Changes to church policies according to Luke.

The author of The Gospel According to Luke has never been quite clear. Tradition has it he was the traveling companion of Paul however many scholars disagree with this assertion sighting contradictions in between Luke’s writings and the writings of Paul. Regardless of the actual identity of the author of Luke this much we do know.

1. The author of Luke also wrote The Acts of the Apostles. (Act 1:1-3).
2. Luke was not a first hand witness of the life of Christ, rather he wrote of others’ experiences that were told to him (Luke 1:1-2).
3. Scholars place the writing of Luke to be around 80-100 A.D.
4. He used the Gospel of Mark as a guide to his text. Scholars assume this because although he follows the basic outline of Mark the author of Luke expanded on the story of Mark while he also corrects Mark’s poor grammar and syntax.
5. On of the most interesting aspects for me is that he does not follow the story exactly but I will come back to that.

In addition to the question of the authorship there is much debate as to who it was written to. Luke commences with a salutation to Theophilus, but who was Theophilus?. Again, Tradition and theories vary greatly,however, my favourite is that Theophilus is not a person at all but represents the friends of God or from my perspective the members of the church. Both Luke and Acts were written in a refined Koine Greek, and the name Theophilos ( "θεόφιλος") as it appears therein, is an amalgamation of the words for God "theos" and friend or loved "philos". Literally translated it could mean loved of God or friend of God. I like this translation because on a more personal note this means Luke was written for me as one who seeks to be called by such a title.

Luke is unique from the other gospels in many respects. For instance, there are more stories of women mentioned in Luke than  in any other the other gospels. There are also more stories related to the poor and the sinners. In one way,  however,  I find Luke extremely unique. As the writer of his gospel Luke develops certain themes. He has a purpose and he attempts to convey certain messages to his readers. In doing this he takes the  liberty to alter the time line of events to convey his message in a specific way. We can see this from the opening verses of Luke where he all but tells us he is going to do this. He writes:

“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us… It seemed good to me also, having had a perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. "(Luke 1:1,3)

For Luke the order in which the story was presented was important and from the start Luke takes advantage of order to present a sub plot of the Luke-acts story. That of a traveling narrative or journey motif of Christ in Luke and the church in Acts..  In Luke  Jesus journeys from Galilee to Samaria and into Jerusalem while in Acts the church starts in Jerusalem and extends out through Samaria into the world.  In this journey there is a subplot of the gospel being presented first to the Jews rejected and from that rejection being offered to the rest of the world (or the Gentiles).

We can see this theme from the start of Christ’s ministry as we look at His  inaugural speech as presented by Luke. It deals with his rejection by those of his home town (symbolically the Jews) subsequently goes out to share the gospel with those not of his hometown (symbolically the Gentiles). The interesting aspect of this event is that it did not happen until much latter in Mark; in fact it occurs in reverse order.

• Rejection of Christ by those in Nazareth - Luke 4:16-30 -  Mark 6:1-6
• Travels to Capernaum and taught there  - Luke 4:31-32 -  Mark 1:22-23

Notice the reverse order of these events in Mark and Luke. Luke does not even go out of his way to remedy this discrepancy. In  his text as we can read where people beseech Christ to perform the same miracles in his own country that they have heard him perform in Capernaum (Luke 4:23), an event that, according to the text of Luke,  has not even occurred yet and won’t  until after he departs from Nazerath. We can see from this that Luke simply cuts and pastes experiences of the life of Christ from his source documents (Mark) with little or no care as to the historical timeline. He does this to help build the theme and present the doctrine as he sees it. Knowing that Luke used other material as his source and did not follow the order as they were presented is an important part of studying Luke and Acts. The reader now has to ask two questions:

1. Why did Luke choose particular stories to be present in his work?
2. Why did he place them in the order he did?

Let me show another example found in Acts. This is what I really wanted to present. Following the martyrdom of Stephen, we read the following verses:

“And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word… Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.” (Acts 8:2-4 and Acts 11:19-20)

Did you notice that? Look at the reference for these versus, they were taken from two different passages separated by 2 and a half chapters. The first part was from Acts 8:2-4 and the last was from Acts 11:19-20 but they would appear as if they came from the same paragraph.  One uninterrupted thought. Again Luke took liberty as the author of this book to splice his source document  mid paragraph inserting material in between, Why? The question needs to be answered by exploring two aspects of the text First what was the content that that was added. For one the conversion of Paul who was considered as the principle missionary to the Gentiles but also, and more importantly, Peter was given a vision to bring the gospel to the gentiles. Something that to this point was not done. As of yet the gospel was reserved for the Jews.  Secondly we need to look at the verses that were spliced. You will note that those that were scattered shared the gospel with the Grecians (Translated Greeks in the NIV bible) after being rejected by the Jews. hey were as it were sharing the gospel with the gentiles and the gentiles where accepting the gospel.

The insertion of the additional text is a subtle but important one. Luke is trying to teach us the way in which change is brought about in the church by revelation. It was not that these missionaries found that the gentiles were accepting the gospel decided it was a good idea then approached the leadership of the church to tell them things needed to change. Nor was it that they went against the teachings of their leaders because they felt that the teachings of the church were somehow out of date. Instead Luke is confirming the pattern of revelation. If, and when a change needs to occur, it is the Lord who directs his prophet through revelation.  Luke is reminding us that Christ is the Head of the church and that church policies, direction and governance will come by him to his prophet. Not by a grass roots petitions to their leaders. He is also reminding us that changes can and does happen. After all,"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (A. of F. 7) but that change will come through the revealed pattern he established. What more important message could Luke have given to those that are the “friends of God” than this? Although at times we may not understand the policies, procedures and doctrines of the church we can take comfort knowing that Christ is at the helm and will direct his Prophets when a course correction needs to be made.

If we make it we are going to be cut, bruised and worn out.

I have often heard statements in Sunday school that suggest that if we are doing what we are supposed to do  our lives will be easy and happy; everything will work out. As if somehow following Christ will protect us from the pains, struggle  and temptations of this world. After all Christ teaches in Mathew 11:29

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is EASY and my burden is light.”

The word used for easy in the original greek was chrestos. This same word could also be translated as well-fitting. At the time of Christ ox-yokes were made of wood. An ox was measured and a custom fitted yoke was fabricated then carefully adjusted so that it fit well without chafing the neck of the animal. Jesus in this statement for me is not saying that his yoke is easy. He is saying in essence “the yoke I give you is not meant to cause you pain rather it was made to measure, it was made to fit you well”.  That is to say our trials and our tests were made for us to fit our needs and abilities exactly. 

In another passage from the book of Mormon we read

“And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.” (Helaman 5:12)

The lesson learned from this passage is very clear. For us it is not if the devil will send forth his mighty wind, it is when. Each of us will have to go through our own struggles, our own trials of faith and experience our own loss as did Job. Struggles at times that might feel like they will break us. But we can take courage in the thought that the power of the adversary can only go so far. When comforting Joseph Smith while in-prisoned in Liberty  jail the Lord said:

 Therefore, hold on thy way… for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever. (D&C 122:9)

In a poem by John Milton entitled Paradise Lost God says of Adam and Eve and I believe symbolically about all of mankind

“I made [man] just and right,Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.” (Book 3 line 95)

though not scripture I feel the point is very true we are made equal to the task before us and the task before us will stretch us to our limits. 

This thought is taught so well in the vision of Lehi of the tree of life as he beheld the 

“ multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.”( 1 Nephi 8:30)

The journey will not be an easy one. It will be made to test our limits. And when we reach the end we may also find ourselves falling down exhausted having giving are all. 

