About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

Did Jesus have long hair and a beard?

This post entitled “The Error of the Long-haired Jesus” makes the very interesting case that Jesus did not have long hair and a beard. Read it yourselves, but I will summarize it in this post.

(In case anybody is interested, it doesn’t affect my faith one whit whether Jesus has long hair or not. I have a vision of His face in my mind that has nothing to do with his hair length or whether he has a beard. It is mostly His eyes that I see in my mind. But I find such historical speculation interesting. And, yes, this also applies to temple depictions of the Savior, which like everything in the temple are done to help our worldly eyes understand the mysteries of the eternities. Please note that each of the temple films has a Jesus who looks different, so we should not let ourselves get bogged down about details (such as Jesus with long hair and a beard) that miss the point.)

So, the post I link above makes the point that it was the custom in Palestine in the 1st century AD for most Jews to have short hair. Jesus was not a Nazarite (they notably had long hair). And Paul’s writings seem to imply that people who are followers of Christ should have shorter hair. In addition, early Christian writers make the point that most people in the 1st Century AD thought Jesus had short hair.

The idea that Jesus had long hair and a beard came from the attempt to make Christianity more palatable to Greeks and Romans, who all imagined gods in that way. Here is a statue of Sarapis (Zeus):

serapis1

But, the post claims, there is no reason to believe Jesus actually looked at all like this.

Continue reading

Supporting the Brethren on the environment

As I pointed out in this post, it is easy to support the Brethren when they take positions that agree with your ideology. But a faithful Latter-day Saint should support the Brethren even when it is difficult.

The Church has made several statements about the environment in the last few years. The most important is this:

All humankind are stewards over the earth and should gratefully use what God has given, avoid wasting life and resources and use the bounty of the earth to care for the poor and the needy.

God created the earth to provide a place for the human family to learn, progress and improve. God first created the earth and all living things spiritually, and all living things have great worth in His eyes.

The earth and all things on it should be used responsibly to sustain the human family. However, all are stewards — not owners — over this earth and its bounty and will be accountable before God for what they do with His creations.

Approaches to the environment must be prudent, realistic, balanced and consistent with the needs of the earth and of current and future generations, rather than pursuing the immediate vindication of personal desires or avowed rights. The earth and all life upon it are much more than items to be consumed or conserved. God intends His creations to be aesthetically pleasing to enliven the mind and spirit, and some portions are to be preserved. Making the earth ugly offends Him.

I would like to ask readers to read the above statement at least twice before proceeding. My experience is that most people read all kinds of things into that statement that simply are not there.

OK, have you read and re-read that statement? Yes? Then let’s keep on going.

Continue reading

Supporting the Brethren on the issues of refugees and immigration

As most readers know, M* supports the Church and its leaders. This means that most readers and commenters are what we will call (for lack of a better term) “conservative Mormons.”

On many issues like same-sex marriage or abortion, this does not create much stress for conservative Mormons because the Church seems to support our views.

But what about the issue of the Syrian refugees? And what about immigration?

The Church issued a letter two weeks ago asking members to assist the refugees. How did you respond to that letter? Did you contribute other offerings? Did you participate in local relief projects?

Here is what the Church said:

It is with great concern and compassion that we observe the plight of the millions of people around the world who have fled their homes seeking relief from civil conflict and other hardships,” states the letter.

The letter explains the Church is assisting migrants and refugees in several countries “thanks to the generous help of our members.”

Mormons have been providing aid to refugees in the Middle East for more than a decade, providing hundreds of thousands of blankets, clothes, emergency medical supplies, food and other resources to refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Syria.

In response to the recent crisis in Europe, the Church made an additional commitment in September of $5 million to help displaced families.

The letter continues, “Members may contribute to the Church Humanitarian Fund using the Tithing and Other Offerings donation slip. We also invite Church units, families, and individuals to participate in local relief projects, where practical.”

“May the Lord bless you as you render Christlike service to those in need,” the letter concludes.

Let me state quickly that this is not a post intended to scold anybody. I want us to “reason together.” I don’t have all the answers, and I think people of good will can disagree. But if we support the Brethren, shouldn’t we support humanitarian efforts to help the refugees?

Continue reading

Church clarifies Handbook changes on SSM and children

Please read this information just released from the First Presidency.

I think these are the key points:

Revealed doctrine is clear that families are eternal in nature and purpose. We are obligated to act with that perspective for the welfare of both adults and children. The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.

Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.

When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.

Also, please read this article that provides further information:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook

About that claim of mass resignations from the LDS Church

You may have seen stories like this one that claim more than 1000 people will resign from the Church. An ex-Mormon lawyer is offering to help people leave the Church and is planning a rally on Saturday.

There is one important detail to consider: an on-line poll on its own Facebook site shows that a tiny percentage of the people resigning are active members of the Church. In fact, as of Thursday afternoon, here were the numbers:

*Considered “Inactive”: 340 people

*Resigned (Apostate): 104 people

*Non-Member: 43 people

*I don’t attend, but my children do: 17 people

*Attend Weekly: 16 people

*Attend Monthly: 6 people.

So, of the 526 people who responded to the poll, only 22, or about 4 percent, are actually going to Church regularly today. I am not convinced that 22 active churchgoers resigning is a “mass resignation.”

Now let me stipulate that even one person is a tragedy in the eyes of the Lord. We don’t want to lose members. Ever. And yes it is true that inactive members could in theory be activated at some point.

But have we considered that perhaps the Church may gain many more members than it loses by having a clear cut policy on moral issues? Most of the people who read this blog are in the United States or Canada. The rising acceptance of same-sex marriage in those countries is a phenomenon of a relatively small part of the world’s population. Most people in Latin America, Africa and Asia (which by the way are the areas where the Church is growing rapidly) do not share the enthusiasm for same-sex marriage.

Even in the U.S., relatively conservative churches (Mormon, evangelical Christian, Orthodox Jew, Muslim) are growing while liberal churches that accept same-sex marriages are in a precipitous membership free-fall.

So, here is what we know: the “mass resignation” isn’t really a mass resignation. Membership is growing quickly in countries with traditional values on marriage. And conservative churches are growing while liberal churches are in decline.