After all, we are to be like Christ and follow him, so what is it that we are following?
So which way makes us Christlike?
It might surprise you that when Christ walked the earth he was asked the same question. Which faction did he claim? The Zealots who sought a political salvation. The Pharisees who were the guardians of the law and the literalness of scripture. The Sadducee camp which denied the resurrection and felt a more free and open approach was appropriate. He was claimed by his generation’s equivalent of Democrats and Republicans, Greens and Anarchists, Liahonas and Iron Rodders.
What struck me when I thought about this in the late 70s and early 80s, and when I think about it now, is that Christ’s response was that both the weighty matters of the law and the others needed to be respected and obeyed. In a way the answer he gave included “both” and “neither.”
I think it is too easy for us to miss sometimes what Christ said about the divides we encompass and those who sought to claim him, when we think we are trying to be like him. What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
Of course, the accounts of Jesus were written by various authors who emphasized things according to their own views. So, was Jesus both a Liahona and an Iron Rodder or is it more likely that Luke was a Liahona and Mark was an Iron Rodder (for example)?
I agree with hawkgrrrl. We don’t have an objective, contemporary account of Christ, so it is natural that people slant things.
Written accounts of Joseph Smith range from “next to Christ” level to “charlatan”. And they all use historically accurate accounts of his life – just slanted differently.
And even in our day, consider the different approaches to sin just in the books “Miracle of Forgiveness” and “Believing Christ”. They both quote scripture. They both were written by prominent men with good intentions. They are vastly different.
so, I realize this is somewhat more of a threadjack, but following up on what hawkgrrrl and Mike S said regarding the accounts we have of Christ — there is no such thing as an objective account of any event in history (or current events). There is *always* a bias of the recorder. It may be an overt bias (e.g. the winner in the war always writes the history, or Mormon picking and choosing what stories to tell), or an unconcious bias (e.g. unconsciously self-selecting which accounts to put in your diary/journal because you don’t think they’re important, or you don’t want to be seen in a bad light). Thus, there are huge difficulties in judging anyone based on a historical record.
Having said that, and still trying to get an answer to the OP’s questions, I think the best way to figure it out is to try to develop a personal relationship with Christ. This then will probably (certainly?) lead people to different conclusions, but that’s OK.
In my thinking, praying, and listening/watching for answerse, I think Christ leans much much more towards a Liahona type personality. There are a few required steps (some Iron Rod in there) as we do all have to end up like God. But beyond that, there are many things that need changing in us, and many different ways to achieve those changes.
I too agree with hawkgrrrl, but would add that if one takes what religious scholars using the historical method can agree upon as the “historical Jesus” from all extant accounts of his life (and it’s not a lot), I would say the events and teaching that pass the criteria of multiple or independent attestation, embarrassment (a.k.a. dissimilarity), coherence (a.k.a. consistency), early sources, and linguistic analysis, portray a Jesus that is more of a “Liahona” and less of an “iron rod” type of person.
I think Jesus realizes that the two are not opposing. The Spirit and the Law are one.
SilverRain #5, your remark that “I think Jesus realizes that the two are not opposing. The Spirit and the Law are one” made me think about this scripture from Jesus’ visit to the Nephites:
The law has its end in Christ. Thus, there can be no “law” that can be one with the “Spirit” — Christ said that there only remains the commandments of the Father: “that [we] shall believe in [Christ], and that [we] shall repent of [our] sins, and come unto [Him] with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
When He says that: “Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled. Therefore come unto me and be ye saved…” this means that it takes place apart from the law.
Re: the OP’s question — considering that the Liahona “did work for them according to their faith in God,” and that God works only according to the faith of the children of men — then I think the “Liahonas” have the edge in the debate.
It is kind of fun to contract the L/IR conflict with the Tao/Confucian conflict. Does right action or a right heart need to come first? Or should we strive for both?
Justin—to my understanding, Christ was specifically referring to the Law of Moses. When I say “law” it is “commandments” . . . you know, the “Iron Rod” side of the equation.
So I’m lost to your point, I think. My point is that there is no debate. The Spirit cannot be without the commandments, neither the commandments without the Spirit.
Stephen—precisely.
This may not apply to you SilverRain, but in my experience, when LDS refer to “commandments” being the “iron rod” they are referring to the deeds of the law. It may not be kosher food, not mixing cotton with wool, reciting the Shema, and offering firstlings of the flock — but it is law-based nevertheless [e.g. money donated, substances abstained from, and other “faithful” metrics]
However, if by “commandments” you meant: that we shall believe in Christ, and that we shall repent of our sins, and come unto Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit — then I see your point.