One of my favourite stories of the Old Testament is that of Jacob. One of the major themes of his life is of his constant struggle. Beginning in  the womb a struggle arises between him and his brother Esau (Gen. 25:22-24)  one that would continue throughout  the remainder of their  life; you might remember his struggled to earn the birthright.  Later we see him struggle once again with his future father-in-law for Rachel. This struggle culminates On his journey back to the land of his father  when he wrestled with an angel until daybreak seeking a blessing, when the being saw that he did not overpower Jacob, he touched Jacob

on the sinew of his thigh, as a result, Jacob developed a limp (Genesis 32:31). Following this struggle Jacobs name was changed to Israel , it has been suggested that the name "Israel" comes from the Hebrew words לִשְׂרות (lisrot, "wrestle") and  אֵל (El, "God"). Literally translate he who wrestles with God.  The symbolism of this story is that each of us are locked eternally in a struggle with God neither prevailing completely over the other both forever changed by this encounter. As with  Jacob when our long night is over we may find ourselves literally limping back to the home of our fist inheritance. 

In fact I believe if we are going to make it  we going to be cut brushed and worn out having endured the yoke that was made specifically for us. Not a yoke made to ease our burden but to purge out our imperfections. 

My take on the LDS church's new policy on baptism of children of samesex couples.

Last week the LDS church made a change to its policy for baptism of children of same sex couples. Unless given permission from the highest governing body of the church, this policy requires that the child wait to be baptized until they are 18 years of age, have moved out of their home and disavowed the practice of same sex marriage. Almost instantaneously there was an out cry on Facebook and other social media  questioning the church on this new policy. Questions were asked as to whether the church felt that children of same sex marriages were somehow loved less by God than other children. The answer to that question is, of course, no. God is no respecter of persons and loves all men and woman equally and yet there remains the question of 'Why?'.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson later clarified the 'why' in a released statement. He said the new policy restricting children of same-sex couples from baptism until they are 18 originated from "a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years... We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the church are very different". He goes on to explain that the policy changes are meant to protect family relationships, not to limit the opportunities for children in the church.

As I came to understand the reason behind the new policy I came to see it as a ruling of love, not of hate and one that was to unify a family, not divide it. Yet, I wondered did not Christ say,

"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:14)

As I have thought and reflected about this over the last week my mind kept coming back to the story of the woman of Canaan as told in the 15th chapter of Mathew, it reads:

21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Then in marked contrast:

29 Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there.

30 And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus’ feet; and he healed them:

31 Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.

I found the juxtaposition of these two stories informative. The Canaanite woman had plead for, as it were, crumbs from the table and those of the house of Israel where given bread in abundance almost without asking. One could again ask the question did God love the lost sheep of Israel more than those of the Canaanites. Again the answer is a resounding no. But what could lead the Lord to bless one with abundance allowing the cup to over flow with his healing power while the other could hardly wring out as it were a drop? As I reflected on this I came up with five possible reasons. 

The first I have already mentioned. Was it that God loved the children of Israel more than those of the Canaanites? Did not the daughter of this woman suffer? And yet it would seem that the plight of this mother had touched no cord of sympathy, and from His lips which were accustomed to providing  comfort to the downtrodden came words like daggers.  It could not be that God cared for one child more than another otherwise we could not have faith in Him sufficiently to trust His judgements to be fair. 

Could it then be because the Canaanite woman or her daughter were sinners? But this also does not make sense as a reason to withhold His healing power. Did Christ not come to redeem His children from their sins? And are we not all sinners? If He bestowed His blessings on the sinless soul only we would have seen no miracles throughout His mortal ministry. 

Then was it because she had not the faith sufficient to see her daughter healed? The Saviour himself confirmed that she did. For as He said, she was a woman of great faith.

The Saviour could have done this because she was different from Him, a Canaanite. As a Jew He could have justified his action as one of national, religious or personal identity. She was, by definition His enemy, one whose ideological political and theological ideas differed from His own. However, as the creator of us all, Christ knew that all mankind both Jew and gentile were created in the image of God. He saw this woman as she was - a daughter of God. As such I am sure it brought great anguish to His soul to deny her request.  

