Official Declarations 1 and 2, Articles of Faith

Watch the video presentation on YouTube at: https://youtu.be/kzEj0bLI634

To purchase slides or handouts, go to: https://www.etsy.com/shop/TeachingWithPower

NOTE

Official declarations 1 and 2 and the Articles of Faith this week. Wow! Talk about a tough week to teach. Not because the subject matter isn’t good. It’s fantastic. Compelling. Relevant. Deep. Controversial even. It’s just that there are so many different subjects you could talk about. We could spend hours plumbing the depths of each and every one of these sections this week. With the official declarations we’ve got the subject of polygamy and then the church’s policy on race and the priesthood—two very controversial issues in the church with lots of facets and concerns we could cover. And then the Articles of Faith. Each of the 13 is a lesson in and of itself and represents one of the foundational principles of the Church. It would be impossible to really cover each with any degree of depth in the amount of time you will have to teach them. Even if you’re a seminary teacher and are teaching every day. Therefore, we’re going to have to take a step back and look at big picture principles and paint with broad brushstrokes.

As far as Official Declarations numbers 1 and 2 are concerned, I’ve decided not to go into great depth on the history of the issues themselves. I hope that doesn’t disappoint anyone that was hoping I would. But don’t worry, we’ll talk enough about them to give you a good sense of their content and significance. To be totally honest with you, I would not consider myself an expert on these two topics. I feel like I’m still gaining understanding and clarification as time goes on in these areas, so take that into consideration as we study today. What I’m going to recommend to you teachers is that you read the church’s official essays on these subjects very closely and carefully. There’s been a lot of speculation over the years on these topics and you want to be careful about how you represent them. You’ll find links to those essays in the video description below and on my blog.

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage Essay

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

Race and the Priesthood

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Now you may decide you do want to go into the history and explanation of these issues. I would caution you to be very careful about your approach. Stay on safe ground by carefully reading the essays and sticking to their content. And for heaven sake’s please don’t teach a lesson where you try to justify the church’s priesthood ban by going to the scriptures about the curse of Cain or talk about less than valiant pre-mortal actions. We’re past that now. Not only are those not the church’s explanation for the policy, but they have also been formally disavowed by leaders of the Church. Those theories are not the explanation for it. And if anyone brings them up in your class, politely let them know that the Church has officially rejected those theories.

So, for me, instead of covering those issues in depth, I encourage my students to take the time to read the essays on their own and we spend the rest of the class discussing principles of change within the church. This, to me, is a far more relevant topic, especially when we’ve seen so many revolutionary changes within the church in the last three or four years.

ICEBREAKER

For an icebreaker, you could have a “Change in the Church Challenge”. It’s simple. Divide the class into two teams. Right down the middle and flip a coin to determine who goes first. The challenge is for each team to name one change in the church that has occurred within the last five years. Then it goes to other team to name one. Then back and forth until one team can no longer think of one. They have a one-minute time limit to think of one. It’s kind of like a verbal tennis match. And that game really could go on for a while because there have been so many changes recently. Here’s the list that I came up with:

· Home centered-church supported Instruction-The 2-hour church block.

· The home teaching program has been changed to the ministering program

· The Church’s entire youth program has been overhauled. We no longer have Boy Scouts and Personal Progress, but a universal youth program the world over.

· The “Come, Follow Me” program has been introduced.

· The roles and focus of bishoprics and organization leaders have been adjusted. We no longer have ward Young Men’s presidencies. The bishopric assumes that role.

· We basically no longer have high priests quorums.

· Temple ordinances have been adjusted. The wording of the endowment and other ordinances are different now.

· There is a new official logo for the church with a picture of the Savior displayed.

· We’ve been instructed not to refer to the church or ourselves as Mormons

· A new official proclamation was issued at the commemoration of bicentennial of the First Vision.

· General Conference meetings have been adjusted. There are no priesthood or women’s sessions anymore, but 5 general sessions.

· Children and youth advance in January of the year they reach a transition age.

· Women, youth, and children are allowed to act as witnesses at baptisms

· There have been changes to the Church’s magazines

· Most church-produced pageants have been discontinued.

· Missionaries are now allowed to call home every week if they desire.

· This next one has affected me greatly as a seminary teacher. The seminary curriculum now aligns with the Come, Follow Me schedule.

· FSY conferences will now be held for all youth in the church every other year.

· And you could even include the vast number of temples that have been announced within that time period.

And I imagine there are even more that I’ve failed to recall here. It’s apparent that we’re living in a transitionary time within the church. And it’s exciting isn’t it! But, this doesn’t mean that the church is different necessarily either. It is, but it isn’t. There are certain things that can and do change in the church, and there are things that will never change.

