The Chosen: Season 1

Today I'd like to introduce you to a great show I've come across: The Chosen distributed by VidAngel Studios. This is a multi-season depiction of the life of Christ. One season has been completed, and the second season is set to launch this Sunday (Easter). In all there will be seven seasons -- with the last two covering the death and resurrection of Christ.

Season 1 starts (I believe) shortly after Jesus' 40-day fasting period and covers the very first miracles and the beginnings of the gathering of the twelve apostles. Along the way, we learn much about the apostles before they are chosen and other characters. Simon (who later becomes Peter) is a fisherman struggling to pay off debts. Matthew is a publican working with the Romans to try to make sure the Jews are all paying their taxes. Nicodemus is a high-ranking Pharisee who decides to investigate the wonders of a man named Jesus. Gaius is a Roman soldier who works closely with Matthew as he tries to work up the promotion chain. Quintus is his superior, who desires to quell the uprising of Jesus.

The result is a rich cast, and a strong plot, with excellent acting and many good moments.

You may notice with some other scripture videos, such as what my church produces, that they are very careful to stick to scripture. When Jesus speaks in these other videos, or if someone speaks to him, 95% of the time, they're uttering words straight out of the Bible, which can be both good and bad. Good -- you don't get anything wrong. Bad -- if you read the same Bible I do, the dialogue doesn't really flow naturally. We clearly get only bits and pieces from the four Gospels. So, as Jesus speaks, he often utters words that don't feel so natural -- as if we had missed something -- perhaps Jesus had said something else in the middle not recorded in scripture, or someone else had asked a question not recorded, which would lead much more naturally to Jesus' utterances. This is fine when we read, but I don't think it always translates well to video, and can even end up looking a little corny.

However, with The Chosen, the writers fill in the blanks. Thus we get believable naturally flowing dialogue. This sometimes comes at the price of doctrinal correctness. Sometimes Jesus says something that made me think, "wait a minute -- that's not quite right." But you know what? I'll take "naturally flowing" over 100% doctrinal correctness any day. Because I can relate much better.

Also, consider this. In the scriptures, Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus is but a passing meeting -- if you read too fast you may even miss it. But because the writers fleshed out the whole backstory of Nicodemus, the conversation ends up being much more ... personal. And I believe I may have felt the Spirit in several of the scenes of this show more than I have in watching many of my own church's scripture videos.

I should also mention that VidAngel is run by members of my church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but the show itself is 100% produced, created, and written by people from outside of this church. It is also highly vetted by biblical scholars and experts.

I highly recommend catching this show. If you love Jesus, or are looking for a good introduction into who Jesus is, I believe you would enjoy this show. So, give it a try. Look it up.

I'm Not Worthy!

Today I'd like to talk about probably one of the biggest misconceptions about repentance.

I was reading last night in Carl Sagan's Cosmos, as he relates the story of the astronomer Johannes Kepler. This was an individual who was deeply involved in his religion. I believe he held on to his religion at the end, but he was often at odds with how the Church treated people. At a very young age, his parents sent him to a Protestant seminary in Maulbronn, during which time he had no friends. The teachings at this school were apparently very strict -- so much so that he believed he was a sinner and that salvation was beyond his grasp.

As I read further, Carl Sagan goes on about how the Catholic archduke in Kepler's area decided to rid the lands of heretics, killing and exiling them.

And it hit me -- for centuries, if not millennia, evil people have been using otherwise perfectly good religions as a way to control people in order to maintain absolute power. And part of this control is to teach the people that they are not worthy. They are sinners. They have no hope, so they must rely on the Church and their priests for salvation.

I think of images of people whipping their own backs while chanting, "I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!" And then I realize that for a major part of my life, I have been guilty of doing exactly the same. I don't know how many times I've beaten myself up because I sinned, or made a mistake. But then it's because I had never fully understood repentance and godly sorrow.