This leaves me to believe the only rational reason to deny this woman was what He said it was. The gospel was promised to the Jew first and then to the gentile and as such, the timing was not right. When the time was right the full blessings of the gospel would be given to her and her daughter and they both would be invited to sup at the table, but that time was not then. 

I see similar parallels to the policy as stated by the church to Christ's treatment of this Canaanite woman. It is not as some would have you believe. It is not that the church leaders feel that the children of traditional families are more valued then those of a same sex couples. Nor is it because they see these children as sinners or lacking faith to be a part of the household of God. Finally, it is not because they are attempting to punish the parents or the child for their ideological differences. It is simply a matter of timing. When the time is right these children will receive the full blessings of the gospel. I take the leaders at their word that they want to prevent conflict within the home during crucial developmental years. As such they have asked the  child wait but a moment. And unlike when Christ asked man to watch and wait with Him, He will not slumber during our moments of greatest need. In fact I believe he will grant more mercy, more love, more compassion and more help to those who He has asked to wait. For he has promised to give  "power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength... [For] they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." (Isiah 40:31)

Parenthetical note:

I also do not believe that the First Presidency would add a provision to override the policy if they had no intention of allowing it. As the Saviour, I believe the First Presidency will see the righteous desires of  parents who request the healing ordinances for their children and where prompted will grant them their request. 

Lessons I have Learned as a Father

When our oldest daughter Sophie was young she was not a great sleeper.  In fact she was terrible. She was up early and never seemed to sleep more than a couple hours at time during the night. At that time I was in school working my way through a demanding program. Thankfully Anna was willing to take the brunt of the load as she knew I would fall asleep in class if she didn’t. (If you were to ask a few of my classmates I did anyway, on a semi regular basis.) We tried everything but nothing seemed to work.

No matter what we did or which advice we followed she would not sleep  well at all. I remember one night Anna and I decided that something needed to change. We had tried to let Sophie cry before but usually caved, as we hated to hear her upset. Not this night! It was on this night and through this experience I learned a valuable lesson about parenthood.

As with countless other nights Sophie woke up after a minimal amount of sleep. Anna went in gave her a bottle, a blanket and even a little doll to keep her company, then she gave her a kiss told her she loved her and walked out of the room closing the door behind her. Almost instantly the crying started. Anna looked at me and we both sat down on the floor just outside her door, neither one of us ready to leave her to suffer alone. We told ourselves that sleeping was something she needed to finally learn to do. Each one of us was there to support the other so we would not go back in. Every sound she made we heard and although she may have felt alone and forgotten that night her parents were not as far away as she thought. We were just on the other side of the door and with all the emotions that only a parent could feel we experienced her pain with her and yet we stayed the course.

That night did not change everything for us. Sophie still woke up in the night, but over the years gradually things improved. As I have remembered that night I have often thought of the life lessons I learned through my daughter. We all have moments in our lives when we feel alone; as if there was no one there to comfort us or who will understand our pain. But if we will step back we will see the tender love of our heavenly parents who have not left us alone. They have comforted us in our time of need, nourished us with the words of the prophets, provided a comforter for us in the Holy Ghost and have even given us friends and family to support us. Ultimately though, each one of us at times will have to go through those growing moments that we can only do alone. No one can do them for us. Our Father in Heaven and Saviour could rush in at any time and remove us from the pain we feel but with the wisdom of an eternal perspective they do not. They realize that there are certain lessons we must learn on our own if we are truly to become like them.

God sent us to earth to learn and grow and He realized that at times we may lose our way. I'm not sure how the premortal worlds were handled and what the circumstances were as we left our heavenly home to come to earth. I imagine though, that if we had a chance to talk to the Father of our spirits before we embarked on this earthly sojourn that he would have said something like David did after learning of the death of his wayward son.

