1. I just ordered my first cast iron skillet! It was preseasoned and cost only $18, with free shipping. Now I feel stupid for waiting so long to buy it--in my head, a good cast iron skillet would have to cost at least $50, because they are so versatile and last so long. Um, yeah. No. Apparently you can get them cheap. Mine was even made in the USA. I'm really excited to use it.
2. Also just ordered a bunch of stainless steel cups to try. My plastic cups are starting to make our water taste plasticky, which is disgusting on so many levels and probably also carcinogenic. So, stainless steel it was. I'm pretty pleased with the cups I ordered, and just went ahead and ordered a few more. Yay!
3. Broke my toe last night, I think. I tripped in the dark and heard a crack, and my toe has been swollen up like a sausage ever since. Yow.
4. Nathaniel learned a new word today: Truck. He says it "guck." And to him, it refers to anything with wheels. Trains, cars, and trucks alike. He's been very pleased with himself and he likes to bring me pictures of wheeled things and tell me "Guck! Guck!"
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
baby is a sickie
Nathaniel has been sick. It's been a real pain for everyone, especially him. For the past several nights he's just coughed all night. Sometimes he sleeps through it, but I sure don't! Ha! I've been napping with him during the day to make up for it, though. He won't accept any medicine except for raspberry flavored Dimetapp children's decongestant, so I give him that when I can. He loves it and always asks for more.
Last night I made some incredible pork chops--I breaded them, then baked them at 350 for an hour. After the hour was up, I covered them with a mixture of cream of mushroom soup and milk, covered that with foil, and baked for another half hour. The chops were SO TENDER. It was incredible. Usually I am not a huge fan of pork chops because I think they're tough and hard to eat. But I like to think that it was that amazing recipe I tried last night that made the difference with those pork chops.
Last night I made some incredible pork chops--I breaded them, then baked them at 350 for an hour. After the hour was up, I covered them with a mixture of cream of mushroom soup and milk, covered that with foil, and baked for another half hour. The chops were SO TENDER. It was incredible. Usually I am not a huge fan of pork chops because I think they're tough and hard to eat. But I like to think that it was that amazing recipe I tried last night that made the difference with those pork chops.
Monday, January 28, 2013
learning letters
Nathaniel is learning his letters! He obsessed with StoryBots on YouTube, and we watch them at least once a day, every day except Sunday. He loves them to the extent that now the only way we can get him to wear jammies is if they have robots on them.
Anyway, I used to feel bad that he watched StoryBots so much all the time (ALL the time), but he's actually learning his letters. When he sees an L, he gets excited and says "lah!" And when we draw him a bunch of letters, he can successfully point out things like L and N and X. He loves letters and calls them 'bots,' as in StoryBots. When we sing the StoryBot songs to him, he sings along. It's hilarious.
Anyway, I used to feel bad that he watched StoryBots so much all the time (ALL the time), but he's actually learning his letters. When he sees an L, he gets excited and says "lah!" And when we draw him a bunch of letters, he can successfully point out things like L and N and X. He loves letters and calls them 'bots,' as in StoryBots. When we sing the StoryBot songs to him, he sings along. It's hilarious.
Friday, January 18, 2013
vaccine times
Nathaniel had his 18mo check up yesterday. He's doing well. He is 23.25 lbs (25th percentile), 33.5 inches long (80th percentile), and his head is in the 70th percentile.
We got him vaccinated. He was very good about it, and only cried for literally about ten seconds, at which point the nurse asked if he wanted a bear. He just perked right up--yes! He wanted a bear! And he clutched that bear all the way home.
And then ever since, he has been doing one thing.
Nursing.
Nonstop.
Okay, with a little stops. But let's put it this way. He literally nursed without stopping from midnight until two in the morning this morning.
And just now, he nursed from 8:15 until 9:45. WITHOUT STOPPING. He unlatched once for like two seconds and then latched back on.
