Good or evil.  Material or immaterial.  Mind or matter.  Spiritual or physical. Even male or female. As this article from the Jewish Virtual Library describes, many of these “dualism” classifications have been used as the bases of philosophy and religions since primitive times. They seem to constantly reemerge after being subordinated to religious and philosophical principles of “monism” (oneness or wholeness).

Duality instead has nothing to do with two different aspects of reality.  In contrast, it focuses on recognizing that a single, inseparable “monist” reality does almost always have two (or more) entirely separable “dual” descriptions.  It is the descriptions of reality that are dual — like two languages used to describe the same concept — and not the reality itself.

In a way, duality was the key to the anomaly that sparked the entire quantum revolution in physics at the beginning of the 1900′s.  Light had been understood as electromagnetic waves since the work of James Maxwell, published in 1864.  The existence of such waves was a mathematically required consequence of the basic laws of electricity and magnetism that had been easily verified in the laboratory.

But as the 20th Century dawned, observations about light were beginning to pile up that could not be explained by any wave model.  Instead, depending only on the question an experiment tested, light seemed to betray either wave-like or particle-like behavior. Look for wave properties, and the experiment would find them; look for particle properties, and the experiment would find them instead. Even notions of everyday common sense would break down to maintain the insistence on light being both wave and particle.

Worse, when the wave experiments grew sophisticated enough to be applied to good-old-rock-solid matter, matter showed exactly the same stubborn insistence on being both particle and wave-like, too.  Everything in the material world turned out to exhibit the properties of these seemingly contradictory physical models.  Reality could not be so neatly compartmentalized according to the mental constructs humanity had available.

For a time, there was even a trendy word to describe things — “wavacle” — until people realized that giving something a new name didn’t mean we understood it any better.  Quantum mechanics, the science that developed out of these early shocks to our conceptual system, has only one reality.  But it can be described in at least two mathematical languages: the mathematical language of waves, and the mathematical language of “matrices”.

The languages were proven to be translatable from one to another before 1930, and so they must always make exactly the same predictions.  But the value in the notion of duality is that — just as some things are easy to say in German that are extraordinarily difficult to say in Japanese, and vice versa — the difficulty in making predictions in one description is easy for some situations, yet impossibly hard in the other description.  And in some other situation, the utility of the two descriptions is completely reversed.  Scientists needed two conceptually different languages to describe this one reality in which we live.

New examples of duality showed up with increasing frequency as people began to appreciate the explanatory power of the approach.  Some of the dualities that have been recognized are even more bizarre than the wave-particle duality.

Many of today’s best candidate theories for “quantum gravity” that would unite relativity and quantum mechanics into a “theory of everything” are collectively known as “string theory”.  They often have a property called “T-duality”.  In particular, T-dual theories predict that a universe, such as ours appears to be – of vast extent and expanding in size – is absolutely indistinguishable from an infinitesimally small universe which is shrinking toward nothingness. The laws of physics would dictate that exactly the same electrical and gravitational signals would enter our brains in either case.

If these string theories are correct, large and small are alternative languages to describe the same reality.  In fact, for all we can tell, we could all be living in an ultramicroscopic reality right now, with our brains arbitrarily choosing to interpret things so that the universe appears infinite in extent.

Then there’s the “holographic principle”. This idea seems to suggest that there are deep connections between modern information theory — the science that underlies telecommunications, including the internet — and the structure of spacetime itself. In addition to the way we describe reality, there appears to be an entirely equivalent way to describe it using one less spatial dimension. There are even reports that an unexpected effect predicted by the second description has been seen in equipment accidentally optimized for its detection.

So duality is not going away from physics anytime soon, regardless of what the philosophers and theologians have to say about monism versus dualism. Might it be fruitful for the theologians to consider what the concept of duality has to add to their debate?

In a way, duality as the existence of multiple descriptions of a single reality, Jesus Christ – “fully man, yet fully God” — is almost too obvious within Christian history. Indeed, the connection between the Father and the Son, with the Holy Ghost thrown in as a third description for good measure, is another application ripe for exploration.

However, what I’d like to explore in this and future posts is the question of whether and where we can replace the notion of dualism between the physical and spiritual in Restoration theology with the notion of duality, so that we can begin to conceptualize the physical and spiritual realms not as separate arenas of reality, but as two translatable descriptions of a single all-encompassing reality.