TRANSITION—CHANGE IN THE CHURCH

This week’s scripture block is a powerful example of the kinds of things that change and the kinds of things that are constant. An illustration of the absolute and the adaptable. Things that are fixed, and things that flex. In the very first section of the Doctrine and Covenants you may remember the two adjectives the Lord used to describe his church. Let’s review those now. According to Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, what kind of a church do we believe in?

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually

Did you catch the adjectives? True, and living. We believe in a church that is both. I know that we’re accustomed to hearing people get up in fast and testimony meeting and declaring that they know that the church is true. But it’s equally important for us to have a conviction that the church is living. True suggests that it is founded on eternal and foundational principles; that it is reliable; and firm. But it's also living. A living thing grows and adapts and changes and matures. It not only grows in number and size, but it also grows in revelation and understanding. Like a tree, new limbs branch out, while others need to be pruned or cut off. Sometimes environmental factors will affect the way the tree grows or appears. It’s adaptable to the world around it. There are many examples of this in our history. We don't live the United Order anymore. Our application of the Word of Wisdom has matured since it was first given. Our understanding of the sealing power and the temple has grown. Our policy on race and the priesthood has been pruned. Policies, practices, procedures, understanding, organizational structures, general church attitudes and traditions. These are the kinds of things in the church that are subject to and should even be expected to change. Official declarations numbers 1 and 2 are good examples of that kind of change within the church. Official Declaration #1 is the revelation that ended the church’s practice of polygamy or plural marriage. Official Declaration #2 is the revelation that extended priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy members of the church. Prior to 1978, members of the church who were of African descent could not be ordained to priesthood office or participate in temple ordinances aside from baptisms for the dead. Official Declaration #2 ended that policy.

Now, on the other hand. There are things that don’t change within the church and never will. Doctrines don’t change. Fundamental truths and principles don’t change. We know that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The 13 Articles of Faith are a good example of this kind of truth. They stand as basic, foundational principles of the gospel. In fact, I challenge you to find anything in the Articles of Faith that has changed in the church since they were written. Have we ever had to amend them? Do we have to add caveats or corrections to them? No. They’re as applicable to us today as they were for the members of the church 200 years ago.

So we’re first going to discuss principles of change that are illustrated by the official declarations and I’m going to give you a phrase or a set of phrases within these two declarations and invite you tell me how they can help us to understand change within the church. Because sometimes, change can be difficult to accept and even challenging to faith. We may be tempted to say things like, “But that’s not how we used to do it! Does that mean we’ve been doing it wrong all along? I thought this church was run by revelation from God, how is it that he didn’t reveal that before?” If you ever find yourself in that position, questioning change, try to keep the following principles in mind.

WE CAN TRUST THE BRETHREN

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”

What’s the first principle of change in the church? We can trust the brethren. The Lord will not allow them to lead the church astray. The fact that we believe in LIVING prophets is one of the biggest things that sets the church apart from all others. Modern revelation is absolutely fundamental to our beliefs. It’s what makes change possible within the church. God continues to speak to man through his inspired leaders to increase our understanding and to help us navigate an ever-changing and evolving world. We can have confidence and trust in their words and counsel. As long as we are following and supporting their guidance, we will never be led astray. God will not allow them to. The Old Ship Zion is on a well charted course and is sailed by a reliable and responsible captain and crew.

CHURCH LEADERS ARE MORTAL AND CAN MAKE MISTAKES

Still, there is a human element to the church and its leaders as well. As you’ve heard me say many times before. There is a balance to find in all principles of the gospel. Yes. The church is led by inspiration and divine revelation. However. It’s also run by mortals—regular people with flaws, imperfections, and cultural biases and attitudes. How can we not expect the leaders of the church to, in some ways, be a product of their environment? Let’s examine official declaration #2 in this light. The church’s policy on restriction of the priesthood based on race has long troubled many members of the church, and understandably so. Now I’m not going to make any kind of definitive statement as to why the church espoused this policy until 1978. But the church essay on the topic does seem to offer “limited understanding” as a possible explanation for it. There are a lot of questions surrounding the genesis or origin of that policy. Was it intended by God or a product of limited understanding and human weakness? Was this God’s will or the result of the general perception and even collective ignorance of the day?

Well, here are a few statements from the church essay to consider:

As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations” seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.” While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism, the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.

So, as time went on, church leaders began to wonder about this policy. They wondered “Wow. This policy seems really incompatible with the mission of the church. Why is that?”