So, all my nightweaning is undone, and that kid is a milkhead fiend. I'm assuming it's residual stuff from his DPT vaccine or whatever, making him uncomfortable and fussy. Right now he's down for a nap. Here's hoping he naps for a while...
We got him vaccinated. He was very good about it, and only cried for literally about ten seconds, at which point the nurse asked if he wanted a bear. He just perked right up--yes! He wanted a bear! And he clutched that bear all the way home.
And then ever since, he has been doing one thing.
Nursing.
Nonstop.
Okay, with a little stops. But let's put it this way. He literally nursed without stopping from midnight until two in the morning this morning.
And just now, he nursed from 8:15 until 9:45. WITHOUT STOPPING. He unlatched once for like two seconds and then latched back on.
So, all my nightweaning is undone, and that kid is a milkhead fiend. I'm assuming it's residual stuff from his DPT vaccine or whatever, making him uncomfortable and fussy. Right now he's down for a nap. Here's hoping he naps for a while...
Saturday, January 12, 2013
new car!!
No pictures yet, but they're on the way eventually!
On Saturday of last week we finally got a new car. A new old car. It's a 2006 Toyota Avalon. Our last car, the 2001 Oldsmobile, ended up needing like a zillion bucks in repairs in order to pass inspection next month, so we had to get a new car. It was kind of sad, because if we didn't live in a nanny state, we probably could have gotten another year or two out of the car. But of course, we live in tyrannical Maryland, so, there we go. New car time it was.
We're pleased with our Avalon purchase. It has tons of room in the back, so if we ever need to put more than one carseat back there, that'll be fine. It drives really smoothly and is basically just a good, reliable, old person car. Everyone I tell about it is like, "oh! My grandparents have that SAME CAR!"
Yep.
When we drove it home from the dealer, we parked it in our garage and Carl wondered if the front right tire was a little low. I said no, of course it wasn't, because our crappy Oldsmobile always had low air in that tire--it was probably all just in our heads because we were used to that from our old car.
On Thursday, so five days after I bought it, I drove up to Urbana for a hair cut and to visit my mom. On the way, I got THREE (3) flats. On 270.
So, drama. I only discovered this as I left--I've never had a flat before, so I just thought our car was being retarded. I legitimately didn't get it, until I was on my way home driving super slowly to Subway for lunch, and people watching me started freaking out--"hey lady! Hey lady! All your tires are flat!"
So I drove at 10 mph with my baby screaming in the backseat to the closest auto shop, where I promptly had a breakdown and just wept in their lobby. I had to be home in an hour to get my severely disabled brother off the bus, and it was a new car, and my baby was crazy. The repair guys took pity on my poor self and inspected the car, pronouncing it the strangest thing they'd ever seen--only three tires were flat, and for no obvious reason. Why not all four? What the heck?
So I ended up calling a tow, and hitching a ride home with my sister. It turned out that the dealer had put on all new tires when they acquired the car--and the tires had faulty valves. Well, three of them did. So they were slowly leaking until at last, they all went out on me essentially at once on the freeway. The dealer replaced all the tires for free and we got the car back last night.
It's been a fun time with the new car, but hopefully that was the last of the car's issues for a while.
On Saturday of last week we finally got a new car. A new old car. It's a 2006 Toyota Avalon. Our last car, the 2001 Oldsmobile, ended up needing like a zillion bucks in repairs in order to pass inspection next month, so we had to get a new car. It was kind of sad, because if we didn't live in a nanny state, we probably could have gotten another year or two out of the car. But of course, we live in tyrannical Maryland, so, there we go. New car time it was.
We're pleased with our Avalon purchase. It has tons of room in the back, so if we ever need to put more than one carseat back there, that'll be fine. It drives really smoothly and is basically just a good, reliable, old person car. Everyone I tell about it is like, "oh! My grandparents have that SAME CAR!"
Yep.