For years, I thought godly sorrow was just that: crying, and punishing ourselves and chanting, "I'm not worthy!" But now I don't think it's anything of the sort.

It's true -- none of us is perfect. I've sinned before and I'm likely to sin again. And true -- left to my own devices, I would have no chance to redeem myself if I ever wanted to get into heaven. Even the slightest blotch really does make us unworthy to enter heaven. I can only get in if that blotch is removed, and Jesus has provided a way for this to happen. It's called the Atonement, and a major part of it is called repentance. We do our part to repent and Christ takes care of the rest.

And this is excellent news (literally what "Gospel" means). We really can enter heaven -- we really are worthy of this privilege. All of this whipping our backs business is ineffective and unnecessary.

Let's say that I've sinned against my neighbor. I'm struggling to come up with a good sin that's not too egregious -- let's see -- in my anger I grab a bat and totally bash in the front of his car. Headlights smashed. Lots of dents.

After a couple of days, my anger cools down and I start to feel bad. Perhaps I start feeling remorse. Was I right to be angry in the first place? Was it worth damaging his expensive property? Would there be retribution -- would he come after my car?

In this case -- as I believe now -- godly sorrow would be having sadness about my neighbor having to deal with his damaged car. Can he afford to fix it? What about his feelings of security in the neighborhood? What about any chances of friendship? Perhaps I should do something. I should insist on covering all the costs. I need to make it up to him. Let him know what I really feel. Apologize sincerely.

What would not be godly sorrow would be this: I can't believe I did that. I'm a terrible person. I have absolutely no chance to get into heaven now. I need to punish myself. I'm not worthy. I shouldn't even try to make amends, because I'll never undo what I've done. It's permanent. 

Or even worse -- even after paying everything off -- "I can't believe I did that so many years ago. I'm never getting into heaven. I'm not worthy."

That's not godly sorrow. Rather, it's self-pity.

And I think it really comes down to this -- it is not our job to punish ourselves. Leave that to God. If we do our part to repent, then we can move on and grow -- concentrate on the good parts of our lives. Live our lives -- and actually become better people. And always getting closer to God.

Kepler, whom I started with, eventually overcame his feelings of unworthiness, and he excelled, providing the very first mathematically correct model of the solar system. He didn't have to give up religion -- only the bad parts that others had made up -- that were crippling him. We, too, can live our religion and also live up to our full potential. Through Jesus' Atonement and repentance, we can be worthy, we can succeed, and we can be happy in the here-and-now.

Note: This blog entry overlaps considerably with a talk that was given in church today -- we're saying practically the same thing, but emphasizing different aspects. I think she did better than I did -- wish we had a transcript of that talk as well. The subject also came up in our Priesthood meeting, and it all coincided with my Cosmos reading, and it also has some relevance in our weekly reading. Sometimes I wonder if these coincidences are one way that God speaks to us. "Mel needs to really listen to this message, and he's got a thick head -- this will catch his attention."

The Coronavirus Vaccines and Religion

For this week's spiritual thought, I've decided to go ahead and breach a sensitive topic, and to get really specific today ... the coronavirus vaccines and how they relate to our religions.

For over a year, Covid-19 has sickened tens of millions of people and killed almost three million worldwide. But now, several vaccines are becoming more and more available from Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and others.

And now that we have these vaccines, it appears to be ending all the sickness and death, and we can already see a dent in the US. By all measures, these vaccines are truly miracles. Their efficacy is much higher than anyone could have hoped. Not only have study results been promising, but the US is keeping a close watch on results from the three vaccines currently available. Since they are approved on an emergency basis only, they are closely monitored for adverse side effects, and so far deaths and side effects have been very low -- similar to expected results from "placebo" (or in other words -- if no vaccine had been given).

Also promising are the low death and hospitalization rates post-vaccination. If someone catches the virus, it's only a moderate case and they are very likely to live. Lower hospitalization rates should also give our hard-working front-liners time to breath, which will give them more time to save even more lives. 

