess the third option is that Paul's "falling away" described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is still in force, and still no church has the fulness of Christ's truth and priesthood. So there are three options. But we are promised in James 1:5-6 that "if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."

You can decide for yourself which of the three options is correct. All you have to do is pray in faith and God will tell you the truth of it Himself. You will recognize it because God will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. If you believe in the Bible too, and realize the importance and eternal need for priesthood authority on the earth, all you have to do is pray and ask God with an honest heart where that authority can be found. God cannot lie.

I am so grateful for the power of the priesthood in my life. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a home where my father held both the Aaronic and the Melchizedek Priesthoods. Now my brother does and my husband does. Just this week we had the opportunity to use the priesthood in a blessing on my baby, who was struggling with teething. Even though Nathaniel was screaming and upset, when Carl told him that he was giving him a message from Heavenly Father, he quieted and listened. Priesthood blessings through the laying on of hands are not prayers; as one of Christ's living apostles has stated,

In a priesthood blessing a servant of the Lord exercises the priesthood, as moved upon by the Holy Ghost, to call upon the powers of heaven for the benefit of the person being blessed. Such blessings are conferred by holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood, which has the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the Church (see D&C 107:18, 67).

A prayer is a request. Anyone can pray. Not everyone can give a priesthood blessing. Only men who are called of God, having authority, can give a priesthood blessing. A priesthood blessing is not a request; it is the exercise of the priesthood, with God-given authority, calling on the powers of heaven to specifically benefit the person being blessed. The two are different, very different. One requires authority and the other does not. Both can be very effective--priesthood power does not diminish the power of prayer. Prayer is vital, prayer is essential, prayer is important. However, prayers and priesthood blessings are not the same. They are not even that similar, in my opinion. In prayer, you're petitioning God and don't need any authority. With the use of the priesthood, you must have been ordained by someone else who has authority, and it is not a request: it is a message. At least, that's how I've always viewed it. Priesthood blessings are messages to a person from God, through the mouth of the person giving the blessing.

I have a testimony of the priesthood. I have had priesthood blessings when I have been sick and injured; I've received blessings when I needed guidance in my life. Every year my father would give me a blessing for school. I have received a patriarchal blessing, as did the twelve sons of Israel in Genesis 49:28. I have witnessed the power of the priesthood too many times to count. I do believe that the Holy Priesthood mentioned so reverently in the Holy Bible has been restored to the earth; I believe it is accessible; I believe that it is everlasting, and necessary, and beautiful, and here.

If you have never thought about the need for the priesthood before, I challenge you to take some time to think about it. Pray about it. Fast over it. This is an important doctrinal issue and if the Bible is true, then the issue of the priesthood has eternal consequences for you. At the very least, the Bible has stated that Jesus holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, and will forever. That means He holds it now. Maybe as a follower of Jesus, it would be worth it to learn for yourself what that means, why it is significant enough for the Bible to mention it in both the Old and New Testaments, and how it relates to you and your relationship with Jesus.

Who knows? Maybe you'll discover that priesthood authority matters to you. Maybe you'll decide that it doesn't. Either way, my religion holds that men are that they might have joy. As far as I am concerned, everyone was put on this earth to be happy. So find a set of beliefs that makes you happy.

In the meantime, understanding the need for the priesthood makes me happy. And believing that I belong to a church that has that priesthood authority makes me happy. And that's one reason I'm a Mormon--and why if I weren't, I'd be a Catholic. :o)

teething, and a blessing

Last week, for two nights in a row, Nathaniel was teething.

The first night, he was burning up temperature-wise, and he'd wake up every hour or two to scream and cry, and the only comfort in his world was nursing, but he wouldn't nurse lying down, so I had to sit up and nurse him that way all night. It tired me out so much it didn't even occur to me to give him any painkiller or anything until the morning. We finally gave him some baby Motrin in the early morning and it broke his fever and calmed him down.

The next night, he did the same thing, except we tried the Motrin sooner. However, this time he knew better (or so he thought!) and spat out his Motrin binky--onto his darling mother of course, so I was covered in Motrin head to toe, basically. That stuff is incredibly sticky, ps. But anyway, he wouldn't have any meds, and trying to get him to take any just made him more upset, and finally we decided to have Carl give him a priesthood blessing.

At first, Nathaniel just tried to get away--he pushed against Carl's hands on his head and tried to squirm away from it. But as soon as Carl said, "This is a message from your Heavenly Father," Nathaniel calmed, and looked at Carl's face, until the blessing was over. Then he had a few more cries just for good measure, and finally fell asleep.

I am so glad to have the priesthood in my home. I was grateful for that before we had kids, but now that we have Nathaniel, I'm even more grateful. It was beautiful to see my baby feeling God's love for him through the words and authority of his earthly daddy.

The next day, Nathaniel's fourth tooth emerged. He now has all his front teeth. He is a wonderful boy and we love him very much.

on service

Yesterday a friend asked if I could drive her around this morning to various appointments. I said yes, because I feel strongly that God has blessed me with a car when I most likely don't deserve one, so I'd better help out His other children with it.

However, these appointments are right at the same time as Nathaniel's nap.

I've been pondering this every since. And before that, too--it's been a thought that's weighed heavily on my mind for weeks. I believe in service. I believe that "when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God." However, both my friend and my baby are my fellow beings--and it appears as though when I help the one, I could potentially be really not-helping the other one.

At what point do I refuse doing service outside the home, in order to perform service inside the home?

Last night my scripture study in Enos led me to study the "nurture of the Lord," which led me to Ephesians. This was good because right under Ephesians 6:4 was a little section on service:

5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

It reminds me of Matthew 25:40:

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

In a very real way, when I drive my friend around today it will be as if I am helping Christ get to where He needs to be. At the same time, though, I will be putting another little person through a whole lot to make that happen. Christ suffered for both potential situations: for my friend not being able to go where she needs to go, AND for my baby's body freaking out when he can't go where he needs to go.

So which one takes precedence?

I guess the real answer is to pray about it. It's a little too late for me to do that, because I have to pick my friend up in like 20 minutes and I already committed.

Have any of you ever had conflicting things like this before? What are your thoughts?

Nathaniel's blessing

Nathaniel got his name and his baby blessing on Sunday. We were so happy to see all our friends and family who showed up for it!

The blessing was a pretty long one. Carl's mom wrote it down, and I scribbled down the highlights as quickly as I could. It was hard because though Nathaniel was quiet and calm throughout, the other kids in the congregation were not as polite, and they cried and yelped and whatever during it, and also the microphone was not turned up all the way, so it was very hard to hear. It took a lot of concentration to hear what Carl was saying. But it was a good blessing and I am so excited for Nathaniel's future.

Afterward we all went to my parents' house for brunch, which was fun. A bunch of people showed up, and everyone fawned over Nathaniel and passed him around, and he was so nice about it. We have the nicest baby around. Here is a picture our darling friend Emily took:



Argh. My hair is still growing out from its foul pseudo-Bieber mullet, and I am ashamed of every picture. But just focus on the cuteness of that darling baby, okay?

After everyone left from the brunch, we did some family pictures. Good times. Hopefully a few of those turned out all right!