When we drove it home from the dealer, we parked it in our garage and Carl wondered if the front right tire was a little low. I said no, of course it wasn't, because our crappy Oldsmobile always had low air in that tire--it was probably all just in our heads because we were used to that from our old car.
On Thursday, so five days after I bought it, I drove up to Urbana for a hair cut and to visit my mom. On the way, I got THREE (3) flats. On 270.
So, drama. I only discovered this as I left--I've never had a flat before, so I just thought our car was being retarded. I legitimately didn't get it, until I was on my way home driving super slowly to Subway for lunch, and people watching me started freaking out--"hey lady! Hey lady! All your tires are flat!"
So I drove at 10 mph with my baby screaming in the backseat to the closest auto shop, where I promptly had a breakdown and just wept in their lobby. I had to be home in an hour to get my severely disabled brother off the bus, and it was a new car, and my baby was crazy. The repair guys took pity on my poor self and inspected the car, pronouncing it the strangest thing they'd ever seen--only three tires were flat, and for no obvious reason. Why not all four? What the heck?
So I ended up calling a tow, and hitching a ride home with my sister. It turned out that the dealer had put on all new tires when they acquired the car--and the tires had faulty valves. Well, three of them did. So they were slowly leaking until at last, they all went out on me essentially at once on the freeway. The dealer replaced all the tires for free and we got the car back last night.
It's been a fun time with the new car, but hopefully that was the last of the car's issues for a while.
Monday, January 7, 2013
NIGHTWEANING!!!
Yes: we're still breastfeeding. Since Nathaniel is allergic to egg, soy, peanut, and all cow products from steak and ground beef to milk and yogurt, I feel like it's an important thing to do. Not to mention that the international medically recommended minimum time for nursing is two full years, and Nathaniel is only eighteen months. But whatever.
Last week I decided that the time had come to nightwean Nathaniel. Since he was born at around ten and a half pounds, I've always fed him multiple times at night: he's got a big body but started out with a little tummy, and in the night I could hear his little tummy rumble. Plus, since we bedshare, it was just so easy to feed him at night, and neither of us would really have to move or fully wake up. It was very convenient.
But Carl wants us to move him to his own toddler bed, and so the first step in that process was making it so he could fall asleep without being in the process of nursing--a project that took a few weeks, but now works fine. Before, when I wanted him to sleep, I would just lay down with him and nurse him to sleep in the dark. Now, I nurse him for night in the light, and then turn off the light and cuddle him to sleep. He hates it when Dad cuddles him to sleep, so we still have something to work on, but at least he is physically capable now of falling asleep without nursing simultaneously.
Anyway, step two has been to cut out night feedings entirely. Two weeks ago, Nathaniel was getting up like clockwork at 1 am and 4:45 am for nursing.
One week ago, I decided that after 1:30 am, the milk is asleep.
So for a few days, Nathaniel just cried when I told him he couldn't have the milk because it was sleeping. I held him, and rocked him, and kissed him, and offered him water which he rejected, and just generally felt sad for him, but not too sad, because he only had to wait for an hour, since we get up at six every morning anyway.
After maybe three days of that, Nathaniel learned that it is actually important to eat real food at dinnertime, and now when it's bedtime he always asks to eat after he's in his jammies. So we go back down and fill up that baby tummy, and then do a good night nursing, and cuddle to sleep.
Anyway, after he learned that particular lesson, I told him that milk had to sleep in the night just like he did--all night long. And then that night, when he woke up at 1 o'clock, he just signed for water, drank like half a cup of it, and went back to sleep. Same at 4:45.
And he hasn't gotten up at night since then. That was maybe on Friday.
So, happy day: I think we're nightweaned. It's only been a few days, so maybe not, but so far so good.
In related news, Nathaniel's eighteen-month birthday is next Sunday, so he gets to start NURSERY! I just can't wait. This last week at church he was totally crazy. He is definitely ready to be able to play with toys and eat snacks and think about Jesus with other kids his same age, instead of disrupting Gospel Principles and Relief Society with me.
