I feel the need to rescind much of what I said in my last posting. As I've been pondering it, I've come to realize that I was unnecessarily harsh on the Catholic church and the Pope in particular. I had no more right to assign ulterior motives to him for cutting off church access to Catholic records than anybody else would have of claiming that I had ulterior motives for being a missionary. I was a victim of the same sort of pride that I so easily saw in others. I have sacrificed a great deal of time, money and effort to help strengthen the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because I really believe that it teaches the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. When the Catholic church announced that they were restricting record access in order to "ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted," I naturally felt that someone had attacked something very dear to me, something close to my heart, and something so unquestionably pure and good that they could not possibly have any righteous motive for doing so.
While I believe that many people in the world have used supposed religious beliefs as an excuse to commit the evil in their hearts, I also recognize that many truly altruistic people are simply at odds regarding what things are helpful and what things are hurtful in this world. And while from a purely secular viewpoint it seems inconceivable that performing ordinances by proxy could be detrimental, it is very reasonable for somebody to call it that if they believe it to be against God's will. Anything out of line with God's will is, by nature, detrimental, and a secular perspective cannot hope to see things as clearly as God does.
As for the obstacle that this decision serves for those doing genealogical research, one can hardly expect the Pope to attach any importance to what genealogists think of him or his policies, or the effect his decisions may have on a field that probably seems from his point of view to have absolutely no merit. As far as he sees it, they could burn all the records and there wouldn't be one soul more or fewer that would make it into heaven. In fact, doctrinally speaking, I believe the same thing, but in a different way. Just as Pharoah's might was useless to stop the Israelite exodus, all the powers of this earth won't prevent the Lord from bringing eternal life to even one person who would go there. That doesn't mean it was right for the Pharoah to send his armies, but knowing that he had it was more important for Israel to have faith in God's power than to worry about the armies that had been sent against them.
So anyway, I still feel that the Pope and his church are incorrect doctrinally, as they think I am wrong doctrinally. But I need to apologize for having been so prideful as to think that I could know the intentions of their hearts. I'm sorry.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Motives
I learned today that the Catholic Church has ordered their parish registers closed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of course, I am not so naive as to expect members of all faiths to agree with the LDS viewpoint on baptisms by proxy. The Bible only makes one mention of the practice, and it's brief enough to make people extremely unclear on its true meaning. Many explanations have been offered, mostly in an attempt to disprove the LDS viewpoint, and none of them are very convincing to me. A quick search makes it evident that most commentary that has evolved around this scripture exists solely to prove that the Mormon standpoint is incorrect. They don't have to agree about what it means; they just have to agree that it doesn't mean what Mormons think it means. As one such website points out:
When a person joins the LDS church, a person must be baptized, whether or not they were baptized into some other church before, because in a sense, the basis of the LDS church is that the world suffered a great enough loss of gospel knowledge and authority through the absence of prophets and apostles during the past two millennia that God saw fit to call a prophet and restore it all. To become a member of the LDSLDS doctrine holds that God will only uphold baptisms performed under His authority (i.e. through the LDS church). If you assume that God really did call Joseph Smith as a prophet, this point of view actually makes sense. But if you begin with the assumption that God can't or won't call prophets anymore (a theory for which I have yet to find any solid basis, but one which nevertheless has been a basic tenet of most Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sects for well over a thousand years), then it's really easy to see this as an affront. It basically says to the Christian world, "You're wrong." Or at least, "You're wrong about some of these things." And while the Christian world can't seem to agree on any single set of doctrines, most individual Christians believe that such differences of opinion are acceptable in order to maintain unity in what they see as "The Church," or the collective body of all people who believe in Christ, regardless of differences in doctrine and opinion. But to have one church arise, claiming not to have branched off from any of the other churches, but to have been founded by Jesus Christ himself, and saying that no baptism performed outside its purview will be recognized by God at the last day.... well, it's not easy to take that sort of thing lightly. I mean, when you've accepted Jesus into your life and seen the great change that the Holy Spirit has wrought upon you, and then somebody says there's more to it than that, it's easy to perceive it as an attack on some very important parts of your life--an attack on your faith itself. And for leaders of those churches, who have consecrated so much of their time, faith, and energy--to say that their church is somehow lesser than some other church is a hard thing indeed. It is only natural for them, quid-pro-quo, to refuse to recognize LDS baptisms, as the LDS church does not recognize theirs.