And then, soon after the revelation was received, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”

Another point. Throughout the essay, the priesthood ban is referred to as a policy not a doctrine. Is it possible that this situation stands as an example of God allowing his church and leaders to learn and grow and seek understanding that was previously limited? Did he want them to figure this out on their own and learn from the experience? Possibly. I don’t know for sure. But it’s an interesting thing to consider. Indeed, this was an issue that the entire nation was figuring out. Even the entire world was coming to grips with the issue of racial prejudice and unfairness. God does not always see fit to come in and correct all misunderstandings and problems within his kingdom. He allows his church and leaders to seek understanding and guidance as it grows and matures. God has been leading the church in this way since its inception. He did not give Joseph Smith all church doctrine and a neatly printed policy manual in the sacred grove. Joseph had to seek revelation little by little as he went along and often didn’t receive wisdom on a subject until he specifically asked for it. Subsequent church leaders have continued that process and, to this very day, still receive direction and clarification. Joseph Smith had to wrestle with this balance of divine revelation vs limited understanding and human fallibility his entire life. Half the time he needed to remind the people of the divine nature of his prophetic calling and the other half the time that he was human and needed the grace of God as much as anyone. I believe that when the Lord says that he will never let a prophet lead the church astray, he is not suggesting that everything that a church leader says or does or decisions he makes, are the very will and word of the Lord in all cases. He allows them to be human and to err. But he isn’t going to allow them to do anything that is going to undo the Restoration or delegitimize the Church. Sometimes policies and practices will need adjustment or correction even. It seems like the Lord allows us to stumble a bit, at times. Like a child learning to walk. It’s good for us to learn and it strengthens us in the end. The restoration is a process, and I would argue that it is still being restored. We are still growing in maturity and understanding as a church. I like something that C.S. Lewis once said about the way God works with his children. He said:

"For He [God] seems to do nothing of Himself which He can possibly delegate to His creatures. He commands us to do slowly and blunderingly what He could do perfectly and in the twinkling of an eye. He allows us to neglect what He would have us do, or to fail. Perhaps we do not fully realize the problem, so to call it, of enabling finite free wills to co-exist with Omnipotence. It seems to involve at every moment almost a sort of divine abdication. We are not mere recipients or spectators. We are either privileged to share in the game or compelled to collaborate in the work, “to wield our little tridents.” Is this amazing process simply Creation going on before our eyes? This is how (no light matter) God makes something—indeed, makes gods—out of nothing.1"

So God allows us to learn and do things slowly and even blunderingly to help us to learn and become more like him. Even in his church. It took us awhile to figure this issue out. But we did! And now we can look forward, and not back.

My favorite response in regard to the policy on race and the priesthood comes from Gordon B. Hinkley in an interview he did with Mike Wallace for the TV news program “60 Minutes”. In that exchange, Mike Wallace pressures President Hinckley into giving a justification for the policy. I love President Hinckley’s answer. He simply and quickly said “It’s behind us”. I like that approach. That’s not to say that we ignore or whitewash the past. But as a general rule and attitude, I believe it’s the best policy to move on rather than to try and justify and rationalize. Instead, let’s chalk it up to experience and move on.

Again. Let me be clear. I’m not offering this as THE explanation for the policy. It’s something that I’m still learning about and gaining understanding on. But the church’s essay sure seems to suggest this as a possible reason, so I feel it’s ok for us to entertain it. Now one person might ask: Why wouldn’t God have given this understanding earlier? I mean, it’s a pretty significant issue. I understand that concern. And I don’t know. Perhaps he wanted to wait for a time when not only black members were praying fervently for a change of this policy, but also a vast majority of the white members as well. That unified, we would petition our Lord for greater understanding and help. Why did it require a revelation to change it? Maybe church leaders felt very cautious about overturning a policy of previous leaders. I’m sure they were sensitive to the idea of giving the appearance of calling previous prophet’s decisions and policies into question.

So, I know this second principle may sound contradictory to the first, but I really don’t think it is. They are balancing principles. Mortal weakness and learning balanced against divine guidance. I do believe they can be compatible, and we must consider both when examining the actions of church leaders.

GAIN YOUR OWN CONVICTION

In the spirit of that thought, I want you to consider another principle of change within the church. With regard to the ending of the practice of polygamy, Wilford Woodruff said:

“The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.”

