Church v. Gospel: A House and Its Foundation

Photo by Peter Boccia on Unsplash

Consider the terms "church" and "gospel." They are very obviously distinct from each other. No one could ever get the two confused, right? At least, that's what I was thinking when my professor asked us how they differ.

And I was right, Christ's gospel is not the same as his church. The gospel refers to the principles, the doctrine, the teachings that he has asked us to live by, and his church is an organization that has gathered to help each other live those principles. Put simply, Christ's church houses his gospel.

But maybe "house" isn't the right word for it after all. A house can still stand without any occupants, but the church would collapse into a pile of dust without the gospel. In fact, I think a better analogy can be made based on the Book of Mormon scripture, 3 Nephi 27:8.

And how be it my church save it be called in my name? . . . If it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. (Italics mine.)

So, let me revise my statement a little. Put simply, Christ's gospel founds his church. Phrased this way, the church is no longer the focus, because really, the gospel is the most important thing. Which brings me to my next point: "Christ's church" is not referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This may seem like I'm deserting, but let me explain. Let's go to 1 Nephi 14, verse 10.

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to he church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

For most of my life, I always thought that this verse was talking about (1) my church as the good guy, and (2) everyone else as the abominables. It's the whole concept of saying, "I belong to the one and only true church."

This, however, was a false way of thinking that I'm glad to be rid of.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have a strong testimony that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's restored church on the earth, with the fullness of his gospel. But that's just it. We have the fullness of the gospel. That doesn't mean that no one else has the gospel at all. Other churches do have it, at least in parts, and the people who live the best they can with what they have—I have full confidence that Christ would welcome them with open arms into his church.

So once again, when you look at the gospel and the church together, the focus should not be on the church itself. The church is just the vehicle that helps get us to our ultimate destination; it's the package that the gift of the gospel comes in. For it's the gospel that holds everything together, and it's the gospel that will help us connect with all members of "the church of the Lamb of God," no matter what denomination.

The Garden of Eden Part 2: The Tree of Knowledge

Photo by Aman Aman on Unsplash

Have you ever wished that you could live in the Garden of Eden and enjoy a happy, carefree life? I have once or twice.

Fortunately, having everyone live happily ever after in a beautiful garden wasn't part of God's plan for us. In fact, it wasn't even possible. Adam and Eve could not have lived in bliss forever and still become the parents of all mankind.

It just couldn't work that way. Thanks to the Book of Mormon, we have a pretty clear idea of why. In 2 Nephi 2, it says, 

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 

23 Any they would have had no children. . . .

From this, we know that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they would have never been able to raise children. Instead, they would have remained as children themselves—forever.

I've always understood that point. But there is one thing that continued to confuse me. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we teach that both Adam and Eve are heroic exemplars, because they chose to bring life into the world even though it required disobeying God. Eve is praised for her foresight and courage; Adam is praised for his loyalty and reasoning.

But neither Adam nor Eve had knowledge of good and evil until after they ate the fruit. They were children, knowing the what of the commandments but not the why.

If Adam and Eve were truly like children, innocent and unlearned, how could they have understood the magnitude of their decision to partake of the fruit? There's no way that Eve would have been reaching for that fruit with the full realization of what that action meant for her future.

That's what I never understood. Why did we praise Adam and Eve so much for their foresight and reasoning, when they really couldn't have known the significance of their partaking of the fruit?

But then I got to thinking about it as I read in Moses chapter 4, when the serpent is tempting Eve.

10 And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die; 

11 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 

12 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, but I wonder how many months must Eve have been walking through the Garden, pondering the two commandments that God had given her and realizing that she did not have the knowledge to keep the first commandment? How long had she already been gazing at the tree of knowledge, wanting to be fruitful and multiply but not knowing how?

I imagine that Eve would have already worked out for herself that she needed to have more knowledge if she and Adam were going to keep the first commandment to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28). So when Satan did come in, promising knowledge like unto the gods, partaking of the fruit might not have been so foreign an idea to her.

I don't know whether or not Eve fully understood before she ate the fruit that she had to fall in order to bring salvation to her offspring. Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't. Either way, her act was valiant and praiseworthy.

I will say, however, that I don't believe that Adam or Eve fully understood their role in God's plan until after they partook of the fruit. Indeed, in both scriptural accounts of the creation, Adam is not said to have given Eve her name until their eyes have already been opened. Only after their reprimand from God do they say that Adam called her Eve, the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20; Moses 4:26).

I love to think of the moment when Adam must have turned to "the woman" with such love in his eyes and tenderly called her "Eve" for the very first time. Having just been told that the earth would be cursed for their sake and that they were destined to return to the dust, I can imagine him saying, "Eve... My wife and my companion, we will make it. We can and will bring life into this world, together."

And they did. They brought you and me into this world to make decisions of our own, and they showed us that even with a minuscule understanding of God's plan, we can still make the right decision. Sometimes, if not always, our knowledge of the why behind God's commandments will only come after we take the step of faith. We are all like Adam and Eve, for aren't we all little children when compared to God? And like in the Garden of Eden, God will always allow us to make mistakes so that we may learn and grow closer to Him. 

The Garden of Eden Part 1: The Fruit as Salvation

Photo by Vadim L on Unsplash

Eve. What was her role in the Garden of Eden? A good portion of Christians might answer that Eve is to blame for all sin and sorrow that exists in this world. But there are many others who would argue that Eve was the hero that brought freedom to humanity—agency for the human race.