But if that’s “commandments”, then they aren’t really all that “iron rod” anymore are they?
The main disadvantage of “Liahona” thinking (besides the fact that Liahonas can sometimes become insufferably smug), is this: Where is the guard against the spiritual equivalent of “regulatory capture”? How do you keep your own personal Jiminy Cricket from becoming something like a Renaissance nobleman’s Jesuit confessor, ready and able to come up with all sorts of elegant explanations why doing what you wanted to do all along, is the right thing to do?
A little Iron Rod here and there is a good thing. I believe a person ought to make a point of observing some observances, that make absolutely no sense to him — that have no connection to any moral principle he can understand. It’s a reminder that your mind is fallible, and easily influenced by your appetites. Ideally, by recognizing some external check — some duty of obedience to an authority not your own — you remind yourself of this, and it spreads to other aspects of your life, so as to help you keep making your conscience into a Jesuit.
(No offense to modern Jesuits, who I’m sure are a perfectly fine bunch. Some old stereotypes are just too useful as metaphors to discard completely.)
So holding to the Iron Rod can be a hedge against personal inhumility, and its consequences. On the other hand, holding to the Iron Rod to the exclusion of anything else, or holding to iron rods that aren’t really Iron Rods, has a parallel potential for substituting institutional inhumility for personal inhumility. Moreoever, sometimes the institutionally-proud Iron Rodders wind up being spectacularly personally proud to boot, based on their superior orthodoxy.
So both approaches have their minefields. Thank heaven we’re not left all on our own in navigating them.
I’m still not sure how I feel about using the examples of the “iron rod” and the “Liahona” as two different ways followers of Christ can be grouped. I suspect it may be a false dichotomy.
Whatever it is, I think it is a waste of time because the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach the followers of Christ to become Liahonas or Iron Rodders. I don’t recall ever hearing a GA use these terms.
The whole purpose of the Book of Mormon, the church, and the gospel is to provide members with the where with all to fulfill their baptism covenant and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Hmm… Since I believe the Liahona and Iron Rod designations are a false dichotomy, it’s hard to think about which camp includes the Savior.
See my blog on this subject here:
http://alatterdayvoice.blogspot.com/2010/10/iron-rod-and-liahona-as-symbols-of.html
So I find myself agreeing with Silver Rain.
After all, the verse quoted in Alma by Justin in #6 could easily have substitued the iron rod for the compass, as both reflect holding on or giving heed to the word of Christ.
#9 Justin, what LDS refer to holding on to the iron rod as “commandments” — the iron rod is the word of God (see 1 Nephi 11:25 and 1 Nephi 15:24). Is that word of God that we hold onto different from the word of Christ to which we give heed as cited by you in #6?
The false dichotomy in Poll’s designation derives in part from the inflexiblity of iron, but i submit its symbol in the vision is as a sign of safety and permanence (He will never leave us), just as the needles of the compass always responded to the obedience of the holders of the Liahona.
The Savior, after all (and to return to the orginal question) did the will of Him who sent him, heeding, therefore, the word of God, just as successful Iron Rod and Liahona saints do.
Iron Rods need more Liahona and Liahonas need more Iron Rod. It is so often the lack in us of some key thing that holds us back. As soon as you fix your identity in a perspective … that’s pretty much the end right there. ~
Paul:
After all, the verse quoted in Alma by Justin in #6 could easily have substitued the iron rod for the compass, as both reflect holding on or giving heed to the word of Christ.
Yet Alma chose the Liahona as his example, instead of pulling from the vision of Lehi/Nephi. So perhaps Alma was the Liahona?
#9 Justin, what LDS refer to holding on to the iron rod as “commandments” —
The LDS that I have had experience with — also, apparently SilverRain, who said, “When I say “law” it is “commandments” . . . you know, the “Iron Rod” side of the equation” — thus equating law/commandments with the “iron rod”.
Is that word of God that we hold onto different from the word of Christ to which we give heed as cited by you in #6?
Are you saying that you don’t know if the scriptural references to the Word of God are talking about the same thing as the scriptural references to the Word of Christ?
“Are you saying that you don’t know if the scriptural references to the Word of God are talking about the same thing as the scriptural references to the Word of Christ?”
Quite the opposite. I’m suggesting they are the same.
