Independence Day

(The following blog entry is a repeat [with a few minor changes] of my posting on July 16, 2007. I felt it needed to be repeated.)

Tomorrow we celebrate the Fourth of July, known in the United States as Independence Day. History tells us that this is somewhat of a misnomer as independence did not actually come to the American colonies on July 4, 1776. That was merely the day that the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the colonies as their statement of the reasons they felt it necessary to sever their political ties with Great Britain. Independence did not actually come until after countless soldiers and civilians had died in a bloody, sometimes unpopular war. Despite the fact that we Americans celebrate July 4, 1776 as the birth date of our country, our beginning as a nation did not truly begin until after the ratification of the Constitution.

Still, this document, The Declaration of Independence, was the beginning of the process that created the United States. This document declared to the entire world that they who were seeking independence were not doing so without due consideration of all the ramifications of their actions. The writers and signers of the declaration fully realized the large-scale consequences of their actions, namely, war. They also understood, on a personal level, that as soon as they put pen to paper to sign their names, they would be forever branded as traitors to their mother country and subject to death by the crown. Still, they signed.

The Declaration of Independence is not a long document, but its significance as a political statement cannot be overestimated. This document set in motion the events that would lead to the founding of the greatest republic in the history of the world. Because of this document, a nation was created wherein the “…unalienable rights...” of mankind are not only recognized, but guaranteed and protected. This document led to the acceptance of the belief that all people should be free to speak as they please, believe as they please, as well as have all the other basic freedoms that would later be enumerated in the Constitution.

The importance of The Declaration of Independence to Latter-day Saints also cannot be overestimated. This document was necessary in order to develop a climate of religious freedom that would allow The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be established. Indeed, the signing of The Declaration of Independence could be called the first significant event in the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I have attached a copy of The Declaration of Independence at the end of this essay. I would hope that all who have read this far would take the few minutes necessary to read and ponder its message.

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

City Council, part 2

(Please refer to my blog entry of January 2, 2011 for background information relating to this entry.)

On Monday, June 13, 2011 my wife and I attended a session of the Mission, Texas City Council. The Council was scheduled to discuss and vote on an application by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a permit for a meeting house to be built on property that is located on the corner of Bryan Road and Two Mile Road. I am including, as part of this entry, a newspaper article from the McAllen Monitor regarding this meeting, after which I will add my own comments.

Mormons' 2nd try for a church in North Mission fails
June 15, 2011 7:57 AM
Gail Burkhardt
The Monitor

MISSION — A wide range of emotions marked two long congregations’ second failed attempt to build a church in a residential area here.

Several representatives for the two congregations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church, spoke at a packed public hearing Monday night, asking for the city to allow them to build a church at the corner of Bryan and Mile 2 roads.

Area neighbors who oppose building the church also spoke, saying they would like to keep the area residential.

The proposed site — zoned as agricultural land — is owned by Martin Garza Jr., assistant chief of Mission police. He did not attend Monday’s hearing. Nine of the 12 property owners within 200 feet the proposed site signed a petition against the church building on the property. That meant council approval for the zoning required “yay” votes from four of the five members — instead of the normal three-fifths majority.

The result was the same as when the church requested the zoning permit in December. Both times, the Planning and Zoning commission, which is a council-appointed board, approved the building and then when it went in front of City Council, Councilwomen Norie Gonzalez Garza and Maria Elena Ramirez voted against it.

Something did change from the last public hearing in December, however. The Latter-day Saint members hired a lawyer. Representatives for the congregation sent a letter to the city citing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other constitutional rights they believe are being violated by not allowing the church to build on that site, said Sharon Amaguer, the local attorney for the congregation.

When asked if the church would sue the city, Amaguer said she had no comment.

The church should not have been up to reapply for the zoning permit until June 20, but after receiving the letter the Planning and Zoning board waived the typical six-month waiting period, said Sergio Zavala, the city’s planning director.

George Powell, an attorney who has land near the proposed site, said that because the church has other options to build in Mission, the city is not violating the congregations’ right to worship just by denying them from building on a specific location.

Brice Chandler, who is the stake president for the eight Mormon congregations in the area, said during the hearing that the location was the only one that met the criteria, which included being in a noncommercial area, having 5 or more acres of land, accessibility to members, the right price and a spiritual component.