If the physical and spiritual are governed by principles of duality, not dualism, then things we do on earth may not just affect what happens in heaven, they may actually be the things that happen in heaven, and vice versa.

For example, in LDS theology, certain significant acts are directly sealed — made spiritually real and binding — through covenants marked by rites, while in CofChrist theology, ordinances are viewed as helps in the physical realm for spiritual purposes. But what if reality is put together to be more than these options? What if every moment of life is inherently sealed into the spiritual realm? If every relationship we enhance here is enhanced there. If every relationship we marginalize here is automatically diminished there as surely as gravity drags us toward the earth?

And what, from the other perspective, if the spiritual is acting as well in an ever present way, to seal the purposes of God into the physical realm?

The emphasis on the “physicality of God” even in the spiritual realm grew in concert with notions of the Eternal Family and its role and function in achieving and living in Celestial Glory. The elaboration of this theology was natural as the early church leadership began to push, even if at first secretly, new forms of marriage and family life, but it was not an inevitable evolution of the theology of the 1830 Restoration. For example, no one in the Community of Christ expects that the afterlife is about progressing to populate new worlds with our own spiritual offspring, as Heavenly Father populated our own world. In one denomination, it is the Heavenly Father; in the other it is Heavenly Father, with the seldom spoken inference that there may be Heavenly Mother lurking in the theology as well.

Today, because of this history, Mormons have a well-integrated belief system about how and why the Divine interacts with the physical universe that, nevertheless, is very different from its “prairie cousins”, let alone in comparison to more distantly related Christian denominations. As a prairie cousin with an abiding interest in the theological role of the physical, this fascinates me. LDS theology raises questions about the limits of acceptable definitions of “children of God”, and what God might do to see His children come out on top that would never occur to me in CofChrist theology. These are the kinds of questions I’d like to ask openly in this post.

Let’s look at extreme cases first, and then try to focus in on cases closer to home.

We know that the universe is a violent place. Creation is violent itself, and often involves destruction on scales we can barely comprehend. My favorite example is the “Death Star Galaxy”. We have in that example a small galaxy – a mere few billion stars is small – that has wandered into a radiation jet being emitted by a larger galaxy. The jet is obliterating thousands of solar systems, and any life there, as we watch by telescope.

What does that tell us? Are planets with life so rare that God can let planets be destroyed wholesale without moral consequences? Or perhaps there are not moral consequences because the life there is not human and thus has no spirits? Either way, would God be able to “write off” a great deal of reality under LDS theology because His “children” weren’t involved? He just has to watch over those special few worlds ideal for humanity. The worlds with just the right size, at just the right distance from stars of the proper temperature and age, with the proper orbital stability and a big brother planet like Jupiter nearby to protect against too frequent impacts from comets. The list of requirements is lengthy, but with infinite space to play around in, they’re bound to pop up here and there even if God doesn’t directly favor them with a helping hand.

Or perhaps God has to actively “weed out” competition for his favored species. You could interpret the evidence that way, too. Consider the destruction of the dinosaurian ecosystems 65 million years ago, or the even more catastrophic Permian extinction scores of millions of years still earlier. Our existence and physical forms today depend in complex, but critical, ways on details of those events. For example, the locations within their general orbits of all the inner planets of our solar system, including the earth, are known to be chaotic on only the order of 5 million years. Start out an orbital simulation with the earth relocated by as little as a millimeter, and in 5 million years, the earth could be on the other side of the sun. A “miracle” performed a hundred million years ago that protects humanity from destruction by asteroid strike or clears the world of big reptilians so mammals (and man) can take over could be too small to notice. Far easier than Moses calling on God to make the sun stand still during battle or parting the Red Sea.

What LDS theology would define to be human gets tougher to distinguish as we get closer to humanity. How close? Well, within the last few weeks, evidence has been published on the results of sequencing Neanderthal DNA. The evidence, first reported in Science, but more accessible here at Science News, shows that modern humans whose lines remained in Africa do not share Neandertal DNA. However, all of the rest of us get one to four percent of our genes from interbreeding with Neandertals that occurred after leaving Africa 45,000 or so years ago. We don’t carry Neandertal body types, but we do seem to carry something important from that population in our internal chemistry and in our brains. Eternal Family reunions might be more surprising than our expectations.

