A few years ago I came down with an illness that according to the doctors I spoke with was likely the Flu. This was perhaps the most ill I have ever felt in my life. For about two weeks I was basically bedridden with fever, body aches and all the other ailments that come along with the flu with seemingly no relief in sight. Ill enough I had no appetite to eat. We had recently purchased a box of peanut butter dipping cups. I love peanut butter, so this particular application of peanut butter in small portions coupled with something simple like crackers to dip helped me not starve during these two weeks. After what seemed like a very long two weeks, I was starting to turn a corner with this illness, and though not 100% felt well enough to go back to work, and help with chores around the house.
After a brief couple days of feeling on the mend my illness seemed to return in full force. I was back in bed miserable. Back to trying to get rest, and nourishment through peanut butter despite my miserable conditions. After another week of being ill, I thought perhaps something greater was the issue than a viral infection. I called the doctor, and he wasn’t very helpful, insisted it was the flu, and that I just needed to rest and drink an abundance of fluids.
After another week, I was finally on the mend for good. Overall I was sick for the greater part of a whole month. Perhaps the doctor was right – it was just a bad bout with the flu. Soon after my recovery as I was reading in the news, I came across one of those now all to common “food recall” articles. Jif peanut butter was on recall, for some sort of contamination. More specifically, their dipping cups were on recall. I still had some of these dipping cups so I decided I should check the expiration date. Sure enough, the dipping cups I had in my possession and had been consuming for the past month were included in the recall. I couldn’t help but wonder, was the peanut butter I was relying on to give me nourishment through my illness contributing to me being sick for so long?
There was this lingering temptation to give the peanut butter another try, just to test it, see if it really was what made me sick. The data was out there as a warning though, this peanut butter had made others sick, why should I ignore that and subject myself to potential further harm or illness if I had the ability to choose to avoid it completely?
In Mormon culture the “doctrine” we most associate with the food we consume is known as “The Word of Wisdom” found in the modern day LDS edition of the Doctrine and Covenants section 89. It has been, and will long be debated on what is encouraged vs. what is prohibited therein. It’s not my objective to debate this now, but to consider a portion of encouraged intake from this section. In verse 16 it states:
“All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground”
We can easily suppose here that grain, fruits, and vegetables are healthy, and intake is encouraged for overall health. The peanut butter I consumed came from peanuts, grown from a plant in the ground. It was a “fruit” referenced in this verse for all intents and purposes. It was supposed to be healthy for me. It is impossible to know how many peanut plants were contaminated in my respective recalled peanut butter. Peanut Butter is the processed version of peanuts. One peanut plant could be contaminated, but as soon as they bring it into the processing facility, and mix the peanuts from the contaminated plant with safe, uncontaminated peanuts, the whole batch is contaminated by association, and the threat for food poisoning becomes greater.
All food in its purest form comes from the earth. In modern society we often process foods, have them undergo certain changes to help have a longer shelf life, perhaps better tasting, but also can be less healthy for us.
Truth, like food, also has an origination point of its purest form. Truth originates from Jesus Christ. He stated:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6, KJV)
Truth, like food, at times undergoes “processing” by humans. It is taken from its purest form and changed into something that might be more desirable by the processors, but ultimately contaminated or less healthy for you spiritually.
Joseph Smith Jr. in his youth lived through The Second Great Awakening. A time of religious excitement. He saw the vast population of Christianity preaching their “truths” but different branches of Christianity were in disagreement with each other.
“so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.” (Joseph Smith History 1:8)
Joseph wanted to feel like he could belong somewhere in Christianity. He was a seeker of truth. He found truth in the scriptures:
“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, KJV)
Through this passage, he also learned that truth originates from God only. He went to the pure source accordingly. Joseph in turn had a duty to teach truths as he was taught from God.
If the pure source of truth is God, then dishonesty cannot cohabit with him. The brother of Jared faithfully sought for the Lord’s help with a predicament. He was humble, and his faith strong enough that he knew the Lord would deliver in resolving his predicament. Part of his encounter went as follows:
“And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?