“It may be difficult for someone not of our faith to understand that we affirm that we in fact do receive divine direction on important matters such as the location in our house of worship,” he said.

Along with Chandler and Powell, many other proponents of both sides put in their 2 cents before the council deliberated.

Members spoke about how the two Mission congregations along with two other congregations share one building in McAllen. The building is overcrowded and too far away, members said.

One member who works with the youth ministry, Maria Susana Reyna, choked up when speaking about the difficulty of scheduling youth programming in an overcrowded building.

“On an ordinary school day, our youth have early morning Bible study at 6 a.m.,” she said. “Currently they have to drive to McAllen before 6 a.m., then at 7 a.m., they have to drive back to Mission for school, and when they have evening activities, they have to drive back to McAllen.”

Neighbors talked about how they did not want any type of building much larger than their houses in the area. They said they want to keep the area residential and others have been interested in purchasing the property to do just that. One resident spoke about how she has invested into her house for her retirement and she cannot afford to lose that property value, which she believes would happen if the church came in.

Ivan Melendez expressed his frustration that the church had reapplied for the zoning permit and the city’s Planning and Zoning commission voted for it, when it was clear that the neighbors did not want it.

Why would the church “have specific and special privileges to go to a community where they’re not welcome?” he said, explaining that the church has other options for locations in Mission.

Councilwoman Ramirez said she voted against the permit again because she felt the neighbors needed to be protected.

After the meeting, Chandler said he was surprised the permit was denied a second time given that Mission is a faith-based community. He said he did not know what the church’s next move would be, but they are considering “all options,” including legal action. (End of Article)

My first comment is that I understand the residents’ desire to have the Church’s application denied. I have to agree that a large church building on the corner of the intersection will effect a major change in the neighborhood. Traffic will be greatly increased on Sundays and Wednesdays every week for meetings held on those days as well as at other times when the Church holds other activites.

Sergio Solis, a member of the Mission 2 Ward and a life long Mission resident stated during the meeting that Mission is a growing city and that residents of the neighborhood should not expect to be able to keep progress from changing the area.

I understand the residents’ fear that property values may be lowered because of the meetinghouse, even though these fears may be unfounded. Property values go up and down for a number of reasons, even in areas where no church buildings are located. I would suggest to the woman that purchased her property in the hope of using its subsequent sale as a nestegg for her retirement that, in contrast to times past, real estate is a very risky investment nowadays.

Attorney George Powell stated that “…the city is not violating the congregations’ right to worship just by denying them from building on a specific location.” Ivan Melendez argued “…that the church has other options for locations in Mission.” But is that really the case?

“Brice Chandler, who is the stake president for the eight Mormon congregations in the area, said during the hearing that the location was the only one that met the criteria, which included being in a noncommercial area, having 5 or more acres of land, accessibility to members, the right price and a spiritual component.”

If the property at Bryan and Mile 2 Roads is the only one that meets the criteria, then the Church really does not have any other options for locations in Mission, and, therefore, the Church’s rights are, in fact, being violated.

At the time of this writing, I don’t know whether or not the Church will continue to attempt to have this property re-zoned. I know that the Lord knew beforehand the results of this most recent hearing. I do believe that President Chandler was instructed by the Lord to reapply for re-zoning despite the fact that the Lord knew the attempt would fail. I don’t know the mind of the Lord in this matter, but I do know that when the Lord is ready for us to erect a meetinghouse in Mission, Texas, He will either clear the way for it to be erected on this property or He will make another lot available to be used.

Three Parables

A few weeks ago in our Sunday School class we discussed chapter 15 in the book of Luke. In this chapter, the Savior told the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son. In our discussion we talked about the idea that the lost sheep Jesus was referring to are those members of the Church that seem to just wander away. Often times, they are enticed away from the flock in their pursuit of financial success, excitement, or (what they believe to be) self-fulfillment.

The lost coin appears to be a reference to those members that become lost through the neglect of those that have responsibility for them. Sometimes they are right there among us, but we simply do not notice them. You will note that the coin had never left the woman’s house. It was there all the time, but the woman had evidently set it aside where it was not in constant view.