I love this idea. When it comes to trusting and following the leadership of the church, God encourages us to gain a testimony of their guidance of our own. God doesn’t want us to just stand behind the prophets, but next to them. It’s not a blind, lockstep, aye-aye sir kind of relationship here. Wilford Woodruff invited the Saints to ask themselves and ponder what they felt the church should do in that situation by the Spirit and power of God. Then he makes an interesting promise. He prophesies that if they were to do that, then all the Saints would answer and believe alike with regard to the matter. He’s telling them that they have access to the same Spirit that he had access to. There aren’t multiple Holy Ghost’s out there giving different answers to different people. There is one Holy Ghost. And if the members of the church would truly connect with and listen to that same Spirit and power, then logically they would receive the same answer. So it is with us. When the prophet makes a challenging request or statement, we are invited to seek out confirmation of our own on that thing. We must gain our own conviction of the change. Especially if we struggle to understand or accept it. A caution though. We’ve got to be really careful to keep an open mind and heart when we seek that confirmation and not go in with a foregone conclusion as to whether we personally agree or not. I’m confident that if we ask in that way, we will come to see things in the same way as the prophets, regardless of our own personal opinions.

AS LEADERS MAKE DECISIONS, THEY CONSIDER THE WISEST COURSE

Another statement. In regard to the policy on ending the practice of polygamy, I like the actual question that President Woodruff posed to the church. He said:

The question is this: “Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue?”

That’s the question that church leaders must consider whenever they make a decision. What is the wisest course? They have to consider all the parameters, consequences, and concerns in any issue they come up against. They strive to seek the wisest course. Wilford Woodruff continued that thought by explaining the probable outcome of the church continuing to practice polygamy.

“—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

So he’s saying, “If we continue to live this, we will lose our temples. The first presidency will be imprisoned. Fathers will be taken from their homes. Is this a wise course for us to take at this time?” I love the realism of President Woodruff in this. In this church, we are pragmatics, not fanatics. We understand that we must live in Caesar’s world—a world where God honors the agency of man and we’ve got to react and respond in a wise manner to that world. One might wonder and ask “Does that mean the government is more powerful than God? Did God yield to the pressure of man’s will?” My response to that. Yeah. He did. And why not? God concedes to the agency of man all the time. That was the principle we fought for in the premortal world—our agency to do our own will. God is going to honor that on almost all occasions. So if the US government was going to make the practice of polygamy illegal, God was willing to work with his church under those parameters. And what was God’s response to that crisis? He mercifully allowed the church to discontinue the practice so that they could live according to the laws of the land and continue to do temple work—a greater good. Do you remember what God said to the Saints regarding the building of Zion in Jackson County Missouri after it became apparent that they weren’t going back any time soon. He said:

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

The members of the church had done just that. They had gone to with all their might to be obedient to the will of God. But now they were being hindered. So God mercifully required that work no more. Now, if the purposes of polygamy had been more important than the consequences of not stopping in a nation that legally forbade it, God would have continued to command it. He would have encouraged their civil disobedience. Instead, he commanded it to stop. And that’s important to keep in mind too. This wasn’t just President Woodruff acting unilaterally because HE felt it was the wisest course of action. He assures the Saints that:

“But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …”

What this makes clear to me is that God works with the Church in relation to the circumstances it currently faces. He encourages his leaders and his people to seek wisdom in their decisions and policies.

WE MUST EXPECT THE CHURCH TO CHANGE AS THE WORLD AROUND US CHANGES

This illustrates a companion truth for us to consider. Examine the following statement from the manifesto:

“Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.”

Circumstances had changed concerning plural marriage at this point. The Supreme Court had decided that the practice of polygamy did not fall under the protection of religious freedom. Part of the reason for the ending of plural marriage is because the Church wished to uphold the decided upon laws of the land. For many years the church did fight the federal government on this issue and even openly flouted the law against polygamy as an example of civil disobedience. But once the Supreme Court had pronounced that the forbidding of polygamy was constitutional, that changed things. Up to that point, perhaps the leaders of the church still held out some hope that the practice could be continued.

We have to understand that people and cultures mature and change over time. Circumstances change in our world and the church must take these things into consideration and respond appropriately. The church seeks to take the wisest course through these obstacles and developments. So the explanation for change within the church may simply be a need for adjustment as the world around it changes. It would be foolish to think that the church would stay exactly the same from one century or even decade to the next. This may not be the best example of this principle, but it seems to work to illustrate the idea of how changing worldly circumstances can prompt change within the church. If you look at a picture of all the past presidents of the Church, what major difference do you see in the faces of the early prophets, and more recent prophets? All the early prophets (minus Joseph Smith) have beards, the new ones do not. Starting with David O. McKay, the beards disappear. Why? Well, something interesting in our culture, at least in the United States, took place in the 1960’s. Beards became more of a symbol of rebellion were staples of the hippie and drug culture of the day. So, not wanting to reflect the world in any way, beards on church leaders became a thing of the past. So, are beards themselves inherently evil? Of course not and never have been. Is that convention liable to change in the future and may we see a prophet with a beard once again someday? Sure. Why not? In fact, I don’t believe that beards really carry that same connotation anymore. Still, it may be a long time before we ever see one on a general authority, and there remains a standard barring beard growing at BYU, on full time missionaries, and within my profession, teaching in the church’s educational system. Change takes time. Now, again, that may not be the best illustration of the principle of change within the church but seems to be an example that my students understand. I’m not suggesting that polygamy and the policy of race and the priesthood is on the same level. It’s obviously not. But it just goes to illustrate how outside change can influence change within the church.

