What are Mormons referring to when they talk about "the stick of Joseph"?

What are Mormons referring to when they talk about "the stick of Joseph"?

Full Question

A Mormon missionary has been trying to argue for the Book of Mormon by discussing "the stick of Joseph" and "the stick of Judah." What on earth is he talking about?

Answer

He's referring to a verse in Ezekiel. The passage reads:

The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: Then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. (Ez 37:15-17, KJV)

This is one of several passages Mormons try to conscript to prove the Bible spoke of another inspired work of scripture that was to be brought forth in the "latter days."

Mormons rely greatly on the Ezekiel passage as a proof text to demonstrate not only the possibility of divine scripture aside from the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon's doctrinal equality with it. They assume that the "stick of Judah" is the Bible, while the "stick of Joseph" is the Book of Mormon. In these, the latter days, the two have been joined together, forming the bulk of Mormon scripture.

Mormonism's professed literal interpretation of Scripture does not extend to hundreds of passages it rejects as corrupted or that it skews to suit its own purposes. In the case of Ezekiel 37, Mormons not only neglect the plain sense of the words but also ignore their true interpretation, given by God--in the very same chapter.

First, the Hebrew term translated as "stick" (aits) is never used anywhere in the Old Testament to mean "book," "scroll," "writing" or anything similar. It is variously translated as "wood" or "branch," "timber," or "tree." Needless to say, the Book of Mormon was allegedly written on metal plates, not scrolls or sticks.

Second, the correct interpretation of this symbolic action of the prophet is given just a few verses later. Ezekiel is to take the two sticks, put them end to end and hold the joined ends in his hand. He thus displays to the people a "single" stick, once again united. This is to show that the scattered remnants of the Southern kingdom ("Judah") and Northern kingdom of Israel ("Joseph") will be returned from exile, restored to their land, and made one nation again. "They shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all" (Ez 37:22).

With divine impetus, Ezekiel first spoke this parable of redemption then enacted it. Only Mormonism can manage to mistake "timber" for "scrolls" and "nations" for "metal plates."

Take a look at the passage in a more modern translation:

The word of the Lord came to me: "Son of man, take a stick and write on it, 'For Judah, and the children of Israel associated with him,' then take another stick and write upon it, 'For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him,' and join them together into one stick. . . . Behold, I am about to take the stick of Joseph (which is in the hand of Ephraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with him; and I will join with it the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, that they may be one in my hand. . . . I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all sides, and bring them to their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms." (Ez 37:15-22, RSV)

As the text makes clear, this is a prophecy of national reunification, not about the appearance of hidden scriptures.

Answered by: Isaiah Bennett

Should we stand or kneel at Mass?

Should we stand or kneel at Mass?

Full Question

A liturgist told me that we should return to the practice of standing during the consecration. According to him, the early Church did not kneel and the Jews did not kneel in worship either. He said kneeling is a sign or penance and begging, but we are the people of the risen God. How do I respond?

Answer

Kneeling in prayer and the liturgy has a complicated history. The First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) included a canon proscribing kneeling on Sundays and during Pentecost, suggesting that kneeling was common in the early Church at other times (e.g., on weekdays). Eventually kneeling became more common in public prayer with the increase of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

The early Church saw kneeling in public as essentially a penitential act, since the penitents knelt during the parts of the liturgy that they were allowed to attend. Kneeling now has more of a reverential than penitential connotation attached to it.

In regards to the first Christians and Jews not kneeling, we see Peter and Paul kneeling in prayer in Acts 9:40 and 20:36. Likewise, the Jews knelt on the occasion of a special solemnity, as we see when Solomon dedicated the temple, "kneeling down in the presence of all the multitude of Israel, and lifting up his hands towards Heaven" (2 Chr 6:13).

In the Eucharist we are invited to approach an even greater manifestation of God's presence--the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of God the Son--so it is fitting that we adopt what in our culture is one of the most reverential postures. Most fundamentally, kneeling at the consecration is a matter of obedience. Some may like to stand, but the Holy See does not allow for this (GIRM 21).

If someone argues that we should copy the supposed practice of the early Church, point out two things: (1) The current rubrics don't allow us to stand during the consecration, and (2) if they're really advocating a return to the early Church's practice of the liturgy, that still wouldn't result in everyone at Mass standing. In the early Church, those who had committed grave sins were often required to do penance for years, either outside the church door on Sundays or--if they were allowed in church--kneeling or prostrating themselves through the service while everyone else stood.