So, did the Neandertals die out because our body type was a little more divine than theirs? Or were the ones who bred with Homo sapiens the more righteous ones? Or do we extend the moral capability and need for redemption to an extinct species at all? Do we instead decide that we are all descended from ancestors who practiced bestiality? Were physical specimens of humans who had no Spirits walking around contemporaneously with Adam?

Look closer now as we get to Biblical or Jaredite times. Now we picture God as acting in detail to favor one nation over another, one individual over another. We try to point to specific reasons for that favoritism in terms of justice, mercy, or obedience in this life or in preexistence, and we can often convince ourselves that such reasons exist. I could argue a very good case, for example, that slaughter of entire Canaanite cities down to the last child might actually produce fewer casualties in the long run.

But the more uncomfortable I become unless I make the case in such terms, the more I realize that tying God’s plan of salvation to things other than intelligence, or justice, or mercy, or obedience – properties that have little to do with the shape or functions of my body – raises doubts. Wouldn’t exalted beings give up such narrow notions of the boundaries of humanity as part of the progression toward exaltation itself?

So I look at the criteria with which we define relationships with God through their physical manifestations – species, race, gender, diet, clothes – and I wonder. Is God really concerned about those things when He decides to claim His children. Or are we just engaging in a very destructive and provincial form of sibling rivalry?

In my Father’s house are many mansions. Maybe some reefs and rookeries, too. Maybe some hives for natural clones or collective minds.

And if that’s true, then certainly there are places for Homo sapiens with same-sex attraction, or childless couples, or singles – every form of Eternal Family we might imagine from the occurrence of those forms here on earth.

“There is no place that can take away the happiness of a man, nor yet his virtue or wisdom. Anaxagoras, indeed, wrote on the squaring of the circle while in prison.”

-Plutarch

The basic puzzle is this: Using only a square, a compass, a straight edge and a writing stick, create a square with the same circumference or area as a circle. It has to be done in a finite number of steps.  You can not measure it numerically (with a ruler). It all has to be done through proportion and true principles using four unmarked tools.

It’s a geometry puzzle with meanings, here are some basic interpretations.

Right-Angled Square: This represents logic and law.  It is associated with the head and mind.  It is left thinking.

..

Compass: Used for making circles.  This represents feeling and intuition, the emotional mind.  It is associated with the heart.  It is right thinking.

.

..

Writing Stick: This represents our desire, our appetites, what we hunger for, the energy and will that drives action (like drawing and working a puzzle).  It could also be called faith in its verb form.  It is associated with the belly, the source of hunger and desire.

.

..

Straight Edge: This represents precision, exactness and a division between opposites (good/evil, dark/light, etc.).  It represents a decision, a commitment and an action that separates thinking from doing.  The knee divides the upper leg from the lower leg, and the leg is symbolic of walking a path towards a destination.  A straight line represents boundaries..

..

.

A square shape is symbolic of the “four corners” of the earth, the physical world, the tangible, the rational, our body, our material experience and the absolute of truth.  It represents that which is defined and the finite..

…

.

A circle shape is symbolic of the heavens, the spiritual world, the intangible, the irrational or transcendental, that which surrounds and embraces our spirit and ideal potential.  It represents that which is beyond definition, the eternal and infinite..

…

Squaring the Circle asks the initiate to reconcile the circle with the square, and through that process grow and receive wisdom. Can you reconcile the mind and the heart? Can you combine heaven and earth to find a place where they meet? Can you balance perfectly your intellect with your emotions to find a solution? How does your spirit and body combine to become one?  Where is the boundary between justice and mercy?  These are the questions answered through pondering and meditating on solutions to the puzzle.

It is said that all truth (a square) can be circumscribed (a circle) into one great whole (perfection and enlightenment).

The answers to Squaring the Circle will get you past the stumbling blocks, like gate keepers inside your soul, that prevent you from entering through the veil of mortality to your kingdom as a returning champion, a queen or king, the victorious hero from an epic quest.