These vaccines are being compared to the measles and chicken-pox vaccines -- so successful that I think it really could nearly eradicate this coronavirus. Much better than the flu vaccines that usually have hit-or-miss success.

I truly believe that these vaccines have been inspired by God, and the speed in which they arose may have come from all the prayers and fasting around the world.

But there's a catch -- which I'm sure many of you are already aware -- all four vaccines that I mentioned above make use of line cells (either in their testing or production) that descended from cells from aborted fetuses from the 1960's to 1980's. And most of our religion are against abortion, which then brings up questions of morality. On one hand, you have saving millions of lives and on the other hand you have babies being killed. So, understandably some are hesitant to get the vaccine.

When I first heard about this, it caught me off guard. I hate abortion, so I was very concerned, but then I learned more facts. There is more to the story. I'll present the facts here and let you decide for yourself.

#1) These cells are NOT coming from new abortions. There is absolutely no way that these vaccines are going to create a demand for abortions.

In fact ... 

#2) These cells come from less than 10 specific aborted fetuses. And there were strict rules surrounding the original extraction of these cells, and rules today on how they can be used in practice. The four vaccines above come from exactly three of these fetuses.

MRC-5 comes from the lung of an aborted fetus in 1966.

HEK-293 comes from the kidney of a fetus (spontaneous miscarriage or elective abortion) in 1973.

PER.C6 comes from the eye of an aborted fetus in 1985.

None of these fetuses were obtained through abortions for the use of science. In other words -- the fetuses were first aborted, and only then were the cells were gathered. And once gathered, these cells can reproduce like crazy. This means it is not necessary to kill any additional babies to generate further cells.

Pfizer and Moderna used HEK-293 to test the effectiveness of the vaccine they created, but the vaccine itself doesn't contain those cells.

Johnson & Johnson used PER.C6 in testing AND production of their vaccine. It's unclear to me if there are actual PER.C6 cells in the vaccine itself, but it was at least used in the initial production.

AstraZeneca used both HEK-293 and MRC-5 in testing AND production.

The Catholic Church first came out to express support of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, as the cells being used to test were sufficiently removed from a vaccine receiver's culpability. They later came out with reservations against Johnson & Johnson (and possibly AstraZeneca) because the cells were used in production as well -- but at the same time, they provided an argument as to when you can't choose which vaccine you receive (due to scarcity), then you are absolved of any sin.

Now that these cells exist, I personally see very little immorality in continuing to grow these cells and using them to save millions of lives without having to kill any more babies. On the flip side I'd hate myself if I ever learned that I allowed my sickness to kill another person (even if I never got that sick). So, weighing everything, I feel it is much more beneficial for me to get my shot(s) sometime soon. Not only would I be protecting myself, but I would be helping to protect my family and strangers I may meet in passing and their families as well.

I understand that many of you reading will think differently, but that's okay. Just make sure you get the full story -- it may not be as bad as you might have thought. 

For more information, you can start your own research with these information packets:

A short explanation as to how these cells are used.

More information on these cells in the three vaccines currently available in the US.

A big list of which vaccines use these cells, and which ones don't.

Early Church -- 1830

By Jake from Utah, United States - Peter Whitmer Log Home

For this week's spiritual thoughts, I thought I'd relate some Church history -- primarily targeting those not of my church, but as usual, the thoughts are for everyone.

As we read through the Doctrine & Covenants this year, we're currently in the period where Joseph Smith had just officially organized the Church on April 6, 1830, and is now beginning the ministry -- reaching out to find more members.

On that day, Joseph met with at least five others who had been baptized, and a whole bunch of friends and family. They met in a small log cabin -- the home of Peter Whitmer. At this meeting, they signed all the official paperwork. They administered the first "Sacrament" (called Eucharist or Communion in other churches), in other words -- the bread and wine. They set apart Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as the first elders. Many people were then baptized. Over the next weeks, the church would be organized and church meetings held and so on.