“And the king was much moved… and wept: and as [we] went, thus he said, O my son [Rob], my son, my son [Rob]! would God I had died for thee, O [Rob], my son, my son!” (2 Samuel 18:33) In essence, saying that he knew how hard a road was before us and wishing that he could make the journey for us to take away our pain but with perfect foresight knowing that he could not. This life was our chance to learn and grow, our chance to be tested and knowing that we would surely come up short God would provide a way for our escape.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

Because Christ lived I can know that during those moments when I feel I have failed, or have come up short, and during those moments when like my daughter I feel utterly alone I can take solace in the knowledge that I am not alone. Sometimes not too far away just beyond the doors of eternity my Father and Saviour sit on the floor and suffer with me, acutely aware of my needs and my pain yet with eternal love stay the course so that I too may earn the reward and through Christ Jesus and return to live with them again. At this Easter season I wish to say how grateful I am for God’s perfect knowledge and foresight and for the “matchless gift of His divine Son” which provides all of us with solace through our personal Gesthemanies.

The Lesson

Yes, my fretting,

Frowning child,

I could cross

The room to you

More easily.

 

But I’ve already

Learned to walk,

So I make you

Come to me. 

Let go now—

There!

You see?

Oh, remember

This simple lesson,

Child,

And when

In later years

You cry out

With tight fists

And tears—

“Oh, help me,

God—please.”—

Just listen

And you’ll hear 

A silent voice:

I would, child,

I would.

But it’s you,

Not I,

Who needs to try

Godhood.” 

--Carol Lynne Pearson

#BecauseHeLived

 

 

What Christ's Visit to the Nephites Taught me About Church Governance.

Over the last few years I have seen more and more groups attempting change church policy by signing petitions, marching on temple square, and by voicing discontent through blogs, Facebook and other social Media. Although I know that any observation I add to this conversation will not change anyone’s opinion on the matter, still I would like to share something I have been thinking about a lot lately.

I remember attending a lesson once where the teacher stressed that whenever something is repeated in the scriptures you should stop to take note at what the Lord is trying to teach you. When that repetition occurs in the same chapter the message is even more significant. Recently I have been thinking a lot about what I feel is a pattern that the Lord is trying to teach during his visit to the Nephites.  It occurs in the 18th chapter of 3 Nephi. At first glance this chapter may leave the reader to believe that the purpose of this chapter is simply to introduce the sacrament to Nephites. I feel, however, that there is another lesson being taught in these verses. If we read carefully we will see a pattern emerge about the way in which the Lord intends to manage his Kingdom here on earth.

Let me highlight a few verses to illustrate my point.

“And it came to pass that Jesus commanded his disciples that they should bring forth some bread and wine unto him…  And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat. And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.” (3 Nephi 18:1-5)

Notice what happened here, when Christ took bread and blessed who did he give it to?  He fed the disciples, or the newly formed leadership of the church, and once they were filled commanded that THEY, not Him should minister the sacrament to the multitude or the church. Why would Christ do this? He was there with the people, obviously he had the ability to minister the sacrament to the people Himself but He did not. Why?  I feel He was trying to teach a valuable lesson to the Nephites, which was that the people were to receive the gospel through his chosen leaders and not from the Savior directly. The reason this lesson was so important to the Nephite people can be seen by reading in the 16th Chapter of Helaman shortly before the birth of the Savior.

“And they began to reason and to contend among themselves, saying: That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come; if so, and He be the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, as it has been spoken, why will he not show himself unto us as well as unto them who shall be at Jerusalem? Yea, why will He not show himself in this land as well as in the land of Jerusalem? But behold, we know that this is a wicked tradition, which has been handed down unto us by our fathers, to cause us that we should believe in some great and marvelous thing which should come to pass, but not among us, but in a land which is far distant, a land which we know not; therefore they can keep us in ignorance, for we cannot witness with our own eyes that they are true.