Our contemporary modern society has moved away from metaphorical expression like this.  We are often not comfortable working in symbol when it comes to the spiritual.  If things aren’t factually true (such as the details of a myth), then they are false and should be discarded.  We find artistic and religious metaphor silly, even pointless in our materialistic, technician-oriented culture.  Left-brained labels and icons define all by putting things into neat boxes but leave out what the right brain intuits through relationship and proportion.  If only there was a way to preserve this exercise of Squaring the Circle in a new religious framework, a way to re-purpose it for the modern world, many could benefit from such a metaphorical hero’s quest in their life journey.  Someone would probably want to borrow from the ancients and from traditions handed down over the ages, since those that came before us already did so much work.  It would be wasteful to reinvent the wheel completely from scratch, I would think. *wink*

-Brian Johnston, www.staylds.com

All that have been through an ugly divorce know that the pain can come in waves. Some you can stand against as the water rushes over you. Others are like a tsunami that sucks you in and spits you out in hostile and unfamiliar terrain. It was a tsunami day when I called my bishop and asked if he could come to my house and give me a blessing. I had caught him at a bad time; he was walking out the door to go somewhere with his wife. I apologized over and over and told him not to worry about it, but he came over anyway(it might have been the my unsuccessful attempts to hide the tears in my voice). I felt so embarrassed, but he gave me a lovely blessing that truly got me through a particularly dark period.

For several years after I divorced, I had no desire to date. the legal proceedings drug out(thanks to him)and I was determined not to get involved with anyone until the divorce was final. I had kind of settled into being single and I actually liked it. I worked hard, had fun with my friends, traveled, and pretty much did whatever I wanted to do. I was pretty active in a family ward that didnt treat me as some freak of nature because I wasn’t married. Life was good.Then I read an article in the Ensign about how people in the church are choosing not to marry and that it was considered a troublesome trend in our culture. It pointed out the commandments regarding marriage and encouraged single church members  not  disregard marriage as a worthy goal in  life. For the first time in 7 years I thought those words were written for me-a revelation of sorts. Most of the men I met didn’t seem to take their priesthood too seriously. Some had arrogantly lived beneath their privilege, unashamed of the covenants they broke, not sure if they even wanted to be in good standing with the church again. There were parts of me that held the priesthood in some disregard, sometimes even mild contempt. Heavenly Father had not blessed me with a faithful husband who honored his priesthood, so maybe this was just one of the many blessings that would not be mine in this life.

In more recent years, my heart has  softened on this subject. Going to the temple for the first time to receive my own endowment made me more aware of the eternal necessity of the priesthood. If you are a TBM(as I am)then you know in order to be exalted you must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Sealed in the temple for time and all eternity. More priesthood.The first time I felt truly moved was about 3 years ago when I witnessed a baby blessing. It was a young father, a recent convert to the church, blessing his baby. He had invited quite a few men to stand in the circle and bless this tiny spirit so new to this world. They gathered and  formed the circle, placing one hand under the baby and the other on the shoulder of the elder next to him. It moved me that these men were joined in such a tender act and when the blessing ended and after the baby was shown to the congregation, there were warm embraces and slaps on the shoulder. For the first time I yearned to have an eternal companion I loved to be standing in one of those circles.

Late last year all the priesthood holders in my ward sang as a choir. I dont remember the song, but to see all of those men standing behind the pulpit singing, literally moved me to tears. Then today, the youth speaker canceled and the bishop(last minute) asked the three priests in our ward to share their favorite scripture and explain what it meant to them. These young men did fantastic. You could tell they were a little nervous, but they had scriptures ready and spoke in such a way that i was impressed with their conviction. I got a little misty seeing these young men, future missionaries, husbands, and fathers grow in their faith before my eyes. It’s somewhat affirming to know there are still men in the church who take the priesthood seriously.
Can we bridge the ever growing gap that exists between strong and effective women who don’t “need” a man, but require the priesthood in order to gain the exaltation we strive for?

Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

That being said, we do know that there is a divider between the glories and the non-glories. We have that ominous concept: Outer Darkness. But what does it mean? Who is it for?

Just as I’ve always taken Mormonism’s after life to be so much more universal than other afterlife formulations, I’ve naturally wanted to stretch out this universalism. So, my understanding has always been that the three glories of heaven will be quite generously populated and that outer darkness will be sparse and lonely indeed.

Let's hope life isn't like a Sierra game

I took for granted that to qualify for this terrible anti-prize of complete separation, a person would have to try pretty hard. I didn’t think it was like a Sierra game, where you can accidentally and irreversibly render the entire game unwinnable within the first five minutes of turning on the game. Instead, you had to do specific (and unlikely) things. Like, say, come to a fulness of the gospel, have an amazing experience as consequence of your full understanding (like, I dunno, see God), and then walk away from in all with rejection. And then, only after all of this, could you win your new prize of total estrangement from their Heavenly Father.