And so it it not surprising to me when leaders of other churches don't wish to cooperate with the LDS church. It is a hard thing to overcome the perceived slap-in-the-face and seek to do what is beneficial to everyone. Certainly, members of the LDS church have often had difficulty turning the other cheek in all circumstances. Many of the early members fought back against the mobs that sought to turn them out of their homes, against the direction of the church's leaders. But that's not what Christianity is about, is it? Christianity is about putting every ounce of pride, envy, hate, and malice that we have "upon the altar," and allowing it to be consumed. I do not claim to be perfect in this sense; only one man ever was. But it's the thing we strive for. In becoming Christian, we say to God, "I will seek above all else to follow the example and commandments given by Him whose name I bear." And so it pains me to see Christians, and especially leaders of Christian churches, acting out of any less-than-righteous motives. And that, unfortunately, is what I see in this decision on the part of the Catholic Church.
If the Pope felt that it harmed the souls of those for whom baptisms were performed, then I would not feel this way. In that case, he would be acting to serve the best interests of those peoples' souls, most of whom undoubtedly lived good lives according to the Christian principles taught by the Catholic church in their day. If there were any chance that this were the reason for his decision, I would assume that he was acting out of pure altruism. I tend to assume that people are acting out of the best intentions that I can possibly imagine them having. And I know, ultimately, it is not my place to judge the man. This isn't between him and me--it's between him and God. Nevertheless, I am taking advantage of the right I have to voice my opinion. And my opinion is that this new policy of the Catholic church is motivated by pride, and is enacted without due regard to the good of everyone involved. "Mormons" seek to perform genealogical research out of a sincere desire to bless those who do not have the power to help themselves. The Pope can believe that they're wasting their time. But there is no grounds for him to believe that it could in any way harm the people for whom the ordinance is being performed. Either you believe that the LDS Church has authority from God or you don't. If you don't recognize baptisms performed by the LDS Church, then you don't believe that they have any effect, right? So in what way does it harm anybody when they perform them?
I know I've met Catholics who thought that by performing baptisms for the dead, we were somehow forcing them into church membership without their say-so. Those who felt this way were never willing to take the time to understand any differently. Had they been willing, I would have explained that by our own doctrine, we are simply giving these people the opportunity to accept a baptism which was performed on their part. Did the Savior die only for those who wanted to be Christian? No. He gave himself as a sacrifice for all mankind. But will all mankind have a heavenly existence forced upon them? No. Clearly those who reject holiness and choose a life of sin will not have their place in the Kingdom of Heaven. If you believe that Christ's atonement was necessary for our salvation, then you believe that He opened the door to those who would be saved. Jesus taught that baptism is a requirement for entry into His Father's Kingdom, but does anybody believe that if a person is baptized against their will, they will somehow be forced into heaven against their will? A baptism-for-the-dead, even if you believe in such things, can only have force if the baptised recognize it. If you don't believe in such things, then it surely can do no harm. So why are people so opposed to it?
But perhaps I'm being too hard on them. Perhaps they see themselves as taking the opportunity to prevent us from damning our own souls. Would a good Christian farmer sell his pagan neighbor a chicken, if he knew it could very well be used in some kind of forbidden ritual? Would a patriotic American ever sell a flag to someone who might be planning to burn it? As any decent person would refuse to allow a suicidal friend to borrow a weapon, perhaps the Pope sees it as his moral duty to prevent his church from permitting this wicked practice, as long as they have any way to prevent it. Maybe he believes that, by removing our capacity to sin, he is somehow bettering our eternal situation. Such a belief could easily become the subject of an enormous theological debate: if you deny someone the agency to choose what they believe to be right, but which is actually wrong in the eyes of God, and the decision has no bearing or effect on anybody else, living or dead, will God be more tolerant, in the end, of their desire to have done it? Maybe that's his reasoning.
I doubt it though. I'm pretty sure it was intended (and will be interpreted) to be a measure taken by the Catholic church to place a stumbling block in the way of Latter-day Saints. The two churches have shown remarkable cooperation in recent humanitarian aid efforts, and here we have the Pope saying, "It's fine for us to cooperate when we're being charitable towards others, but I won't allow my church to share information with you that will help in your genealogical efforts." Nevermind that the information that the Church gleans from such efforts is made available to members of all faiths, including the Catholic who wrote the first article I linked to in this posting. Mormons are not the only ones who have had their hearts turned to their fathers, and I think the consequences of this policy may be much more far-reaching than the Pope thought or intended.
That said, it is his decision to make. I recognize his authority to withhold such information, regardless of whether I like it. And may God always grant him the inspiration he needs as a man charged with the spiritual leadership of so many people around the world.
Note that, in order to disprove Mormonism, we need not know for certain which view of the passage is correct, so long as we know a possibility that fits the passage and other passages.Thus, it is less important to actually understand the meaning of the passage than it is to prove that there might be some other explanations. I understand the desire to see things this way.