Also, we’ve got to keep in mind that collectively, as a nation, or even world, we are growing and progressing in understanding and knowledge. The church will also respond to that collective awareness. Issues surrounding slavery, women’s rights, civil rights, best forms of government, religious freedom and other matters have been met and developed over the years. We can’t expect the church to not be, in some ways, a product of its time. There are limitations as to how much an entire people can diverge from the current trends and culture of their day. So the people of the church have adapted and learned along with the rest of society. As circumstances change, so must the church also adapt to those changes.

AS LEADERS MAKE DECISIONS, THEY MUST BE UNANIMOUS

Another point. Look at the following statements from Official Declarations 1 and 2:

“The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.”

“President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously”

“The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.”

How do these statements help us to understand change in the church? All decisions regarding church policy must be made with unanimity amongst the brethren. This is one of the major safeguards of the church. In any decision that is made, all 15 men of the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles must be in agreement. So all these recent changes in the church were not just made by President Nelson unilaterally. Every single one had to be presented, debated, and accepted by each and every member of the First Presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles. Do you remember what we learned in Doctrine & Covenants 107?

27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—

Which is really miraculous that things get done so smoothly when you stop to think about it. All 15 of those men come from different backgrounds and have varying opinions and ideas. Can you imagine unanimity in your nation’s government? Not likely. Yet, it happens all the time in the leadership of the church. So when a change comes in the church, realize that it isn’t happening at the desires of just one person or a few. These decisions are not made frivolously or without deep contemplation and discussion. They are made by council, dialogue, and examination.

AS LEADERS MAKE DECISIONS THEY MEDITATE, PRAY, AND PLEAD FOR DIVINE GUIDANCE

And there is another element that we can add to that decision making process. What do the following phrases add to our understanding of change within the church?

“President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple . . .”

“we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.”

Keep this in mind as well when it comes to change within the church. The leadership of the church make this a matter of extended meditation and prayer. They are not seeking their own will, but the will of God. Do we sometimes get in our minds the idea that revelation to church leaders comes easily and swiftly? Does the Lord just send an angel with the daily memo for his leaders to implement? No. It requires extended meditation and prayer, long pleading, and many hours of supplication for the Lord’s divine guidance.

Church leaders seek God’s guidance in all their decisions and work hard to receive it. The Lord leads this church and helps his servants as they seek his will.

TRUTH

The Church changes. It is true AND living.

LIKEN THE SCRIPTURES

Which of these principles has helped you most to understand changes within the church?

CONCLUSION

Well, as I said earlier—we live in very exciting and exceptional times in the church. The only constant in life is change. Never in my life have I experienced more changes than within these last few years. Even though change can sometimes be difficult to accept and adjust to, I think we’re just going to have to get used to it. Our world isn’t slowing down anytime soon, and neither can the church. So instead of being worried and upset about these changes, hopefully we can be filled with excitement and anticipation of what’s coming next. As for some of the more difficult policy changes that we see in the official declarations, I hope that we don’t allow those things to shake our faith. Remember that we live in an imperfect world with imperfect people and less than ideal circumstances. All these things are going to leave an impact on our history and leadership. We need not allow it to darken our minds or cloud our conviction. I hope we can keep an open mind and a charitable disposition when it comes to these kinds of issues. And let the changes come, for they most certainly will.

ARTICLES OF FAITH

Now to the other side of the spectrum. The Articles of Faith are a great example of the kinds of things that don’t change in the church.

ICEBREAKER

For an icebreaker you could play a Fill-in-the-blank game. You’ll put one of the Articles of Faith on the board and ask them to try and be the first person to raise their hand and give you the word that completes the answer. You may even consider throwing out a small treat to that person. I’m not going to go through and read all of these with you but let me give you an example of how it works.

So you display the following slide and wait for someone to raise their hand and give you the correct word:

1 We believe in God, the ________ Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

The answer is ETERNAL.

And you can just go through each one of the rest of these and help them to identify the correct missing word.

This can be a good way to quickly review the principles of the Articles of Faith.