I have never doubted that Eve's transgression in the Garden of Eden was meant to be. I've been taught to praise Eve for her decision that day, based on the additional details given by the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 2:22–25) and the Pearl of Great Price (Moses 5:10–11), both showing that humanity could not have existed without the Fall. Eve could only be the mother of all living by partaking of the fruit. I know that.

However, I never thought too deeply about why Heavenly Father gave those two commandments: to multiply and replenish the earth, and to not partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Thinking about these commandments with the mindset that Adam and Eve could only multiply after they had partaken of the fruit, the two edicts seem contradictory. Why would Heavenly Father have given conflicting commandments, neither of which could be kept with the other?

While I couldn't have said an answer to that just three days ago, I learned some valuable information from my religion teacher, Professor Tyler Griffin, that led me to my own answer.

In the Book of Moses, there is one distinct difference in the account of the Garden of Eden that adds a new perspective to these contradictory commandments. In chapter 3, it says the following (the bolded text is additional information not found in Genesis):

16 And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 

 This bolded text contains a key word: "nevertheless." As my professor put it, anytime that the word "nevertheless" is used, it adds emphasis to the last part of the sentence, rather than the first. In simple terms, never-the-less means always-the-more.

AKA, what comes after "nevertheless" matters a lot more to God than what comes before. So what exactly is He emphasizing in the second part of the commandment? Incredibly, Heavenly Father is giving Adam and Eve agency. He is saying that while He is giving this commandment for them to follow, in the very act of giving them such a commandment, He also gives His greater gift: the freedom to choose. By giving them the tree of knowledge, He is also giving them the option to eat it—even against His will.

Now, when I read the verses in 2 Nephi, they add even more light to this question of conflicting commandments.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen . . . 

23 . . . Wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 

The verses in Moses establish that Heavenly Father purposely created the tree of knowledge for Adam and Eve so that they could choose whether or not to partake. The verses in 2 Nephi further establish that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit (or had not been given opportunity to disobey God's command), they would have remained innocent of sin. And without sin, there could be no righteousness.

There must be an opposition in all things (2 Nephi 2:11). We wouldn't know to call something good unless we have seen something evil. Thus, for there to be righteousness, sin had to be committed. And for there to be sin, there had to be a commandment given by God.

If Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit, they would have kept living forever in perfection but never had the benefits of keeping the commandments. They would have been in an eternal state of neutrality, unable to experience joy because they had not yet experienced misery. It's the paradox of life, that we can't appreciate the good unless we see the effects of the bad.

Truly, in our mortal minds, it's hard to comprehend the wisdom of God. But I finally think I understand this point. Heavenly Father gave such a conflicting commandment, specifically paired with the right to choose, because Adam and Eve had to transgress in order to give the world agency--and all consequences that come with it. Sin had to be introduced into the world in order for repentance (and thus growth) to take effect.

If Heavenly Father had never provided the forbidden fruit of knowledge, He would have been giving the very thing that Satan had proposed in the pre-earth life: a world without agency, where "all"—but in reality, none—would be saved (Moses 4:1).

So when Eve partook of the fruit, was she damning mankind, or saving them? The answer is that she was, in fact, saving us. In her decision to choose for herself, she put into effect Heavenly Father's plan for us, including the gift of a Savior. By transgressing in the Garden of Eden, she allowed all of us to be able to choose our own salvation.

The Role of a Canon in Later-day Revelation

When I think of a canon, the first one that comes to mind is that of great literature, with books like A Tale of Two Cities, The Odyssey, Little Women, or Macbeth--books that have stood the test of time and made it into a list of "classics." I've always known that there are similar canons for most types of art, like movies, paintings, or music.

What I didn't realize about the word "canon" is that it also refers to an authoritative list of scriptures. But the thing is, not every religion has the same canon, even among Christians! I guess I had never thought about it, but with so many translations of the Bible and other ancient texts not included in the Bible, it's no wonder that there is a disagreement about what the scriptural canon should include.

It's the same with any canon, really. The books listed in a literary canon have been studied by scholars because of their timelessness and depth, but how does a text gets into the canon? When is it finally timeless, and who gets to decide how deep a text is? That's a question that causes debates like crazy.

How cool would it be if there was a way to know exactly which books were supposed to be on that list? No debate, just . . . divine guidance? Maybe there's nothing like that with classical literature, but after reading on the scriptural canon in the Bible Dictionary, I realized that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't have to debate about what is scripture. We have more than just scholarly knowledge to tell us; we have latter-day revelation, which is exactly what has given us the four main texts we consider authoritative scripture: the Bible (Old and New Testament), the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

That's awesome. The LDS scriptural canon is built on revelation! And what's more, the part of the Bible Dictionary entry that caught my attention most was this:

"Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture."

This, I think, is a foundational concept. Basically, what this passage is saying is that (1) the Bible is not and should not be the only sacred text in a canon (and thus the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants have every right to be a part of it, as long as they are revealed as authoritative), and (2) what books we have now are not the only scriptures that can be part of the canon. More can be added! God still isn't done, and neither should we be.

Learning about the canon in this way taught me that we need to continue with open minds and search for those texts that truly are lasting and authoritative, and cause us to come closer to the Lord.

Just like how a literary, cinematic, or artistic canon will continue to add new works to their list, so too can our scriptural canon continue to grow.