Answered by:  Jason Evert

Jesus had a human nature, so wouldn't he also have had a naturally sinful nature?

Jesus had a human nature, so wouldn't he also have had a naturally sinful nature?

Full Question

Wouldn't Jesus have to have been sinful since he had a human nature just like ours? Sin is natural for us, so it must have been natural for him. The difference is he didn't obey his sinful nature.

Answer

Be careful here. One of the blunders many people make is gnosticism (which believes, among other things, that the spiritual and physical are necessarily opposed). This is not so. "Nature" is not corrupt. Corruption is corrupt. Sin is precisely what is contrary to the nature that God calls "good" in the book of Genesis. It is damage to nature, not nature itself, that constitutes sin. Thus, sin (which we all inherit in Adam) is based on a warping and a deformation of our nature. It is never natural for us. Thus Jesus, the perfect man, had a perfect human nature, one that did not include sin.

Is our parish renovation required to follow the guidelines in "Environment and Art in Catholic Worship"?

Is our parish renovation required to follow the guidelines in "Environment and Art in Catholic Worship"?

Full Question

Our parish church is about to undergo "renovation." We've had "experts" come to the parish to "explain" to us that all the changes are mandated by a document called Environment and Art in Catholic Worship. Do we have to follow this document?

Answer

No, because it has no official force, at least on a national level. (It is possible that an individual bishop may declare it to be the controlling document in his own diocese.) Environment and Art in Catholic Worship was prepared for the bishops' committee on the liturgy. It passed a vote in that committee but never was submitted to the entire body of bishops for their vote, presumably because its backers knew that the majority would turn it down. It then proceeded into samizdat publication. Some versions come not just with text but with photographs purportedly showing the kinds of renovations intended by the text.

As architecturally misguided as the text may be-everything is in terms of modernist church architecture, none in classical-the photographs are worse. An especially amusing one shows a "presider's chair," seemingly fashioned out of concrete, so pretentious that a Roman emperor could have used it. Such a chair would tend to focus the congregation's attention during Mass on the priest as a man, not on the sacred action at the altar-precisely the opposite of what such "renovations" are supposed to accomplish. The sorriest thing about the photographs (and by inference the text) is that the images look so dated, inevitably identified with 1960s architecture. There is no sense of timelessness. It would be hard to imagine any of the illustrated churches seeming anything but passe to worshipers at the turn of the millennium.

Answered by:  Karl Keating

Were we correct to stop anointing our prayer group members with oil?

Were we correct to stop anointing our prayer group members with oil?

Full Question

My wife and I recently told our charismatic prayer group that we should not be anointing any person with oil when we pray with them, citing the recent Instruction on Collaboration. Is our interpretation correct? Do we need our bishop's approval to tell the prayer group to stop anointing? What Church documents state that only a priest may anoint with oil?

Answer

I discussed this with a canon lawyer, and we agreed that your interpretation is correct. You do not need your bishop's permission to bring a particular legislative text to the attention of your prayer group; on the other hand, members of the prayer group certainly have a right to go to the diocese and ask if your interpretation of the document is correct.

Canon 1003 §1 of the Code of Canon Law states: "Every priest, and only a priest, validly administers the anointing of the sick." The fact that only priests can give the anointing of the sick was infallibly defined at the Council of Trent (Canons Concerning Extreme Unction 4).

While it is impossible for anyone but a priest to administer the sacrament of holy anointing validly, this does not in principle rule out the possibility of non-priests, including laity, administering non-sacramental anointings. In principle, it is possible for non-priests to anoint people with oil and ask God to bless or heal the person, while acknowledging that this is not a sacramental anointing and that God has not promised to use this anointing the way he has promised to use the sacrament of anointing. However, such anointings would run a risk of confusing people: (1) They might think that this was a sacramental anointing; (2) they might start relying on this easier-to-obtain anointing rather than on the sacrament; and (3) they might start using this as a way of "getting around" the cautions and regulations the Church naturally has had to set up to protect the sacrament of holy anointing, just as it has to protect all the sacraments.