TRANSITION

Then you transition to the scriptures by saying: These thirteen statements represent the “true” aspect of the church in our “true and living” description. These represent foundational doctrines of the church and will never change. In these 13 simple statements, Joseph put to rest many of the debates and controversies that Christianity had struggled with for many centuries. They correct misunderstandings and clarify doctrinal difficulties.

SEARCH

For a scripture search activity you could try this matching handout. It’s titled “Defeating Doctrinal Difficulties”. And what they’re going to do is try to match the article of faith with the misunderstanding it helps to correct. What problem does each article solve.

1. The Bible is infallible and contains all truth

2. Miracles have ceased. God does not give spiritual gifts to man anymore.

3. State sponsored religion. The government dictates religious practice.

4. Revelation ended with the death of the apostles in the 1st century.

5. What you believe is more important than what kind of person you are.

6. We are predestined to either heaven or hell. Universal salvation for all.

7. Church authority comes through study, faith, or personal desire.

8. There is no need for government (anarchy)

9. There is no God. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all one being or force.

10. Adam and Eve brought the entire human race under automatic condemnation (original sin).

11. Organized religion is not necessary. Just believe in Jesus or in being good. That’s all that matters.

12. The Second Coming of Christ is a fable used to scare people into obedience.

13. Infant baptism. Baptism by sprinkling.

As we go through the answers, I’ll give some brief commentary on how each article corrects or clarifies false ideas or practices of the past.

1. I. The first article of faith clearly defines our doctrine of the Godhead. First of all, we believe in God. The atheists, I’m happy to say, have got it wrong. There is an intelligent design and purpose to the universe around us and a benevolent, divine being that created and governs that universe. He has a son, Jesus Christ, who plays a central role in accomplishing his purposes. Therefore, as good and positive as many of the world’s religions are, we believe that Christianity offers the truest explanation of our existence and purpose. The specific nature of the Godhead was a debate that really perplexed and divided the early Christian Church. This doctrine was debated and questioned and fought over until the Nicene and Athanasian creeds of the early Church were adopted. They described a 3-in-one God trinity without body, parts, or passions. How did WE, then, as members of the restored church come to OUR understanding of the Godhead? By divine vision and direct revelation to authorized servants of God. Not by debate and council. The First Vision cleared the doctrine of the nature of the Godhead up nicely and visually for the prophet Joseph Smith. We might say that the doctrine of the Godhead was the first restored doctrine of the Church as Joseph looked up at the Father and the Son as two distinct beings. The revelation we find in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22-23 further clarified their nature.

2. J. An unfortunate misunderstanding of the Fall has also led to some difficult dogmas over the centuries. The concept of original sin is going to be one of the factors that will split the early Christian church into the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox divisions. It will lead to a demonizing of Adam and Eve, the practice of infant baptism, and great misunderstandings on the subjects of agency and salvation. The second article of faith clearly defines that every individual is granted agency to act for themselves and is therefore also accountable for their actions. We don’t believe that God will demand accountability for something that somebody else did. Therefore, we don’t come to this earth already under condemnation.

3. F. This article helps to correct numerous doctrines that have been proposed over the years to explain the destiny of mankind. Some have believed that individuals are predestined to be either saved or condemned. Some say that all people will be saved regardless of their actions. Some believe in reincarnation. Some say that all roads lead to God. Some believe that things like baptism, confirmation, and the sacrament aren’t necessary. The 3rd article of faith clarifies the truth of the matter. We MAY be saved through the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and that power can come into our lives only by obedience to God’s laws and ordinances. So no. All roads do not lead to God and salvation. We’re required to do certain things to receive God’s highest rewards. Christ has done his part and we must do ours. Those three principles working together: atonement, obedience, and ordinances—make salvation possible for all.

4. M. The fourth article of faith shows that God has a pathway for us to take in this life. I love the simplicity of it. God’s plan for his children is not complicated. We live by faith, not just empirical knowledge. We seek to live the spirit of repentance as we grow, make mistakes, and recommit ourselves to God’s commandments. Baptism, we see as an essential step in our eternal progress and believe that it must be performed in a specific way. God is very particular about his ordinances. So immersion, authority, and accountability are non-negotiables for a baptism to be considered binding. Besides, we believe that the proper mode of baptism will also lead us to the true church. Then, that baptism must also be followed by the confirmation of the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost can then help us to continue down the path that baptism opened up to us.