When a person joins the LDS church, a person must be baptized, whether or not they were baptized into some other church before, because in a sense, the basis of the LDS church is that the world suffered a great enough loss of gospel knowledge and authority through the absence of prophets and apostles during the past two millennia that God saw fit to call a prophet and restore it all. To become a member of the LDSLDS doctrine holds that God will only uphold baptisms performed under His authority (i.e. through the LDS church). If you assume that God really did call Joseph Smith as a prophet, this point of view actually makes sense. But if you begin with the assumption that God can't or won't call prophets anymore (a theory for which I have yet to find any solid basis, but one which nevertheless has been a basic tenet of most Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sects for well over a thousand years), then it's really easy to see this as an affront. It basically says to the Christian world, "You're wrong." Or at least, "You're wrong about some of these things." And while the Christian world can't seem to agree on any single set of doctrines, most individual Christians believe that such differences of opinion are acceptable in order to maintain unity in what they see as "The Church," or the collective body of all people who believe in Christ, regardless of differences in doctrine and opinion. But to have one church arise, claiming not to have branched off from any of the other churches, but to have been founded by Jesus Christ himself, and saying that no baptism performed outside its purview will be recognized by God at the last day.... well, it's not easy to take that sort of thing lightly. I mean, when you've accepted Jesus into your life and seen the great change that the Holy Spirit has wrought upon you, and then somebody says there's more to it than that, it's easy to perceive it as an attack on some very important parts of your life--an attack on your faith itself. And for leaders of those churches, who have consecrated so much of their time, faith, and energy--to say that their church is somehow lesser than some other church is a hard thing indeed. It is only natural for them, quid-pro-quo, to refuse to recognize LDS baptisms, as the LDS church does not recognize theirs.
And so it it not surprising to me when leaders of other churches don't wish to cooperate with the LDS church. It is a hard thing to overcome the perceived slap-in-the-face and seek to do what is beneficial to everyone. Certainly, members of the LDS church have often had difficulty turning the other cheek in all circumstances. Many of the early members fought back against the mobs that sought to turn them out of their homes, against the direction of the church's leaders. But that's not what Christianity is about, is it? Christianity is about putting every ounce of pride, envy, hate, and malice that we have "upon the altar," and allowing it to be consumed. I do not claim to be perfect in this sense; only one man ever was. But it's the thing we strive for. In becoming Christian, we say to God, "I will seek above all else to follow the example and commandments given by Him whose name I bear." And so it pains me to see Christians, and especially leaders of Christian churches, acting out of any less-than-righteous motives. And that, unfortunately, is what I see in this decision on the part of the Catholic Church.
If the Pope felt that it harmed the souls of those for whom baptisms were performed, then I would not feel this way. In that case, he would be acting to serve the best interests of those peoples' souls, most of whom undoubtedly lived good lives according to the Christian principles taught by the Catholic church in their day. If there were any chance that this were the reason for his decision, I would assume that he was acting out of pure altruism. I tend to assume that people are acting out of the best intentions that I can possibly imagine them having. And I know, ultimately, it is not my place to judge the man. This isn't between him and me--it's between him and God. Nevertheless, I am taking advantage of the right I have to voice my opinion. And my opinion is that this new policy of the Catholic church is motivated by pride, and is enacted without due regard to the good of everyone involved. "Mormons" seek to perform genealogical research out of a sincere desire to bless those who do not have the power to help themselves. The Pope can believe that they're wasting their time. But there is no grounds for him to believe that it could in any way harm the people for whom the ordinance is being performed. Either you believe that the LDS Church has authority from God or you don't. If you don't recognize baptisms performed by the LDS Church, then you don't believe that they have any effect, right? So in what way does it harm anybody when they perform them?
I know I've met Catholics who thought that by performing baptisms for the dead, we were somehow forcing them into church membership without their say-so. Those who felt this way were never willing to take the time to understand any differently. Had they been willing, I would have explained that by our own doctrine, we are simply giving these people the opportunity to accept a baptism which was performed on their part. Did the Savior die only for those who wanted to be Christian? No. He gave himself as a sacrifice for all mankind. But will all mankind have a heavenly existence forced upon them? No. Clearly those who reject holiness and choose a life of sin will not have their place in the Kingdom of Heaven. If you believe that Christ's atonement was necessary for our salvation, then you believe that He opened the door to those who would be saved. Jesus taught that baptism is a requirement for entry into His Father's Kingdom, but does anybody believe that if a person is baptized against their will, they will somehow be forced into heaven against their will? A baptism-for-the-dead, even if you believe in such things, can only have force if the baptised recognize it. If you don't believe in such things, then it surely can do no harm. So why are people so opposed to it?