Last week I decided that the time had come to nightwean Nathaniel. Since he was born at around ten and a half pounds, I've always fed him multiple times at night: he's got a big body but started out with a little tummy, and in the night I could hear his little tummy rumble. Plus, since we bedshare, it was just so easy to feed him at night, and neither of us would really have to move or fully wake up. It was very convenient.
But Carl wants us to move him to his own toddler bed, and so the first step in that process was making it so he could fall asleep without being in the process of nursing--a project that took a few weeks, but now works fine. Before, when I wanted him to sleep, I would just lay down with him and nurse him to sleep in the dark. Now, I nurse him for night in the light, and then turn off the light and cuddle him to sleep. He hates it when Dad cuddles him to sleep, so we still have something to work on, but at least he is physically capable now of falling asleep without nursing simultaneously.
Anyway, step two has been to cut out night feedings entirely. Two weeks ago, Nathaniel was getting up like clockwork at 1 am and 4:45 am for nursing.
One week ago, I decided that after 1:30 am, the milk is asleep.
So for a few days, Nathaniel just cried when I told him he couldn't have the milk because it was sleeping. I held him, and rocked him, and kissed him, and offered him water which he rejected, and just generally felt sad for him, but not too sad, because he only had to wait for an hour, since we get up at six every morning anyway.
After maybe three days of that, Nathaniel learned that it is actually important to eat real food at dinnertime, and now when it's bedtime he always asks to eat after he's in his jammies. So we go back down and fill up that baby tummy, and then do a good night nursing, and cuddle to sleep.
Anyway, after he learned that particular lesson, I told him that milk had to sleep in the night just like he did--all night long. And then that night, when he woke up at 1 o'clock, he just signed for water, drank like half a cup of it, and went back to sleep. Same at 4:45.
And he hasn't gotten up at night since then. That was maybe on Friday.
So, happy day: I think we're nightweaned. It's only been a few days, so maybe not, but so far so good.
In related news, Nathaniel's eighteen-month birthday is next Sunday, so he gets to start NURSERY! I just can't wait. This last week at church he was totally crazy. He is definitely ready to be able to play with toys and eat snacks and think about Jesus with other kids his same age, instead of disrupting Gospel Principles and Relief Society with me.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
stumblingblocks and the Bible
I wrote this like 2 months ago on a prompting and then felt like I shouldn't post it. Just now I felt like I should post it. So, world, here goes. Sorry it's long.
I.
To get the full effect, I recommend reading all of 1 Corinthians 1, with emphasis on v. 18-25.
Why was a Christ crucified a stumblingblock to the Jews? (A stumblingblock is something set in the way of a blind person to make them stumble.)
Because of Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which read (emphasis mine):
According to Mosaic law, anyone killed on a tree--such as the wood of a cross--was accursed of God. So clearly, Jesus couldn't have been the Christ, because since His death took place on a tree, He must have been accursed. Right?
Well... wrong. From the Christian perspective, anyway, that is incorrect.
But that is only one interpretation of my question--the question, Why was a Christ crucified a stumblingblock to the Jews? To read the question differently--why was it important that Jesus's death be a stumblingblock to the Jews? Why would God make it difficult for a practicing Jew, one of His covenant people, to believe that Jesus was the Christ? If it's God's will for everyone to be saved, then why make it hard for them to believe in Jesus? Or is it God's will for some people to go to hell because they found it too hard to believe, when God could easily have made Jesus's death something that didn't violate the law of Moses?
II.
Paul warned his fellow saints in the early Christian church "night and day with tears" that after he departed, "grievous wolves," "of [their] own selves" would arise, to pervert the Church of Jesus. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul went on to explain that the "day of Christ" "shall not come, except there come a falling away first." The term "falling away" is an English translation of the Greek "apostasia," or apostasy. Paul warned the early Christians all the time that an apostasy was inevitable--that men would deceive and use the gospel for gain and lead the church astray. The definition of the word apostasy is "a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc."