And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.” (Ether 3:11-12)
In scripture it is declared:
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Hebrews 13:8, KJV)
This truth that God stays the same is reiterated many times throughout Mormon scripture. In the Lectures on Faith, which was canonized as scripture as part of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (and later ironically given this topic- removed some time later) it teaches that God’s invariability is necessary in order for us to exercise faith in him:
“But it is equally as necessary that men should have the idea that he is a God who changes not, in order to have faith in him, as it is to have the idea that he is gracious and long suffering. For without the idea of unchangibleness in the character of the Deity, doubt would take the place of faith. But with the idea that he changes not, faith lays hold upon the excellencies in his character with unshaken confidence, believing he is the same yesterday, to-day and forever, and that his course is one eternal round.
And again, the idea that he is a God of truth and cannot lie, is equally as necessary to the exercise of faith in him, as the idea of his unchangeableness. For without the idea that he was a God of truth and could not lie, the confidence necessary to be placed in his word in order to the exercise of faith in him, could not exist. But having the idea that he is not man that he can lie, it gives power to the minds of men to exercise faith in him.” (Lecture 3:21-22)
If we consume the falsity that God does change, we partake of something that is damaging to our faith in him. Often times we are told that God has given revelation, and that is the means for a change in doctrine, policy or procedure within our church. If you’re being honest with yourself, you may certainly recall times in your life that there is a change in some doctrines that might have made you uncomfortable, or question your faith. Truth declares this is opposite of how God operates.
For centuries Christianity had one dominant organization that was the self declared arbiter of Christian truth. Priests were the only ones that had access to the scriptures, they weren’t for the common man to have access to. Man was their only access as far as the church was concerned. Over time apostate doctrines were adapted, and inspired men like Martin Luther rebelled against the church. He and other men helped spark what we know as the “Reformation”. But once you have peanut butter, can you turn it back into a peanut? Can you turn the flour in your Twinkies back into wheat? The best method perhaps is to move on, and start back with the pure source.
In Mormon history many see what Joseph did in his lifetime as a Restoration of truth, going back to the pure source, God, rather than to reform what already existed. He helped bring forth the Book of Mormon that centers on Jesus Christ as the truth. He taught ways to increase faith, to become closer to God. He was murdered at the young age of 38.
Because I was raised to trust our modern leaders, it was easy to take their word for the history – that changes in the church are just part of the “ongoing restoration” as they say. When change became more frequent – that the church I belonged to didn’t even resemble the church I grew up in, I sought something more solid and unchanging – truth. Years of research in primary historical documents from Joseph’s time show that the church wasn’t involved in an ongoing restoration, but went through its own complete reformation as Brigham Young took the reigns.
Polygamy, Adam-God Doctrine, Blood Atonement, withholding Black individuals from the Priesthood. Do any of these seem like uncomfortable doctrines to you? Did the church change their mind on them? Joseph never taught them. They originated with Brigham Young who attributed them to Joseph, and if the Church is God’s true church, that means, God changed his mind twice on each of these doctrines! First, when he introduced them to Brigham, and the second time, when the church disavowed or stopped the practice of these doctrines. If God commanded “Thou shalt not commit Adultery” why would he then subsequently command Adultery (polygamy) at another time, if he, as aforementioned is a God of truth that cannot change, lest we lose faith in him? A woman may have doubts in her faith, with the polygamy doctrine lingering in temple rituals that if she dies before her husband, and he remarries, she might have to share him with another woman in the next life. Other individuals may have to grapple with the knowledge that even though they are allowed priesthood and access to temple rituals now, they wouldn’t be considered good enough for them 48 years ago because of the color of their skin.
Many of these challenging, yet false doctrines are the pathogens contaminating true doctrines and are inserted or “processed” by uninspired individuals that are typically seeking wealth, allegiance, or power. These individuals don’t create doctrines ex nihilo. They insert scripture in an effort to prove their ethos. Think polygamy is a difficult doctrine? Well, God likes to make things difficult for you – After all, he asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. You can allow your husband to have a few extra wives, I mean, he let Abraham and Jacob do that. The concerning thing the president of the church said at conference? Stay quiet – Don’t forget the story of Uzzah steadying the Ark, he stepped out of his “stewardship” and God smote him dead (2nd Samuel 6).