But perhaps I'm being too hard on them. Perhaps they see themselves as taking the opportunity to prevent us from damning our own souls. Would a good Christian farmer sell his pagan neighbor a chicken, if he knew it could very well be used in some kind of forbidden ritual? Would a patriotic American ever sell a flag to someone who might be planning to burn it? As any decent person would refuse to allow a suicidal friend to borrow a weapon, perhaps the Pope sees it as his moral duty to prevent his church from permitting this wicked practice, as long as they have any way to prevent it. Maybe he believes that, by removing our capacity to sin, he is somehow bettering our eternal situation. Such a belief could easily become the subject of an enormous theological debate: if you deny someone the agency to choose what they believe to be right, but which is actually wrong in the eyes of God, and the decision has no bearing or effect on anybody else, living or dead, will God be more tolerant, in the end, of their desire to have done it? Maybe that's his reasoning.
I doubt it though. I'm pretty sure it was intended (and will be interpreted) to be a measure taken by the Catholic church to place a stumbling block in the way of Latter-day Saints. The two churches have shown remarkable cooperation in recent humanitarian aid efforts, and here we have the Pope saying, "It's fine for us to cooperate when we're being charitable towards others, but I won't allow my church to share information with you that will help in your genealogical efforts." Nevermind that the information that the Church gleans from such efforts is made available to members of all faiths, including the Catholic who wrote the first article I linked to in this posting. Mormons are not the only ones who have had their hearts turned to their fathers, and I think the consequences of this policy may be much more far-reaching than the Pope thought or intended.
That said, it is his decision to make. I recognize his authority to withhold such information, regardless of whether I like it. And may God always grant him the inspiration he needs as a man charged with the spiritual leadership of so many people around the world.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Web sites
A while back, I promised that I'd share a bit of information about the things I'd been doing since I got home from my mission, so I guess I'll start with my job.
I'm working as a software engineer doing web development for a company called TrueNorthLogic. We provide web services for educators, like reporting tools and such to improve communication between administration and teachers.
Liz and I have a new website at http://j2jensen.googlepages.com/
In other news, my pet project is a site to help families keep their contact information up to date. It's slow going, though, as I'm struggling to make Seam and other technologies work the way I want them to.
I'm working as a software engineer doing web development for a company called TrueNorthLogic. We provide web services for educators, like reporting tools and such to improve communication between administration and teachers.
Liz and I have a new website at http://j2jensen.googlepages.com/
In other news, my pet project is a site to help families keep their contact information up to date. It's slow going, though, as I'm struggling to make Seam and other technologies work the way I want them to.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Blessings: my two cents
I met a French-speaking immigrant at a Stake Conference in my mom's ward shortly after I got home from my mission. I let him know that he could call me if he needed help with translations and such. His ward presidency contacted me the other day, and I was able to translate as some members of his ward, including the bishop and the Relief Society President, worked to determine his level of need for welfare. It was really something to participate as he explained his situation. The food stamps he gets each month for him and his wife and their grandson tend to last them two or three weeks. The money they get pays the rent on a humble apartment and the utility bills, but after that, "On manque même du savon." They can't even afford soap. Apparently they were doing all right back when he had a job, but he had some back problems that prevent him from doing heavy lifting and such now. He and his wife attend English classes daily to improve their communication skills, and the ward will undoubtedly see what they can do to find a job that will suit his condition, but in the meantime he told us how it breaks his heart to not be self-supporting. My mind kept returning to a few thoughts:
Our ward is also back to being in charge of keeping the snow cleared in front of the church: a less glorious, but probably equally necessary task, since the law requires that the walks be cleared. I'm back in charge of organizing the snow removal when necessary. I'm sure glad there are so many members around here--a lot of us are across the street or just down the block from the church building. I imagine they must do things a little differently in places where most members have to drive an hour or more to get to the nearest meetinghouse.
On a completely different topic, Liz and I had a great laugh over two bills her mom got the other day. Apparently the company printing the graduation announcements for Liz's twin brothers, Rick and Rob, realized that they had undercharged her. So, although she had paid the amount she was billed, she received two additional bills, in separately stamped envelopes, explaining that she needed to pay the remaining balance: two cents.
I'm not even joking. Have a good weekend, everyone.
- How fortunate I am to have so many things that he does not have: skills with computers, a command of the English language, a nice job, a nice apartment, a strong and healthy body, and so on.