We know that the early Christian church had to apostatize at some point, because Paul specifically said so multiple times. Before Jesus comes again, according to the Bible, there will be a falling away, or an apostasy--a total desertion or departure from the truth (according to the definition of the word), first.
Why is this important?
Because if the Christian Church established by Jesus in the flesh had to fall away, or apostatize, or "desert or depart from" the fulness of Jesus's Gospel before Jesus could return, that means one of two things. Because apostasy was/is inevitable according to the Apostle Paul, it means that either A) the Church apostatized in the past, or B) the Church will apostatize in the future.
Me? I believe it's clear that the Church apostatized in the past, the far distant past. Today's Christian landscape is reminiscent of Isaiah's lament in Isaiah 53:6: "all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way."
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of separate Christians sects today. They do not have a "unity of the faith" as Paul told the Ephesians in chapter 4, verse 13. Rather, as Paul states in the next verse, we are as "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."
"Carried about by every wind of doctrine" is a great phrase to describe most of Christianity today. I mean, is there anything all Christians agree on? There are churches that purport to be Christian that support abortion and gay marriage. Some Christians believe in the necessity of baptism; others don't. Some believe in the necessity of priesthood authority; others don't. I have friends that go to church all the time and couldn't begin to have a doctrinal discussion with you. How can you have a Christian church that doesn't teach doctrine? I don't know. But it happens, people!
Just based on the sheer amount of disagreement among Christians today, I think it's safe to say that there has been an apostasy. We no longer have that unity of the faith. Even in churches with established doctrine (such as the Catholic or Methodist church), the teachings will often change based on who your pastor is. The variation in Christian beliefs is huge. Yet only one set of Christian doctrine can be correct. If two doctrines are contradictory, only one is correct.
Why does this apostasy matter? Because at some point, God has to remember His people. Remember Acts 3:21, which promises a "restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."
God told Isaiah in Isaiah 29:14 that He would "proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder." Examine Isaiah 29:14, 18, and 22-24 (I cut it down for brevity but you should read... well, all of Isaiah but also Isaiah 29:14-the end):
Isaiah prophesies of a "marvellous work and a wonder" that God will commence, a "work and a wonder" that will confound the wise men and the prudent men. The "book" that will come forth will teach doctrine, teach God's children to fear Him and sanctify Him, and the book will be involved in the redemption of the house of Jacob.
But, to go back to verse 14, that book will be--what? Something to make the wisdom of their wise men perish, and the understanding of their prudent men to be hid. In other words, a stumblingblock. Or, as 1 Cor. 1:27 explains, "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty."
To go back to Isaiah 29--what will that book be, mentioned in verse 18?
A stumblingblock.
III.
- Psalm 11:5
God puts trials--even what you might call "stumblingblocks"--in our way to test our faith.
I believe that the stumblingblock of a Christ crucified was necessary for the Jews at the time of Jesus because it was a trial of faith. To learn for yourself that Jesus was the Christ, despite His crucifixion, you would have to rely wholly on the witness of the Holy Spirit, and leave your doubts at the door.
We have many Biblical promises that God's "marvellous work" in the latter days will confound the wise. I won't quote 'em because I already quoted a bunch of them above. But essentially: when God restores all things, as He has promised to do in both the Old and New Testaments, that restoration will involve some stumblingblocks that could potentially trip up even the faithful--just as Jesus's crucifixion originally tripped up faithful Jews. And why? Presumably to test our faith--to see if we will rely on the witness of the Holy Ghost more than we rely on our own wisdom.
Basically: to see if we can trust God more than we trust ourselves.
IV.