Even then…this consequence wouldn’t be something that God sentenced someone to. Rather, it would be an individual’s choice to walk away from it all after having seen so much.

That was how I understood it. So, when I realized that I — gasp — didn’t believe in the church’s teachings, the “what if” scenario for if the church ended up being correct anyway didn’t bother me. I would accept whatever I got, but my understanding was that I wouldn’t quite qualify for outer darkness.

…But it all hinges on what it means to have the fulness of the Gospel. After all, it might not mean the amazingness of seeing God face-to-face. We often say that we have the fulness of the Gospel. In this case, would this mean that all ex-Mormons are hosed?

Let’s look at some scriptures.

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

Better off if we had never been born..?

The criteria here for receiving these scathing descriptors doesn’t seem too difficult to reach: just deny the Holy Ghost after having received it.

In the church, every member who is baptized has the laying on of hands to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If we use that as the yardstick, then wouldn’t any apostate become one for who “it had been better for them never to have been born”?

Is this scripture one of the straightforward ones…or is it one that needs to be looked at more carefully? What do you say?

Could God evolve?

As part of a discussion group, I have been reading Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God. My group isn’t anywhere near finished (the “heart” of the book focuses on the three major Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — yet we’ve only finished through the part on Judaism that sets the stage for Christianity), but as I blogged about on my personal blog, I already have concerns about the arguments that Wright presents.

Some of my comments, however, may not necessarily apply to Mormonism. For example, Wright seems to rely on this idea of a God that can evolve. The big issue is that many believers are constrained to believing that God is constant and thus ineligible for evolution. However, Mormons — through ideas like eternal progression — may not have that reservation (depending on whether or not eternal progression is “in” or “out” of the theology du jour.)

So, what does Wright say?

This isn’t anywhere near comprehensive for Wright’s position, but one thing that reached out to me (on page 214):

What might qualify as evidence of a larger purpose at work in the world? For one thing, a moral direction in history. If history naturally carries human consciousness toward moral enlightenment, however slowly and fitfully, that would be evidence that there’s some point to it all. At least, it would be more evidence than the alternative — if history showed no discernible direction, or if history showed a downward direction: humanity as a whole getting more morally obtuse, more vengeful and bigoted.

Or, to put the point back into the context at hand: To the extent that “god” grows, that is evidence — maybe not massive evidence, but some evidence — of higher purpose.

And also, on page 221, after Wright introduces the concept of the logos as a kind of “algorithm” for the universe from God:

…Some say Philo believed a kind of direct contact with God was somehow possible; others talk about a union with “the divine” that falls short of communion with God himself.

But, however direct the connection, the first step to making it was to try to understand God and God’s will. Thus deciphering the Logos could bring enlightenment not just intellectually but spiritually. “The logos was meant to guide the human soul to the realm of the divine,” writes the scholar Thomas Tobin.

And what we also know is that “Logos” as an idea later landed in a little book testifying about a guy named Jesus…”In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God.”

Matt Evans at Times and Seasons wrote about eternal progression as a necessity for a benevolent theodicy a long time ago.

I guess there are several possible directions to go with this. Obviously, Wright’s full position may not go in the direction we need to fit it with eternal progression, and these snippets don’t even truly grab the essence of the position. But…going with Wright, for some reason, somehow, history shows a trend of things getting better. This is indicated through a number of things — our general prosperity (despite ‘hiccups’ like financial crises and wars, we have accumulated great wealth and great scientific advancement), or our general ability to get along with each other, for example (think about Europe. Hundreds of years ago, a union would have been laughable. Now, it is a reality.)

But even more interesting is the way that our ideas of God and morality evolve as the rest of our society does. So, Wright points out that we have moved from an idea of a vengeful god to a glorious understanding of on who is benevolent in novel ways (in Mormonism, our exaltation includes eternal progression). Additionally, whereas even a hundred or two hundred years ago, rights for certain minorities would not have been on the table, today we can and do have discussions on prospects of egalitarianism (even if we don’t feel we as a society are in an ideal point, the important point is that somehow, we have started to feel that there is an ideal point).

Wright argues that this may be sign of some higher purpose.