As my thoughts reflect on this time in Church history, I'm especially sensitive this time to the "starting-up" aspect. I'm currently trying to grow my own business in music publishing. In its very beginnings, it started off very slow -- the very first sales went to friends and family. But then perfect strangers started buying my products. I've even been able to attract some relatively big-name Latter-day Saint composers to sell their music as well. I'm still nowhere near breaking even -- so I remain in the "getting the word out" stage of the business. I haven't quite figured that part out, but I'm working on it.

At this stage of Church history, it's exactly where Joseph Smith is. In April 1830, the Church membership consisted of friends and family. In a very short time, the first missionaries will be sent out. I can fully understand what Joseph Smith was going through: "How do I let people know about this great thing I found?"

Also, keep in mind that all these people were poor. Joseph Smith belonged to a family of farmers who barely made enough to survive. After Joseph finished translating the Book of Mormon in 1829, it existed as just a manuscript -- hundreds of pages full of handwriting. But in order for it to do any good, it had to be published so people could have their own copies. Joseph had no way of coming up with that kind of money. Neither did his friend, Oliver Cowdery, a schoolteacher.

Enter Martin Harris -- someone who became Joseph's friend very early on -- who helped translate the Book of Mormon in the very early stages, but then lost over 100 pages of the first manuscript. He became distraught and distanced himself for over a year. But he had money.

In late 1829, he agreed to mortgage most of his farm to finance the publication of the Book of Mormon, hoping to be paid back from the sales profits. D&C 19 promises Martin blessings if he did what he did.

Unfortunately -- over the next few years, the Book of Mormon would sell miserably -- either because people didn't want it, or because members of the Church were handing them out for free. I'm not sure why, but I hear that Martin Harris eventually loses the farm -- and his wife. He would also leave the Church and later come back. This article gives some high-level details of Martin Harris's contribution.

It's just interesting to me to realize that without Martin Harris, there would be no Book of Mormon, and possibly no church. Perhaps Joseph would have found someone else, but at the time there was no one else.

It's also interesting that Martin would agree to do it. He was already having trouble with his wife, and the wealth he had accumulated was substantial for the times. It would be a true sacrifice to help make the Church possible. He believed in what he was doing, and he agreed to do it.

I often wonder if I'll ever have to do a similar kind of sacrifice. Being part of any religion seems to require sacrifice on a smaller scale -- giving up sins, paying offerings, imparting of your time to help others, and so on. And sometimes just being a good human being requires similar sacrifices. Is it worth it? In my case, I seem to come out better. 

As someone said today in our Sunday lesson: Is life easy? No. But am I going to avoid life? No. Is marriage and having a family (which requires sacrifices) easy? No. But am I sad that I have a family? No.

In giving up sins, I can enjoy more freedoms and enjoy life. In paying offerings, I'm helping others to have a better life. When I'm helping others, it helps me to feel good. And so on. Sacrifices aren't always easy, but they can definitely have an impact, and you can influence others for good.

Coming back to the Church history to wrap things up. Our reading is at a point where it's going to start growing like crazy, and they're going to build a strong community and long-lasting traditions -- a church, which almost 200 years later has millions of members across the entire globe. Every big thing starts somewhere, and this specific church started with a meeting in a small log cabin.

Genealogies

Last week, our Sunday lesson was on genealogy, and learning how to trace our roots. I'll have to first admit that this is one area in which I'm sorely lacking. We Latter-day Saints are encouraged to trace back as far as we go and find all the links that we can. I believe it's one of the defining characteristics of our Church. Many know of our skills in tracking down our ancestry. And chances are, if you visit any ancestral website, its directors or employees are likely to consist of several members of my church.

So, why all this focus on our ancestors?