In Ezekiel 37:15-19 God explains that he will have His prophets write on sticks--the Hebrew for that word could also be translated as 'writing tablets'--one writing tablet for Judah, or the Jews, and one tablet for Ephraim. Examine verse 19:
I believe the Bible to be the stick of Judah, and the Book of Mormon to be the stick of Ephraim. Now that we have both of them, they literally can be one in your hands--my copy of the Bible has the Book of Mormon attached to it. To me, this is a fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy. The "book" that is mentioned in Isaiah 29 does indeed confound the wise, acting as a stumblingblock to those who would prefer to trust their own wisdom to God's.
The only way to develop a testimony of the Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus is to pray about it with an open heart and mind, and rely on trust in the Lord Jesus Christ that He will send His Holy Spirit down to you and testify to you. In the meantime, it's easy to qualm about things like the archaeological record or mentions of horses or whatever. I had a friend who said she could never believe the Book of Mormon was true because there was no archaeological record supporting it like there is for the Bible.
And I just thought--if your faith in Jesus is based on something so trivial as an archaeological dig or two, is that really faith?
Is it faith in God if what is really important to you is the arguments of man in favor of it?
To me, this is why the Book of Mormon exists. It is here to try our faith, so God can see if we are truly willing to follow Him in all things, even when it doesn't make sense.
But the most amazing part, to me, anyway, is that once you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, everything does make sense. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is incredibly internally consistent, in a way that no other Christian faith I have studied is. I urge you to give it a chance.
V.
- James 1:5
That is the promise that comes with the Book of Mormon: that if you read it, and ponder the words in your heart, and ask God in the name of Jesus if it is true or not, with faith that God will tell you the truth, the Holy Ghost will tell you the truth. You don't need to take my word or anyone's word for it. You just need to be open to the words of the Holy Ghost.
If you believe in the Bible, which clearly states that an apostasy is necessary and inevitable, and that there will be a restoration of all things according to the words of the holy prophets--when do you think that will happen?
What if it's happening now?
How would you recognize it? Are you searching for it?
I testify to you that I have read and studied the Book of Mormon and the Bible, and I know them both to contain the words of God. I know that as you study them, you will grow closer to God. I believe that both books, but particularly the Book of Mormon, contain truths that you are searching for.
Sometimes I wonder what kind of person I would have been if I had been alive at the time of Jesus. Would I have listened to the Spirit and believed? Or would I have been so caught up in the law of Moses that I would have called Jesus accursed because of His death on the cross and denied that he could possibly be the Christ? Would I have even given Him a chance?
I have been asked before if I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And while I was raised LDS, I have to answer yes. Because I didn't inherit my faith in Jesus and the fulness of His gospel: I acted on the promise contained in the Book of Mormon and asked God for myself if it was true. Reading the book can take less than a week--it was hardly an investment of time. And I knew that, in reading it, worst case scenario: God told me it was a fake and I'd just spent a week learning about other people's beliefs. Best case scenario: the fulness of God's true gospel was restored, I could have access to even more of Jesus's words, and I could have a personal witness from the Holy Ghost of its truth.
I took the risk and read the book.
I got my answer.
You can get an answer, too.
I.
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
-1 Cor. 1:23
To get the full effect, I recommend reading all of 1 Corinthians 1, with emphasis on v. 18-25.
Why was a Christ crucified a stumblingblock to the Jews? (A stumblingblock is something set in the way of a blind person to make them stumble.)
Because of Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which read (emphasis mine):
22 ¶And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
According to Mosaic law, anyone killed on a tree--such as the wood of a cross--was accursed of God. So clearly, Jesus couldn't have been the Christ, because since His death took place on a tree, He must have been accursed. Right?
Well... wrong. From the Christian perspective, anyway, that is incorrect.