The prodigal son is a reference to those members that willingly and willfully go their own ways, doing what they want to do, with no concern about the consequences. In the case of this particular son, he had wasted his inheritance on riotous living and harlots. In all three parables, the Savior talks about the joy that is felt when that which was lost is found.

In the first two parables, that which was lost is found by one that went searching for it. The shepherd left the ninety and nine in order to save the one. Although the woman originally had ten silver coins, she, nevertheless, swept her entire house until she found the one that was missing. In each case, there was great rejoicing over finding that which had been lost. Both the shepherd and the woman felt the need to share their joy with their neighbors:

“What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost. Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” (Luke 15:4-10)

The third parable has some very important differences from the first two:

“And he said, A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.

And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” (Luke 15:11-32)

As I mentioned above, in this story the son willfully left home and wasted what had been given to him. In this story, the son was not found by someone that went looking for him. He realized he had made a mistake, and he repented and returned to his father to ask forgiveness. As in the other parables, there is great rejoicing for the return of that which was lost. But this parable makes a point that the other two do not make and that many people do not see.

Although the father rejoices at the return of the son and receives him back into the household, he does not replace the inheritance that the son had wasted. In fact, the father tells the older son, “…all that I have is thine.”

Over the years I have known a number of people that, for one reason or another, became less active in the Church, and then, years later, returned. Even though there has been great rejoicing at their return, the years that they lost can never be returned. All of the opportunities and experiences they could have had are lost. In several cases, young children stopped coming to Church when the parents became inactive, but when the parents returned, the children did not.

These parables teach us that no matter what we do, Heavenly Father will forgive us if we repent sufficiently. He will remember our sins no more. He will always rejoice at our return and receive us back into His household. But there are some things that even the Father cannot replace. We have a very limited amount of time. We only have one lifetime to live. Once our time is spent, it is gone forever.

I Can't--I'm Mormon

I have a picture on my computer that I downloaded from the Internet several years ago. It is a picture of a pretty blonde girl (probably 18-20 years old), wearing a blue tee-shirt with the message, “I can’t…I’m Mormon.” The meaning, of course, is that, “I can’t smoke. I can’t drink alcohol, tea, or coffee. I can’t have sex unless I’m married. Etc.”

I downloaded the photo because I thought it was funny; but over the years I have thought that it is not really accurate. We know, for instance, that Mormons can do all of those things. In fact, a great many more Mormons than we like to admit do those things. A more accurate message would have been, “I DON’T…I’m Mormon.” Mormons are not unable to do those things; we make a conscious choice not to do them.

Heavenly Father has given us some very strict commandments. He has commanded us to live the Word of Wisdom. He has commanded us to live the Law of Chastity. He has commanded us to live the Law of Tithing, to Keep the Sabbath Day Holy, and numerous other laws and rules. He has given us these commandments so that we may remain unspotted from the sins of the world, so that we can be pure to return to His presence and have Eternal Life, so that we can have a fullness of joy in the next life. But just as important: He wants us to be happy, to have joy in this life.

Heavenly Father has never given any commandments, which, if obeyed, would not bring us joy and happiness in this life. This is not to say that we will enjoy every moment we spend obeying Heavenly Father’s commandments. I am sure that the pioneers did not enjoy pulling their handcarts hundreds of miles to get to the Salt Lake Valley. But I would venture to say that the great majority of them had joy in knowing they were doing what the Lord wanted them to do.

Some people would say that the commandments that we obey are old-fashioned, even antiquated, and they would be right. The commandments that we obey are not new. Even some of the commandments that seem new—avoid pornography, don’t use drugs, etc.—are just variations of commandments that were given in the past. The commandments that we are expected to obey are eternal; they have always been in effect, and always will be in effect. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe that Heavenly Father once lived on a world similar to ours, and that by living righteously, He was exalted to the position He now holds. I believe I can safely say that the commandments He has given to us were in effect on the world where He lived during His period of mortality. These are the same commandments our spirit children will be subject to when we create worlds without end. Eternal principles never change.

Sacrament Meeting Talk--12 February 2011

The following is a Sacrament meeting talk presented on February 12, 2011 in the Mission 2 Ward of the Texas West McAllen Stake:

Good morning Brothers and Sisters. I’m a little nervous about speaking to you this morning. I was baptized into the Church on November 24, 1972; so I have been a member of the Church for nearly forty years. In that time I have had the opportunity to speak in Sacrament Meetings on a number of occasions. But this is my first time to speak in this Ward; so it’s a new experience.