I, myself, asked this very question during our Sunday lesson. The Old Testament ends with this verse:

And he [Elijah] shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. (Malachi 4:6)

Our Doctrine and Covenants includes a revelation given in 1823 that references this same verse, but slightly changed, and almost with a sense of more urgency:

And he [Elijah] shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming. (D&C 2:2-3)

I've never understood why the urgency, and I still don't fully understand the curse or the wasting. It clearly seems to be important, but what I don't see so much is what would happen if we (the children) fail to turn to our "fathers." Why the importance? 

I don't ask the question because I wish to rebel and not do my genealogy, but because I seek understanding. If it weren't important, then it wouldn't be written -- "ignore and I'll smite you with a curse."

One thing to understand about my church -- we believe in being able to perform vicarious ordinances for our dead ancestors. If they failed to be baptized in their mortal life, we can perform the baptism in their behalf here on earth, and if they accept the baptism in the post-life spiritual world, then they can enjoy the same blessings of others who had been baptized. They can then enter into the Kingdom of God, and all that good stuff. So -- yeah -- I get it -- if we don't turn to our "fathers" and help them get into heaven, then what good are we? But the curse and/or warning seems larger than that.

Anyway -- I thought I'd share two quick stories from my own life that are special memories.

The first happened when I was a young kid -- I can't remember how old I was. My grandmother came down with her father, Great Grandpa Aiken, and we all went to Dahlonega, Georgia to look for where his own grandfather Jasper was buried. He had died near the end of the Civil War of some disease. It took all day, but my Great Grandpa didn't give up -- asking local people questions at their homes, searching graveyards for the tombstone -- visiting churches. Near the end of the day, we had found a church with a graveyard in the back, and there were two unmarked graves. The person attending the church pulled out the records and determined that the two people buried were unknown, but had died around the same time as Jasper. It felt like we were in the right place, but there was no proof. We had to end the search because the sun was setting and there was nowhere else to look.

To be honest, I think I was bored most of the time, but there were moments when I could see and understand what was going on -- the whole "turning to the fathers" thing -- searching for answers -- trying to learn more about ancestors -- people who had shared his genes. Eventually, more answers would be found later, but I learned that it was through the search that we can grow. It's not just about saving our ancestors, but also learning more about ourselves.

And the second memory comes from a couple of years ago when I joined my ward's effort to beef up our indexing efforts. "Indexing" is what we call the manual digitization of official document facsimiles. We have some AI that tries to read these documents, but we humans can volunteer to proof and translate the documents where the AI fails.

In particular, the queue mentioned a batch of German death records. I don't know that much German, but figured I could give it a shot. The page I was given was a big mess. Messy handwriting, and words I didn't understand. There were about 30-40 names on that one form, and for each name I was supposed to provide certain information -- sex, age, date of death, etc. And I was struggling with the age, as it appeared that some critical information was missing. The age was in two (or three columns). The first column was seldom populated, and the second column was always populated. It took me a while to translate the column headings -- the first column was "years" and the second was "months," but I didn't understand why the most important one -- years -- was missing. It didn't seem right -- I was wrong about something.

I also had to figure out the sex. It took me an hour to decipher the characters and to learn that sohn meant "son" and tochter was "daughter." But many of these had an extra suffix ... sohnlein and tochterlein. What did it mean? And did I have the right characters from the messy handwriting? And then it hit me ...

The suffix lein means "little one." For each "lein" the year column was missing its number. It wasn't because the number was missing. The vast majority of the deaths listed on that form were infants who had not finished their first year of life. I had my answer -- all of their ages were 0. At the same time, it was like a door opened up and I could feel the grief of the parents rising from the dust -- after some major incident had occurred that killed many infants. Perhaps I would have missed all this if I didn't struggle with the German and the handwriting.

Do you have similar stories of genealogy? In my case it seems I've only just begun on my journey to reach out to my ancestors. Now that I'm older, it's like I want to understand more about where I came from. In my earlier years, I could hardly care less, but now I really want to know.