Many religious leaders who preach manipulative doctrines, or rather the Philosophies of Men mingled with scripture use Old Testament stories to validate their doctrines. Such practices aren’t new. One faction that was a fierce opponent of Jesus was the Pharisees who valued the Law of Moses as a saving mechanism over all else. Moses, the man, was almost deity to them. Much of the Old Testament documents that include what we know as the books of Moses (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, etc.) were not written by Moses himself, but rather written in the post-King David era. They are oral traditions passed down for generations until they were finally written down. The Pharisees had control of these scriptures for generations, who knows what may have been changed to favor religious authority? If Genesis was transcribed in an era where David and Solomon ruled with many wives, why wouldn’t it add ethos to their practices if they made patriarchs like Abraham and Jacob polygamists in the scriptural narrative?
As a Christian, we can still fully believe that individuals such as Adam, Eve, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses existed. We should however use caution when using certain stories as a means to divert away from the true Doctrine of Christ as taught by Jesus. Many of these stories give meaningful lessons of the value of Obedience to God, not Man. If God commanded “Thou shalt not Kill“, then we know that Blood Atonement is not a doctrine of Christ, nor a means of salvation. If God said “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else“(Doctrine and Covenants 42:22, LDS Edition) , then you can know that polygamy is not a doctrine of Christ. If:
“He doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33)
You can be assured that it is false doctrine to bar someone from religious rights and rites based on the color of skin. The Scripture iterates that the Lord’s word is plain with his direction. The commandments and doctrines he gives are clear, there is no need for them to be excused by scripture stories, and emphasized in a legalistic way that there are certain loopholes allowing something that is considered sin at one time, allows for exaltation at another time. In the Book of Abraham, a record in Mormonism that we believe was written by the hand of Abraham himself makes no mention of extra wives, or being commanded by God to sacrifice his son. It does however mention that Abraham’s father attempted to sacrifice Abraham to false idols. Do you want to be the one on the altar offered as a sacrifice to the false gods that command Polygamy, Murder, and racism?
What does God ask us to sacrifice?
“And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost” (3 Nephi 9:20)
We are asked to sacrifice our pride, and have sincerity in our devotion to Jesus Christ. Any Sacrifice made to the Lord benefits the individual making the sacrifice. Even in ancient times under the Law of Moses, the individual offering the sacrifice was benefited temporally by their sacrifice:
“And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning” (Leviticus 7:15, KJV).
A worshiper brought an animal to the priest to sacrifice in a ritual. The priest would then cook the animal, and then both the priest and worshiper would share in the meal together. The sacrifice not only reminded them of the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but also serve as a reminder that the priest was serving God by preparing food and serving the worshiper, and that by sharing a meal together it put them on equal ground. This is reminiscent of the eventual Last Supper where Jesus provided a full meal for his disciples, contrary to what our modern day “priests” offer – a miniature cup of water, and a tiny morsel of bread. If however, you are not faithful to modern day priests and deemed a sinner by them, you are not allowed to partake in this snack provided from the “priests” – contrary to ancient times where when someone felt they have sinned, they brought the peace offering to the priest who prepared it for a meal, and they sat and shared a meal together in reconciliation. Something to wine about, but the doctrine has become watered down in modern days.
We take many precautions to prevent literal food-borne illness. We “purify” our food by cooking it. We wash our fruits and vegetables in water. Priests in ancient times washed their hands and feet (Exodus 30:17-21, KJV) and purified the sacrifice by cooking it. Shouldn’t our modern day priests be giving us pure doctrines rather than exposing it to harmful elements before presenting it as Christ’s doctrine to us?
When I was ill, I was seeking nourishment through tainted peanut butter and I couldn’t recover until I quit seeking nourishment from that source. Only when I consumed untainted sources was I able to regain my strength and be happy with my state of being again.
Many foods that we deem healthy for us – fruits, vegetables, and whole grains can at times be tainted and make us ill if the provider didn’t take care through the process. Other foods like meat we take care to put through a purification process such as cooking before we dare consume them lest we be smitten ill.
Like we seek to take care of our physical bodies we must also take care of spiritual bodies and feed them only that which makes it healthy and stronger. We must be careful of the individuals we seek our knowledge and beliefs from. Men often take a seemingly innocent small untruth, and mix it in with something truthful, wrap it up in nice packaging and put it on a store shelf. It’s been approved by a committee so you think it is safe. But at some point, you consume it and your spirit becomes ill.
Often we should approach the Lord, pray, and seek truth from its source. Perhaps there is a recall on your beliefs.
Plurality of Doctrines 