 And they will, by the cunning and the mysterious arts of the evil one, work some great mystery which we cannot understand, which will keep us down to be servants to their words, and also servants unto them, for we depend upon them to teach us the word; and thus will they keep us in ignorance if we will yield ourselves unto them, all the days of our lives.” (Helaman 16:15-21)

Shortly before the coming of the Savior, the Nephites showed that they were unwilling to follow the leadership of the church because they felt they needed to have firsthand experience, or proof, that what was being said was true.  The people felt that they knew better than their leaders and that if the church leaders would only listen to reason they would see the shortcomings of their doctrine.  As a result, when the Savior visited the Nephites it was an important part of his visit to establish the way in which the Lord would lead his church.  This was shown even more clearly as we read further:

 “ He said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name. And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.” (3 Nephi 18:5-6)

In essence, He was teaching the disciples and those present that the administration of the church was to come through one who He had called and given power to. As in Palestine his church in this hemisphere was to be built upon revelation but that revelation was to come through one who was appointed, as was Peter. In Mathew we read:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18)

In a more modern day example the Lord told the Joseph Smith that those alive in his time should receive word of the Lord through Him (Joseph Smith, see D&C 5:5-10).

This is not to say that we do not have direct access to the Saviour on a more personal level. We are shown amply in the scriptures how Christ takes time to succor the needs of the one but when it comes to the official ordinances, doctrines and governance of the church that there will be order. He teaches Himself

“for mine house is a house of order” (D&C 132:8).

Again the pattern was repeated during the presentation of the wine

 “And it came to pass that when he said these words, he commanded his disciples that they should take of the wine of the cup and drink of it, and that they should also give unto the multitude that they might drink of it. And it came to pass that they did so, and did drink of it and were filled; and they gave unto the multitude, and they did drink, and they were filled. ” (3 Nephi 18:5-11).

Finally  before Christ ascended to heaven He took a third opportunity to reinforce this principle: 

“And it came to pass that when Jesus had made an end of these sayings, he touched with his hand the disciples whom he had chosen, one by one, even until he had touched them all, and spake unto them as he touched them. And the multitude heard not the words which he spake, therefore they did not bear record; but the disciples bare record that he gave them power to give the Holy Ghost. And I will show unto you hereafter that this record is true. And it came to pass that when Jesus had touched them all, there came a cloud and overshadowed the multitude that they could not see Jesus. And while they were overshadowed he departed from them, and ascended into heaven. And the disciples saw and did bear record that he ascended again into heaven. (3 Nephi 18:36-39)

Christ could have ascended into heaven in the view of all but took one final opportunity to stress that he has given power to the disciples and through them He would govern his church through them he would bear is record. The Lord himself pleaded with the Nephites “Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you and to be your servants and unto them I have given power… and more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am. “ (3 Nephi 12:1-2). What more pertinent message could the Saviour give then and now to the members of the church? This does not mean we follow blindly nor are we are required to take them at their word. We are asked to test the promise of the Book of Mormon and ask God to show us the truth of all things (Moroni 10:3-5). If we do we can gain answers to our questions, strengthen our testimony and find peace in the knowledge that the church is being led by Christ today through those He has called and given power.

muse²

myo͞oz/

verb

verb: muse; 3rd person present: muses; past tense: mused; past participle: mused; gerund or present participle: musing

1. 1. 

   be absorbed in thought.

   "he was musing on the problems he faced"

   synonyms:

   ponder, consider, think over/about, mull over, reflect on, contemplate, turn over in one's mind, chew over, give some thought to, cogitate on; More think about, be lost in contemplation/thought over, daydream about "I mused on Toby's story"

   • say to oneself in a thoughtful manner.

     "“I think I've seen him somewhere before, mused Rachel"
   • gaze thoughtfully at.

noun

dated

noun: muse; plural noun: muses

1. 1. 

   an instance or period of reflection.

Origin

Middle English: from Old French muser ‘meditate, waste time,’ perhaps from medieval Latin musum ‘muzzle.’