To avoid these problems, the Church might prohibit non-sacramental anointings, just as it might prohibit a near-imitation of any sacrament. Suppose people were taking catechumens and building them into a state of prayerful expectancy and then pouring water on them and saying, "May the Lord regenerate you and give you new life and forgiveness of sins and open unto you the gates of heaven, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This would be a close imitation of baptism, and grave problems would result if it were not made absolutely clear to the catechumens that this is not the sacrament of baptism, that God has not promised to use this ritual to give them any of the blessings of baptism, that they are required to go ahead and seek baptism after this, and that this cannot be used as a way of avoiding baptism or the Church's regulations concerning it. The Church might well choose to prohibit all such non-sacramental water rituals.

In our day, especially in charismatic circles, there are many people who encourage prayerful expectancy in those who seek healing and then perform a non-sacramental anointing on them. Because of the problems this widespread practice may cause, the Church now has prohibited non-sacramental anointings. The November 1997 Instruction on Collaboration states:

The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the sacraments of penance and the anointing of the sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the anointing of the sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the oil of the sick or any other oil. (Instruction, "Practical Provisions," art. 9 §1)

This does not say simply that the laity cannot perform the sacrament of holy anointing. It says that they may "in no instance . . . perform anointings, either with the oil of the sick [used in the sacrament of holy anointing] or any other oil." The purpose of this is to protect the sacrament of holy anointing from being confused with these other anointings. Since there is the danger of confusion in our age (which is pretty confused, anyway), it is simpler to just prohibit non-sacramental anointings rather than run the risks of people neglecting the sacrament Christ did institute for this purpose and putting their trust in a different ritual.

Note that the document also stresses that when administering sacramentals, the laity must ensure that the sick realize that these are not sacraments. That applies, of course, to sacramentals approved by the Church. When it comes to prayer with anointing, which is not an approved sacramental, the laity are prohibited from doing it altogether. They may perform only those sacramentals that the Church has approved for them to perform.

Did Jesus choose only men as apostles simply because of the cultural mores of his era?

Did Jesus choose only men as apostles simply because of the cultural mores of his era?

Full Question

Is it really all that significant that Jesus chose only men to be apostles? Wasn't that really just a reflection of the patriarchal values of the culture he lived in-a culture in which women priests would have been inconceivable?

Answer

Allow me to stand your question on its head: Why do you suppose that priestesses were "inconceivable" in contemporary Jewish culture when they were common in other ancient Near Eastern cultures? Why would the people to whom God revealed himself and entrusted with his divine revelation and precepts have had less understanding than their neighbors on this point? Many other aspects of Jewish faith and practice had parallels in ancient Near Eastern cultures: temples, altars, sacrifices, ceremonial washings, ark-vessels, and so forth. Where the religious practices of that day and age were acceptable to God-either because they were grounded in natural law or at least because they were neutral cultural conventions-God allowed them to be incorporated into the religion of his people. Where the culturally accepted practices of that milieu were not allowed to take root in Judaism, we must recognize that God corrected the errors and distortions introduced by fallible human beings.

What is the difference between the lack of sanctifying grace and the deprivation of it?

What is the difference between the lack of sanctifying grace and the deprivation of it?

Full Question

I was reading that original sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace, not just the lack of sanctifying grace. What is the difference?

Answer

To lack something is to simply not have that thing; to be deprived of something is to have suffered the loss of that thing. For example, as a human being, I naturally lack wings. I have not been deprived of wings, since wings are not part of human nature. Conversely, a bird lacks arms, but is not deprived of them, because arms are not part of avian nature. If I had been born without arms, I would have been deprived of them by a birth defect, for they are part of human nature, just as a bird born without wings would be deprived of and not merely lack wings.

When God created man, he could have created him in what is called the state of pure nature, in which he did not have the supernatural endowment of sanctifying grace. Had the human race persisted in that state, children would be born lacking sanctifying grace, but not deprived of it. Instead, God chose to create man in what is called the state of elevated nature, in which our first parents were endowed with sanctifying grace as a gift not just to them but to their posterity. Unfortunately, they lost this gift for themselves and for us, and so now we are born deprived of sanctifying grace. This has consequences. While original sin itself is the deprivation of sanctifying grace, it also carries with it a fallen and corrupt nature, which is the stain of original sin.

To give a comparison, suppose God created man in an elevated state in which we were endowed not only with the arms and legs that are proper to our nature, but also with an added gift of wings. Suppose then that Adam and Eve did something that not only cost them their own power of flight, but also caused their offspring to be born with stubby, non-functional wings. This would cause problems for human nature, and even if God later restored wings to individual believers as an act of grace, we still could suffer problems from the genetic damage that had cost us our flight in the first place.