But that is only one interpretation of my question--the question, Why was a Christ crucified a stumblingblock to the Jews? To read the question differently--why was it important that Jesus's death be a stumblingblock to the Jews? Why would God make it difficult for a practicing Jew, one of His covenant people, to believe that Jesus was the Christ? If it's God's will for everyone to be saved, then why make it hard for them to believe in Jesus? Or is it God's will for some people to go to hell because they found it too hard to believe, when God could easily have made Jesus's death something that didn't violate the law of Moses?
II.
28 ¶Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
-Acts 20:28-31
Paul warned his fellow saints in the early Christian church "night and day with tears" that after he departed, "grievous wolves," "of [their] own selves" would arise, to pervert the Church of Jesus. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul went on to explain that the "day of Christ" "shall not come, except there come a falling away first." The term "falling away" is an English translation of the Greek "apostasia," or apostasy. Paul warned the early Christians all the time that an apostasy was inevitable--that men would deceive and use the gospel for gain and lead the church astray. The definition of the word apostasy is "a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc."
We know that the early Christian church had to apostatize at some point, because Paul specifically said so multiple times. Before Jesus comes again, according to the Bible, there will be a falling away, or an apostasy--a total desertion or departure from the truth (according to the definition of the word), first.
Why is this important?
Because if the Christian Church established by Jesus in the flesh had to fall away, or apostatize, or "desert or depart from" the fulness of Jesus's Gospel before Jesus could return, that means one of two things. Because apostasy was/is inevitable according to the Apostle Paul, it means that either A) the Church apostatized in the past, or B) the Church will apostatize in the future.
Me? I believe it's clear that the Church apostatized in the past, the far distant past. Today's Christian landscape is reminiscent of Isaiah's lament in Isaiah 53:6: "all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way."
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of separate Christians sects today. They do not have a "unity of the faith" as Paul told the Ephesians in chapter 4, verse 13. Rather, as Paul states in the next verse, we are as "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."
"Carried about by every wind of doctrine" is a great phrase to describe most of Christianity today. I mean, is there anything all Christians agree on? There are churches that purport to be Christian that support abortion and gay marriage. Some Christians believe in the necessity of baptism; others don't. Some believe in the necessity of priesthood authority; others don't. I have friends that go to church all the time and couldn't begin to have a doctrinal discussion with you. How can you have a Christian church that doesn't teach doctrine? I don't know. But it happens, people!
Just based on the sheer amount of disagreement among Christians today, I think it's safe to say that there has been an apostasy. We no longer have that unity of the faith. Even in churches with established doctrine (such as the Catholic or Methodist church), the teachings will often change based on who your pastor is. The variation in Christian beliefs is huge. Yet only one set of Christian doctrine can be correct. If two doctrines are contradictory, only one is correct.
Why does this apostasy matter? Because at some point, God has to remember His people. Remember Acts 3:21, which promises a "restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."
God told Isaiah in Isaiah 29:14 that He would "proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder." Examine Isaiah 29:14, 18, and 22-24 (I cut it down for brevity but you should read... well, all of Isaiah but also Isaiah 29:14-the end):
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
18 ¶And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.
22 Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.
23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.
24 They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.
Isaiah prophesies of a "marvellous work and a wonder" that God will commence, a "work and a wonder" that will confound the wise men and the prudent men. The "book" that will come forth will teach doctrine, teach God's children to fear Him and sanctify Him, and the book will be involved in the redemption of the house of Jacob.
But, to go back to verse 14, that book will be--what? Something to make the wisdom of their wise men perish, and the understanding of their prudent men to be hid. In other words, a stumblingblock. Or, as 1 Cor. 1:27 explains, "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty."
To go back to Isaiah 29--what will that book be, mentioned in verse 18?
A stumblingblock.
III.
The Lord trieth the righteous.
- Psalm 11:5
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
-Abraham 3:25
God puts trials--even what you might call "stumblingblocks"--in our way to test our faith.
I believe that the stumblingblock of a Christ crucified was necessary for the Jews at the time of Jesus because it was a trial of faith. To learn for yourself that Jesus was the Christ, despite His crucifixion, you would have to rely wholly on the witness of the Holy Spirit, and leave your doubts at the door.