New experiences tend to make most of us a little uneasy, a little uncomfortable. And yet, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are often asked to do things that make us uncomfortable. It takes faith to do something when we are not certain how it will turn out. I’m a bit uncomfortable up here. I have about fifteen minutes to speak this morning. I don’t know if I can be interesting for that long.

I want to speak for a few minutes this morning about some people who had the faith to do something uncomfortable. Several years ago my wife and I watched with great interest the television documentary, “The Mormons,” on PBS. The program appeared to me to be about as fair as one could expect. I’m sure that many members of the Church would have liked for the program to have shown the Church in a bit more positive light; however, it was not designed to be an advertisement.

The program told about the persecution in the early days of the Church, about the Saints’ relocations from New York to Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and the long trek west to Utah. The program spoke of the faith necessary for these people to put up with the great hardships they faced. Many of them spent long periods of their lives in uncomfortable situations. For many of these early saints “I’ll go where you want me to go, Dear Lord, I’ll be what you want me to be” was a life or death decision. But they had faith that it was a decision that was necessary for their salvation and exaltation as well as for the carrying out of the Lord’s plan for the children of men.

These people had faith—faith that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ had actually spoken to the boy, Joseph Smith. They had faith that a Prophet of the Lord told them to pack up and leave; so they packed up and left. It appeared from this documentary that many non-Mormon Christians have a very difficult time accepting one of the core beliefs of the Latter-day Saint Church, namely, the Joseph Smith story. Most people are simply unable to accept the belief that a young man of fourteen-years-of-age actually spoke with God and Jesus Christ, was visited by an angel, and was given golden plates, which he translated, the translation later published as The Book of Mormon.

This story, the Joseph Smith story, is fantastic, to say the least. Indeed, the rational mind does not accept such a fantastic idea. That being said, it begs the question: When looking at Christianity as a whole, is the Joseph Smith story really so fantastic?

Truly, the rational mind does not accept the belief that a man could heal others by a touch or a word, that a man could alter the chemical composition of water to change it to wine, that a man could bring the dead back to life, that a man could walk on water, or that a man could die and return to life. The rational mind is unable to accept these ideas. And yet, the Christian world, in general, accepts these ideas without question. These beliefs, although completely irrational, are central to Christianity. Belief in Christianity requires the believer to suspend reason and accept that which is unreasonable.

Critics of Mormonism typically ask for proof where no proof is available. Joseph was alone when he claims to have been visited by the Father and the Son. The plates of gold were returned to the angel, Moroni, when the translation was completed. There is no archeological proof that the events described in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ ever took place. The truthfulness of the Joseph Smith story hinges on his testimony and the testimony of a small number of men who claimed to have actually seen the golden plates. Being a true Latter-day Saint requires faith.

On the other hand, where is the proof of Christianity? What proof do we have of a virgin birth? What proof do we have of the healings? What proof do we have of the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand? What proof do we have of the resurrection? The truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ hinges on the testimonies of a small number of men who claim to have associated with Him over a period of approximately three years. True Christianity requires faith.

How do we get that faith? We get faith by doing. If we want to have faith in the law of tithing, we must live and practice that law. If we want to have faith in the Word of Wisdom, we must live and practice that law. Sometimes in the Church we are asked to serve in a calling for which do not feel we have the skills. Sometimes we are called to positions for which we feel we are not spiritually ready. Sometimes we are asked to speak in Sacrament Meeting and we are reluctant because we don’t speak perfect English or have a great voice.

When we are asked to do these things, do we truly believe we have been called by revelation? Do we truly believe that the Bishopric was inspired by God to ask us to speak? I am sure there are a number of us here this morning that have accepted callings asking, “Why am I being asked to do this?” and then a year or two later have said, “I understand why I was called.”

When I write something, I can sit down at my computer with my Spell Check and my Grammar Check, and I can read it and re-read it so that when I’m finished, what I have written is perfect. But I don’t talk that way. I don’t always use perfect English. I’ve heard my voice on a tape recording, so I know what I sound like. As a public speaker, I’m much more of a George W. Bush than a Barack Obama. But you know what? It doesn’t matter. Because if I speak with the Spirit, and you listen with the Spirit, you’ll get my message. And if I don’t speak with the spirit, or you don’t listen with the Spirit, it doesn’t matter if I use perfect English and have the voice of a radio announcer; you won’t get my message.