5. G. Here’s a big one. The question of authority. Who has the right to perform the ordinances of article 4 or has the right to preach the gospel and lead the church? For many centuries the claim of authority has been through a kind of “priesthood of the believers” type system. I have authority because of my faith. Or, I have authority because I’ve studied the scriptures extensively or I went to a religious school. Or, I have authority because I have good desires. That’s all fine and good and helpful but is it enough to claim authority from God? The problem with this is that there is no order or power in it. What if well-intentioned, educated, and faithful individuals have differing opinions on theology, practice, or interpretation? Which has been the case for centuries and has caused schisms, debates, and conflict. But who is teaching the truth? That was Joseph Smith’s question. Which church should I join? Which church has true authority from God? Article of faith 5 clarifies the two qualifications that matter. You must be called of God. And you can only receive authority from someone who already possesses it. We believe that authority was restored by heavenly beings to Joseph Smith.

6. K. This article of faith reminds us of the importance of what we call “organized religion”. I saw a sign the other day advertising a local church that claimed to offer “Jesus without religion”. Perhaps they have forgotten that Jesus did organize a church when he was here on earth. He authorized leaders, he established his gospel, and instituted ordinances. There was an official organization from which God could administer his saving ordinances and spread his gospel through authorized servants. The very name of the Church suggests our connection with this ancient organization. We are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Same church, different time period.

7. B. Moroni warned us that in the last days, men would start to deny miracles and the gifts of God. He got it right, didn’t he? We certainly see a skepticism in the modern world of spiritual manifestations and powers. We, on the other hand, believe in miracles. We believe in gifts. We believe in visions. We believe in angels. Our history is rife with visions, healings, the gift of tongues, prophecies, angelic visitations, and revelation. I imagine that every single one of you could probably give me an example of a time when you personally experienced a miracle, or evidence of God’s hand in your lives.

8. A. This article shows our commitment to scripture. The Bible and the Book of Mormon form a foundation of our faith. Scripture provides us with doctrine, inspiration, principles, and instruction on how to live. But scripture was never intended to be the final authority on all matters. For one, translation and time can erode meaning and accuracy, as is the case with the Bible. That’s why we believe in the importance of priesthood authority and modern revelation. The Bible is a powerful book which I love dearly. But I don’t worship it, nor do I believe that it has all the answers that I need to navigate the confusing circumstances of mortality. It doesn’t. If you have any doubts about this, consider the number of different, competing churches and theologies we have out there that all hold the Bible as sacred. The problem is in how it’s interpreted. Who has the right to say what the Bible means? There must be a living authority out there that can deem whether scripture has been accurately translated and interpreted. And that’s why we have Article of Faith #9.

9. D. We believe in continuing revelation from God. God has, does, and will reveal his will to man. Up to this point in Christianity, man had basically silenced God. “Revelation ended with the Book of Revelation” they would say. “No more prophets, no more scripture, no more revelation”. The life of Joseph Smith completely disproved that notion. God does have a voice and he does speak to man—even to this very day. We are reminded of this truth at least every six months as we listen to general conference.

10. L. Well as much as I like to talk about the symbolic nature of scripture, I will readily concede that there is much to the gospel that is literal. Like the literal gathering of the ten tribes, the literal building up of Zion, and a literal second coming. Many religions have begun to deny the reality of these events and dismiss them as fables. The church, however, takes real action in fulfilling and acting on these future realities. We send real missionaries throughout the world to preach and gather. We build real churches and temples in fulfillment of the literal building up of the Kingdom of Zion. And our prophets prophesy and encourage us to prepare ourselves for the events that accompany the last days and the return of Christ. These are not legends or myths to us. We look forward to these prophecies as future realities.

11. C. The difficulties and dangers of mingling religion and government were all too real to the founding fathers of the United States. One of the very reasons many people came to the Americas was to escape state sponsored religious persecution that they were facing in their home countries. The church repudiates this idea and calls for the freedom of mankind to worship how, where, or what they may. Let them choose. Who cares if you feel they are worshipping in error? We all must come to grips with the fact that sometimes people see things differently than we do. The solution to dealing with “otherness” for many governments and religions throughout history was to coerce, persecute, or kill those who didn’t see things the way they did. The better solution? Give them agency. Let us worship how we want, and we will let you worship the way you want. It’s not the place of government to dictate religious conscience. This is obviously not an idea that originated with Joseph Smith or the Church, but one we proudly endorse as inspired.

12. H. As we discussed a few weeks ago in section 134, we believe that government is a God inspired institution. We support good governments and believe in being good citizens.

13. E. Here’s the big one. Article of Faith 13 is a little different from all the others. If I were to choose any of the articles to spend more time on, it would be this one. All the other Articles have been statements of belief, but number 13 is about who we are. Our basic rule of life. I think it’s significant that this is the longest and last article of faith. Perhaps a suggestion of its importance and emphasis? I personally believe that in the judgment, it will be who we were as people, and how we treated others, that will matter more to God than just what we believed. God can easily correct misunderstandings of beliefs or doctrine, but he can’t correct who we are or change our hearts for us. So what is it that sets us apart from others as disciples of Christ? Article 13 defines the Saint.