We have many Biblical promises that God's "marvellous work" in the latter days will confound the wise. I won't quote 'em because I already quoted a bunch of them above. But essentially: when God restores all things, as He has promised to do in both the Old and New Testaments, that restoration will involve some stumblingblocks that could potentially trip up even the faithful--just as Jesus's crucifixion originally tripped up faithful Jews. And why? Presumably to test our faith--to see if we will rely on the witness of the Holy Ghost more than we rely on our own wisdom.
Basically: to see if we can trust God more than we trust ourselves.
IV.
7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.
9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
2 Nephi 29:7-10
In Ezekiel 37:15-19 God explains that he will have His prophets write on sticks--the Hebrew for that word could also be translated as 'writing tablets'--one writing tablet for Judah, or the Jews, and one tablet for Ephraim. Examine verse 19:
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
I believe the Bible to be the stick of Judah, and the Book of Mormon to be the stick of Ephraim. Now that we have both of them, they literally can be one in your hands--my copy of the Bible has the Book of Mormon attached to it. To me, this is a fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy. The "book" that is mentioned in Isaiah 29 does indeed confound the wise, acting as a stumblingblock to those who would prefer to trust their own wisdom to God's.
The only way to develop a testimony of the Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus is to pray about it with an open heart and mind, and rely on trust in the Lord Jesus Christ that He will send His Holy Spirit down to you and testify to you. In the meantime, it's easy to qualm about things like the archaeological record or mentions of horses or whatever. I had a friend who said she could never believe the Book of Mormon was true because there was no archaeological record supporting it like there is for the Bible.
And I just thought--if your faith in Jesus is based on something so trivial as an archaeological dig or two, is that really faith?
Is it faith in God if what is really important to you is the arguments of man in favor of it?
To me, this is why the Book of Mormon exists. It is here to try our faith, so God can see if we are truly willing to follow Him in all things, even when it doesn't make sense.
But the most amazing part, to me, anyway, is that once you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, everything does make sense. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is incredibly internally consistent, in a way that no other Christian faith I have studied is. I urge you to give it a chance.
V.
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.
- James 1:5
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
-Moroni 10:3-5
That is the promise that comes with the Book of Mormon: that if you read it, and ponder the words in your heart, and ask God in the name of Jesus if it is true or not, with faith that God will tell you the truth, the Holy Ghost will tell you the truth. You don't need to take my word or anyone's word for it. You just need to be open to the words of the Holy Ghost.
If you believe in the Bible, which clearly states that an apostasy is necessary and inevitable, and that there will be a restoration of all things according to the words of the holy prophets--when do you think that will happen?
What if it's happening now?
How would you recognize it? Are you searching for it?
I testify to you that I have read and studied the Book of Mormon and the Bible, and I know them both to contain the words of God. I know that as you study them, you will grow closer to God. I believe that both books, but particularly the Book of Mormon, contain truths that you are searching for.
Sometimes I wonder what kind of person I would have been if I had been alive at the time of Jesus. Would I have listened to the Spirit and believed? Or would I have been so caught up in the law of Moses that I would have called Jesus accursed because of His death on the cross and denied that he could possibly be the Christ? Would I have even given Him a chance?
I have been asked before if I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And while I was raised LDS, I have to answer yes. Because I didn't inherit my faith in Jesus and the fulness of His gospel: I acted on the promise contained in the Book of Mormon and asked God for myself if it was true. Reading the book can take less than a week--it was hardly an investment of time. And I knew that, in reading it, worst case scenario: God told me it was a fake and I'd just spent a week learning about other people's beliefs. Best case scenario: the fulness of God's true gospel was restored, I could have access to even more of Jesus's words, and I could have a personal witness from the Holy Ghost of its truth.
I took the risk and read the book.
I got my answer.
You can get an answer, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)