Over the years I have heard a number of members claim that if the President of the Church told the members to pack up and go to the Promised Land, they would do it. I have no doubt that most of them that said that would be true to their word. Most of us believe the Prophet is inspired. Do we also believe our local leaders are inspired? We stand up on Fast Sunday and bear our testimonies that we know the Church is true. We say that we are willing to do whatever the Prophet asks us to do. But if we say, “Maybe I’ll do what my Bishop asks me to do, or maybe I won’t,” then we really don’t have a testimony that the Church is true.

I don’t know if the Prophet is ever going to ask us to leave our homes and gather in Utah, or Missouri, or some other place. I do know that we have priesthood leaders in this ward that are asking the brethren to do their home teaching. We have Relief Society leaders that are asking the sisters to do their visiting teaching. We have a Ward Mission Leader that is asking all of us to share the Gospel with our neighbors. We have a Bishopric and a Stake Presidency that are asking us to serve in callings. Do we have faith that these leaders are inspired?

“I’ll go where you want me to go, Dear Lord, I’ll be what you want me to be” is not a life or death decision for most of us today. But I testify to you that it is a decision that is necessary for our salvation and exaltation as well as for the carrying out of the Lord’s plan for the children of men. I pray that we will have the faith to be true Christians and true Latter-day Saints. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

City Council

Today in our High Priests’ Group meeting we talked about something that happened here in South Texas recently. For the past several months the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been trying to purchase property in Mission to build a new meeting house for Mission 2 and Mission 3 Wards. They found a five acre lot that was suitable for our needs and had decided to buy it if it could be re-zoned by the city zoning commission for use as a business (evidently the commission considers a church a business).

This normally would not have been difficult, but the land was on the corner of an intersection, and the families that lived on the other three corners objected to having a church built there. They said their objections were not because it was a Mormon Church; they simply preferred that no type of business or church was erected there.

The Stake Presidency requested that as many members as possible attend the meeting of the City Council at which a decision would be made concerning the re-zoning of the property. I had to work during the time the meeting was held, so my wife and I did not attend; however, about seventy members of the Church did attend. A number of people spoke to voice their objections to the re-zoning. Three people spoke in favor of the re-zoning. Brother Brunson, a member of our Ward, was one of the speakers. During his presentation he spoke about the fact that Mormons are a Christian people and that we try to live according to our beliefs. He told those that were there that we do not smoke or drink and that we are an honest people.

Now, you are probably thinking that after all that, and with the Lord on our side, the Council voted unanimously to approve the re-zoning. Well, they did not. The vote was 3-2 in our favor, but because there was so much opposition, it had been decided beforehand that it would take a 4-1 vote to pass. We lost by one vote.

So does that mean that we wasted our time? Does that mean that the person that made the decision to purchase the property was not inspired? Did the Holy Ghost make a mistake in selecting that property? I don’t think so.

I don’t have all the answers, but I know that if there had been no opposition, and the City Council would have simply approved the re-zoning, a large number of Church members in Mission, Texas might not have taken the time and made the effort to attend a City Council meeting. Brother Brunson would not have had the opportunity to stand before the community and tell people who we (the Mormons) are. I was told that even though the re-zoning was not approved, many non-members that attended the meeting were very impressed by the way we presented our case and by the way our people conducted themselves.

I am sure that all of this has had a positive effect on those that attended, both members and non-members. I believe it is possible that the results were much more positive than negative. We lost a place to build a meeting house; we will find another place. Most of the people that attended that meeting now have a better understanding of who we are and what we believe. That is certainly more important than a piece of property.

The Holy Ghost does not make mistakes. As a member of the Godhead, He works under the direction of Heavenly Father, and Heavenly Father knows everything that is going to happen before it happens. Heavenly Father knew how this experience would turn out, but He also knew it would be for the best.

Heavenly Father knows everything about each of His children (see 2 Nephi 2:24). From the time we were conceived as His spirit children, He has known every single thing that we would do and every single thing that would happen to us, in the Spirit World and in mortality. Before any of us are born into mortality, He knows whether or not we will return to His presence in the Celestial Kingdom or end up in the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom.