Now, I have countered that using such an analogy doesn’t necessarily go as far as Wright needs it to. For example, in biological evolution, things appear to get “better,” but really, there isn’t a “forward” or “best.” There isn’t a “best species” that everything is moving toward. Rather, there are adaptations that are more successful to the given environments and adaptations that are less successful. Adaptation toward a better fit to the environment doesn’t necessarily show a higher purpose.

But…with eternal progression, we might avoid that. As long as there is knowledge and experience, shouldn’t our “environment” always be flexible…and if this is the case, shouldn’t we be always able to adapt to this environment? So, we don’t need to imply a “best” to recognize that progress itself, successful adaptation itself is the focus. As Ray points out on his blog, with eternal life, we yet have opportunity to progress in post-mortal life. At some point, our progress will appear so advanced (to us non-advanced peons…probably not to us when we’ve gotten there) that we will be able to do seemingly novel things (like, say…create worlds beyond numbers? — remember, we don’t have to be constrained to “ex nihilo”).

But to progress, we must discover and seek the correct principles — as Ray highlights, and which compare well to Logos — and so these principles too call for our change in order for us to grow.

Please explain your answer.

He was the Bishop of his ward, and his wife had been cancer free for just over a year.  His son flew home for the weekend, after which he returned to finish his mission. I spoke with his wife briefly at the viewing, and something she said has been weighing on my mind ever since.  She said, essentially:

He lost his mother about six weeks ago, and his aunt passed away five days later.  We had reached peace with death and were focused on life. I know it will be hard in a couple of weeks when everyone gets back to their own lives and I am alone to deal with not having him here, but I believe in the Atonement, the Plan of Salvation and the promises of the temple.  It will be hard, but I will be OK.

What I want to share from this experience is not related directly to those things she mentioned at the end (the Atonement, Plan and temples), but what she said at the beginning – being at peace.

As much as anything else, when I die I want to be at peace with death – but I also want to be at peace with life.  I don’t want to be bitter or angry or upset before I die – and I don’t want to live in that state, either; I want to be at peace.

I believe that is up to me – that it is my responsibility.  The natural man inclination is to blame others for our feelings – for whether or not we are at peace.  I understand the necessity for anger, grief and/or cognitive dissonance when certainty is shattered, ambiguity accelerates and testimony is tried.  I really do get that need.  However, I believe reconciliation of some kind that leads to peace and charity is critical.

I wish I had an easy answer.  I wish I had a universal, practical method that I knew would work for every individual.  The only answer I have is that there is peace in letting go – that there is peace in cutting others slack – there is peace in real charity – there is peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  There isn’t always peace in the human organizations in which that Gospel is interpreted and taught, just as there isn’t always peace in even the most ideal families, but the peace the Gospel brings can influence and strengthen the peace that then can be brought individually into the Church – the community of spiritual family.

I hope I or my wife never has to deal with what this good Bishop’s wife is experiencing right now and in the near future.  I hope we die together, at a ripe old age.  More than that, however, I hope that when either of us dies, the other is at peace – because she or I simply has become a peaceful person.

As I strive to be a peacemaker and, thereby, to be called a child of God, I understand that the first peace I must influence and create is within my own heart and soul – that I can’t spread peace externally unless I am at peace internally.  For those who now are NOT at peace, I hope they can look for peace even before understanding.  That might seem counter-intuitive at first, but I believe peace can bring understanding – and that understanding, in and of itself, rarely brings peace – largely because the quest for understanding never ends.  Peace, on the other hand, can last and endure even during circumstances that cannot be understood – like the unexpected death of a good Bishop.

God bless you, Denny.  You will be missed.

My home teacher (who is very cool) came by yesterday to drop off some starter cables for my car and as one does in that short interlude we discussed the celestial kingdom and being Gods after this life. He believed that those who don’t make it to the highest kingdom in the Celestial Kingdom won’t have any sexual relationships and if you don’t have sexual relationships their will be no need for sexual organs.

Its interesting talking about controversial stuff but I was finding this unnerving!!

Eunuch
1: a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2: a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3: one that lacks virility or power <political eunuchs>

In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288.)

Joseph Smith said that even the telestial Kingdom was thousands of times better than this world and if we had a glimpse of it we would kill ourselves now to get there. I think many of us now would disagree with Joseph Smith Jr in light of reading the more current views of Joseph Fielding Smith.