- How fortunate he is to have the few things he does have. Imagine how many nations in the world could not even attempt to support someone in his situation. Without food stamps and a means of paying the most basic bills, I cannot imagine that he and his wife could survive in most places.
- How much good the church must do in the world. While I was there, they drew up a "shopping list" of everything that they might need in terms of food. They would go to the bishop's storehouse the next day and pick up all the stuff for free. They would meet again soon with a French-speaking leader from his former ward and discuss how to help him monetarily. How many similar cases must the church treat each year? It really is wonderful.
Our ward is also back to being in charge of keeping the snow cleared in front of the church: a less glorious, but probably equally necessary task, since the law requires that the walks be cleared. I'm back in charge of organizing the snow removal when necessary. I'm sure glad there are so many members around here--a lot of us are across the street or just down the block from the church building. I imagine they must do things a little differently in places where most members have to drive an hour or more to get to the nearest meetinghouse.
On a completely different topic, Liz and I had a great laugh over two bills her mom got the other day. Apparently the company printing the graduation announcements for Liz's twin brothers, Rick and Rob, realized that they had undercharged her. So, although she had paid the amount she was billed, she received two additional bills, in separately stamped envelopes, explaining that she needed to pay the remaining balance: two cents.
I'm not even joking. Have a good weekend, everyone.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Talks, calling and releasing
Liz and I were asked to give talks in church yesterday, and since we were already part of two special musical numbers, we basically dominated the meeting. That was kind of weird.
There was a reorganization in our ward's Elders Quorum yesterday. As usual, I had met with the Stake Presidency previously. They had told me that the new future Elders Quorum President had asked to have me be his first counselor, and asked if I would accept this calling. I said yes, so yesterday I was called, sustained, and later set apart in my new calling. I still don't have any idea what to expect from it, but I guess it will give me a lot more opportunities for Adventures in Mormondom. Due to the personal nature of some of the things I'll be doing, though, I'm not sure if I'll feel free to share much publicly on the blog. We'll see.
Later last night, we began getting text messages informing us that President Gordon B. Hinckley had passed away. I was present at the General Conference section immediately after the death of the Pope John Paul II back in 2005, where President Hinckley gave some very tender praise to the then-recently-passed Catholic leader. I hope that at least those parts of the world who notice the passing of this church leader will likewise have kind words to say, although the church has a mere 13 million members.
Are Mormons in general, and Mitt Romney in particular, going to use his death to gain publicity for our religion? No. Let us mourn.
There was a reorganization in our ward's Elders Quorum yesterday. As usual, I had met with the Stake Presidency previously. They had told me that the new future Elders Quorum President had asked to have me be his first counselor, and asked if I would accept this calling. I said yes, so yesterday I was called, sustained, and later set apart in my new calling. I still don't have any idea what to expect from it, but I guess it will give me a lot more opportunities for Adventures in Mormondom. Due to the personal nature of some of the things I'll be doing, though, I'm not sure if I'll feel free to share much publicly on the blog. We'll see.
Later last night, we began getting text messages informing us that President Gordon B. Hinckley had passed away. I was present at the General Conference section immediately after the death of the Pope John Paul II back in 2005, where President Hinckley gave some very tender praise to the then-recently-passed Catholic leader. I hope that at least those parts of the world who notice the passing of this church leader will likewise have kind words to say, although the church has a mere 13 million members.
Are Mormons in general, and Mitt Romney in particular, going to use his death to gain publicity for our religion? No. Let us mourn.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Back in the Saddle
I've decided it's time to start writing again, now that I'm starting to get the hang of life. Much has happened since last I wrote. Here are the main points (in roughly the order in which they occurred):
Now, what current event should I talk about? Hmmm.... Here's one. Has anybody heard of hard disk space just kind of disappearing on Windows Vista? Here's the thing: Vista says my C: drive has 65.4 GB used, but if I check either using the folder properties window or other software that analyzes disk usage, I'm only using about 49 GB. So somehow my computer is using 15 GB of disk space that's not in files. Puzzling. That's a whopping 33% of the amount I'm really using.
That'll do for this posting. I'm sure to have more in the near future. Check back often.
- I got engaged
- I got a job
- I got an apartment
- I got married
- I got a car
Now, what current event should I talk about? Hmmm.... Here's one. Has anybody heard of hard disk space just kind of disappearing on Windows Vista? Here's the thing: Vista says my C: drive has 65.4 GB used, but if I check either using the folder properties window or other software that analyzes disk usage, I'm only using about 49 GB. So somehow my computer is using 15 GB of disk space that's not in files. Puzzling. That's a whopping 33% of the amount I'm really using.
That'll do for this posting. I'm sure to have more in the near future. Check back often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)