So, a fair question to ask is: If He already knows what is going to happen to us, why make us go through this mortal existence? And, of course, the answer is: Because we don’t know. If Heavenly Father, in His infinite wisdom, simply decided where each of us is to spend eternity, without having the opportunity to prove ourselves in this life, all those that are sent to the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdoms would have a valid complaint: “I didn’t get my chance.”

But since we do have to go through this mortal existence, each of has the opportunity to use our agency. Some will make wise decisions that will lead to Eternal Life. Others will make unwise decisions that will lead to something other than Eternal Life (see 2 Nephi 2:25-29). But when each of us goes before the bar of justice, we will come away knowing that our judgment, whatever the result, is just. We will know that we have decided our own eternal status. This is in accordance with Heavenly Father’s plan for our happiness.

“They called me a pig.”

I don’t know why, but this past week I have been thinking about a telephone conversation I had with my brother, Dick, a few months ago. During our talk he told me that two of our (Mormon) missionaries came to his door. I asked how that went, and he said, “They called me a pig.”

Of course, that kind of surprised me, so I asked, “How did that happen?”

He said, “I asked these guys why I couldn’t go into one of your temples, and one of them said, ‘You’re not worthy.' I said, ‘How do you know I’m not worthy? You don’t know anything about me.’ He said a few other things about needing to be a member of your church, and I said I didn’t think that was a good answer, and then one of them said, “We don’t cast our pearls before swine.”

It seems kind of strange that a missionary would say that to someone, but now that I think about it, I can understand how it happened. Sometimes we forget that most of our missionaries are young men--19 to 25 years old, sometimes away from home for the first time in their lives. They do go through a training period at the Missionary Training Center, but they often do not have the experience to answer every question.

So I am suggesting that the Elder could have given my brother a better answer. A better answer would have been to say, “You can go into the temple. In fact, we want you and everybody else in the world to go into the temple. That is one of the reasons why 50,000 members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are serving full-time missions—to prepare people to enter the House of the Lord.” It is also important to tell people that what goes on in the temple is not secret, but it is sacred, so, in order to enter the temple, one must be a member of the Church, and one must have a recommend that certifies that he or she is living in accordance with the laws that the Lord has revealed are necessary to live by in order to be worthy to receive and perform the ordinances that are available there.

I think it would be helpful to tell an interested non-member (or uniformed member) that three different ordinances are performed in the temple. The first is baptism for the dead. There are several passages in the New Testament that refer to this ordinance; the most oft-quoted is 1 Cor. 15:29. Another is 1 Peter 4:6. We believe baptism is essential to salvation and that in order to return to the presence of our Father in Heaven, one must be baptized. We know that there are many people that lived and died without ever having the opportunity to receive this ordinance; therefore, we go to the temple to serve as proxies so that we can be baptized in their behalf.

The second ordinance in the temple is called the Endowment. During this ordinance, we view a video presentation that tells us of the creation of the Earth and of the fall of Adam. As part of this ordinance, we make covenants with the Lord in which we promise to live our lives in accordance with His laws. He, in turn, promises that if we will keep our covenant, He will bless (or Endow) us with eternal life.

The third ordinance is the Sealing ordinance. In this ordinance, husbands and wives our sealed together and children are sealed to parents for time and eternity so that the family unit can continue, not only for this life, but for the next life also. As with baptism for the dead, once we have received the endowment and sealing ordinances for ourselves, we go to the temple to serve as proxies for others who died without having the opportunity to receive them for themselves.

For those who believe that serving as proxies for others is a strange idea, consider this: The Savior, even Jesus Christ, served as a proxy for all of us when He atoned for the sins of the world. Because we were unable to atone for our own sins, He took our place and suffered the pain and agony so that we could repent and be forgiven. And as He performed that task that we were unable to perform for ourselves, we, in turn, perform the work for those who have died without having the opportunity to perform the work for themselves.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spends millions of dollars building temples all over the world. We (the members) truly believe that each temple is a "House of the Lord." It has never been the intention of the Church to deny anyone the blessings that come from temple worship. To the contrary, we invite all who will listen to our message to take the steps necessary to join us in one of those holy buildings.