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men;

How’s that for a statement of character. And I believe that as a church, we do pretty well at this. We are collectively known the world over for being good, honest, and virtuous people. We are people that serve and love others regardless of their faith, race, or religion. I love something that Joseph Smith said regarding this aspect of members of the Church in his letter from Liberty Jail. This part was not included in the canonized portions of that section, but I really wish it had been. He said:

There is a love from God that should be exercised toward those of our faith, who walk uprightly, which is peculiar to itself, but it is without prejudice; it also gives scope to the mind, which enables us to conduct ourselves with greater liberality towards all that are not of our faith, than what they exercise towards one another” (History of the Church, 3:303–4)

In other words, our faith enables us to love the Catholics in a way that is greater than the love that Catholics feel for Catholics. It’s a love that enables us to love Muslims better than they love each other. And Jews, and Hindus, and Jehovah’s witnesses. The gospel we profess and the love of God that flows through the doctrines and truths that we understand give us this power.

If you’re curious as to what the “admonition of Paul” is referring to, you can go to both 1 Corinthians 13:7 and Philippians 4:8. Remember Paul was one of Joseph Smith’s heroes. The statement “We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things” is spoken in the context of the principle of charity in 1 Corinthians 13. We have a love of God and our fellow man that allows us to believe all that God asks us to believe. Even the difficult or most challenging aspects of our faith. We have a love of God and our fellow man that allows us to hope for better times ahead, and hope for people to change, and that they can change. We have a love of God and our fellow man that allows us to endure any trial, hardship or challenge that may come our way.

And, we have an objective and aim in this life.

If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

So we spend our lives looking for the kinds of things that match this description. In art, in literature, in philosophy, in other people, in education, in science, in movies, in music, in dance, we seek for the good. And we rejoice in it. It may be a good exercise to ask ourselves if the movies we watch, the books we read, the language we use, and the places we go fit that description.

I love the word SEEK. It suggests effort and depth. One of the terms we use to describe how we use the internet is to “Surf” the internet. Surfing suggests skimming along the top. When you surf, you don’t get in the water. You’re not submerging yourself in any kind of depth. Is that a good description of the extent of our seeking? Do we just “surf” for truth? Are we shallow in our search? We don’t want to just surf the truth. We want to seek it. We want to swim and snorkel, and scuba dive the truth and the good and praiseworthy things of this world. Hopefully we don’t spend too much of our time in the superficial, artificial, and inconsequential things of Babylon. There are a lot of virtuous, lovely, and praiseworthy things out there and see and do in this life. There’s also a great deal of garbage. Hopefully we spend the majority of our time with the former.

Well, I believe that one of Joseph Smith’s greatest legacies and testaments to the truth of his prophetic calling is the Latter-day Saints themselves. Our collective character stands as a witness of God’s hand in this work and church. I pray that we can all readily reflect the 13th article of faith in our thoughts, words, and deeds. That may be the most effective missionary work we ever do.

TRUTH

The Articles of Faith simplify and clarify truth for all who believe in Jesus Christ and his gospel.

LIKEN THE SCRIPTURES

Which of the Articles of Faith are you most grateful for?

CONCLUSION

Just as I’m grateful for a church that is living and adaptable, I’m also grateful for a church that has a solid foundation of ageless and unchangeable truths. Now, keep in mind that the Articles of Faith don’t represent a comprehensive and complete description of all that we believe. But they do give us a sure and solid foundation. I like this picture as a good representation of the nature of the church. A thriving and healthy tree, growing right out of a solid rock. As we said earlier, it is true and living. The articles of faith make up a portion of that rock. If someone were to ask you what you believed in as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, and you recited the articles of faith to them, do you realize just how religiously educated you would sound? These are deeply theological issues and ideas, but are expressed so plainly that even primary children can understand them. As we discussed in section 135 a few weeks ago, it amazes me how much doctrine Joseph Smith gave us as a prophet. I love the simple, rational, and common-sense nature of his teachings. Religion fascinates me, and I’ve studied the theologies of most of the world’s religions and read their scriptures. And I can tell you that there is much that is good and true and thought-provoking in them. But, I can also tell you without a doubt that there is no religion that I have ever encountered that is clearer, that makes more sense, that offers more answers, that has a more mature understanding of truth, than that found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Articles of Faith stand as a testament of the power of that clear and compelling truth.