The formula for success with the liahona and success with the iron rod was the same. Faithfulness, following the word of God, heeding the words of Christ.
The only difference between the two (and the one that Poll draws on in his coining of the terminology as it relates to Latter-day Saints) is that the iron rod is fixed, while the Liahona is not. But the benefit to us of either is achieved in the same way.
The metaphor of the “Iron Rod” being the “word of God” always interests me. Does “the word of God” mean the Word — that is, Christ himself — or does it mean the scriptures?
What exactly is it that we’re supposed to be holding on to? Jesus Christ and him crucified — or every last word of inerrant scripture?
Paul observed: “the iron rod is fixed while the liahona is not.” I think this difference is actually quite a shift in philosophy and the heart of what Poll was saying. Iron rodders cling to a religion they see as tangible, literal, and focused on actions (holding to the rod). Liahonas prefer a religion that is more intangible, figurative, and focused on faith and vision that give direction than on strict adherence.
The implication of this blog is that the Liahona and the Iron Rod are mutually exclusive events. That implication is false.
As we increase our study of the scriptures, as Alma says, the seed will swell and sprout and begin to grow. The seed is NOT faith, but the word of God. The more we nourish the seed by studying the word, the more it will grow.
Faith grows by applying the word of God. Tithing is a good example. The only way we will know it is true is by applying this principle in our lives. As Alma indicated, however, it is impossible to have true faith in a false idea. Thus, our faith with diminish the less we apply the principles of the Word.
Faith was the engine behind the Liahona. It’s power source was faith and faith’s power source is applying the principles found in the word. Faith is power. That is the whole point of the Liahona. Faith and the Word are synergistic; you can’t have one without the other. After all, faith without works (applying the principles in the word) is dead.
It’s a very rough analogy, but I see the “Liahona” as more of the eternal principles set by God and the “Iron Rod” as more of the malleable rules set by whichever leaders happen to be in charge – which may be good or bad.
Examples:
“Liahona” principles act as a compass, as guidelines to bring us back to God:
– Love God
– Love your fellowman
– Be honest
– Don’t kill
– Be chaste
– Look our for your neighbor
– Be willing to make an outward commitment such as baptism, circumcision, etc.
These things seem to be consistent and eternal principles. They are guidelines for our lives that point us in the direction we should go.
“Iron Rod” things are rules that are NOT consistent, but may apply in a given time.
– In the time of Moses, there were restrictions on things like pork, what days they could gather manna, etc.
– In the time of Christ, there were whole sets of rules build up around the Jewish faith
– In our day, there are things like drinking wine ok -> drinking wine not ok, blacks +/- the priesthood, movie ratings, wrist length garments vs shoulder length garments vs no garments, number of earrings, polygamy, etc.
The interesting thing about the “Iron Rod” rules are that things that seem of ultimate importance at one time seem quaint or unimportant at other times. We look at the law of Moses as archaic in many ways. Early Church members would look on our “not a drop” mentality as strange. We look at their polygamy as unfathomable.
Also, interestingly, Christ continually railed against “Iron Rod” types of practices in the Bible. The things he taught, from the Beatitudes to other parables, etc. were generally ALL “Liahona” types of principles, where the implementation in someone’s life was generally between that person and God, and not some religious leader’s interpretation of things.
#17 HG– I think you’ve captured Poll’s intent.
#19 Mike S — I fear that you may be describing how some “live” this principle, but I don’t believe it’s supported by the scriptures themselves.
I think Jesus read the Liahona but rolled it up to discipline with. He may have used an iron rod for this too.
I would have to agree that the ‘iron rod’ and the ‘liahona’ are two sides of the same coin. The angel told Nephi that the iron rod was the ‘word of God’ (2 Nephi 11:25). Looking at the index of my triple combination, one finds that the ‘word of God’ and the ‘word of the Lord’ are included in the same reference; the first of which is 1 Nephi 2:3 where we read of Lehi’s dream prompting him to take his family into the wilderness. We read that “Lehi was obedient to the word of the Lord.” This event clearly describes a demonstration of personal revelation received in a dream and is defined as the word of the Lord.
To further differentiate the idea of the word of God being personal revelation, take a look at 1 Nephi 2:13:
“Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father.”
After describing the word of God as personal revelation, Nephi defines the recorded revelations, the scriptures, as the words of the prophets. Here in the same chapter, within the same narrative, we find Nephi defining a clear difference between personal revelation and scripture.
The liahona worked based faith, just as the iron rod/word of God/personal revelation does.