In the family proclamation we learn that Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. But the family proclamation is not kingdom specific to whether will still have our male or female gender if we don’t make it to the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom.

I thought I was being unique (pun) in this post but as I have researched,being a so called  EUNUCH is a phrase used in the Bloggernacle since 2006 its called  TK SMOOTHIE

It has two definitions

1. The logical conclusion for JFS, then, was to say that the people in the TK would not have male or female genitalia.
2. If a doctrine of the church seems like it has been created in order to “fix” or explain another, it might be a TK Smoothie. The TK Smoothie is eponymous for all doctrines that are probably bogus but exist in order to clarify some other doctrine or speculation.

Bishop Young Spanish Fork 401st Ward

In Mormonism, we have an expanded picture of life that extends before this mortal life and then on into the eternities. However, when you really dig into this, it turns out that we have very few details on what to expect after this life, and the details we do have come mostly from talks given almost 175 years ago. And to say that our expectations of ‘Heaven,’ have changed quite a bit since then is a gross understatement.

Despite all the speculation, one detail that we know for sure: unless you make it to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, there will be no eternal sex. Basically, you’d be turned into a Telestial/Terrestrial Kingdom Smoothie (TK Smoothie). I like to imagine these lesser-Kingdoms as the Barbie & Ken Kingdoms. Everyone walking around looking beautiful and perfect for eternity, but having a smooth under-carriage like Barbie or Ken.

Parley P. Pratt

The object of the union of the sexes is the propagation of their species, or procreation; also for mutual affection, and the cultivation of those eternal principles of never ending charity and benevolence, which are inspired by the Eternal Spirit; also for mutual comfort and assistance in this world of toil and sorrow, and for mutual duties toward their offspring. Key to the Science of Theology, Ch.17, p.169

I would like to believe as Parley P Pratt describes that this mutual affection will not only be for this life but carried through to all the kingdoms after this life to all of our Brothers and Sisters who have lived on this earth.

Questions

1. If you make it to the Celestial Kingdom how would you feel when you visit a Parent, Grandparent, Brother, Sister, Son or Daughter in the Terrestrial Kingdom with out any Gender?
2. Do you believe Joseph Fielding Smith is correct?
3. Is there any current doctrine that overrides his beliefs?
4. If JFS doctrine is correct the word Brother and Sister takes on a whole different meaning in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom?
5. Is it silly doctrine we should jettison?
6. If it is still true do you think if we emphasised it more it might motivate members to push harder for the Celestial Kingdom?
7. Doctrines of Salvation is most of it safe doctrine we can use in our talks and lessons ?  Is some of it suspect and if it is how do we know what that is? Do you think of it as interesting reading not really fiction but not really solid doctrinally? How would you describe it?

The guests on Oprah were young transgenders, who underwent hormone therapy and/or a sex change operation because they felt they had been born into the wrong body. One had been born a boy, but was living as a woman. The other had been born a girl and was now living as a man.

The more that I witness the personal stories of such people, the harder it is for me (or anyone, in my opinion) to deny that what they feel is extremely real and often devastating, depending on the support — or lack of it — that they receive from their loved ones.

I found the story of the young girl-to-man especially compelling. It was interesting to see old pictures of when he was a little girl. You could see the unhappiness and, more than anything, the awkwardness. I don’t mean to be mean, but she was a very homely girl. Why? Because she looked like a boy in a wig and dress. Now that “she” has become a “he,” he looks normal.  I never would have guessed that he had been born female.

His mother described the living hell that their family went through when this young girl was suicidal because of her mental and emotional agony. As soon as she began with hormone therapy and started on the road to becoming a man, he became a happy person, and the depression and suicidal feelings disappeared. Being Mormon, I tried to imagine being in the position of that mother, who wasn’t Mormon. If she had followed Church policy on gender — which, from what I understand includes excommunication for those who undergo transgender operations — and pushed for her daughter to continue living as a girl, the daughter very likely would have taken her life or at least remained terribly depressed her entire life. Talk about feeling torn.

I’m not a mother.  For those of you who are a parent, think about it.  If your teenage child was suicidal and you knew that the “remedy” (i.e. a sex change operation) is grounds for excommunication, what would you do?  Yes, you could go through the rounds of fasting, prayer, and hope.  But what if that wasn’t enough?  What if your child was still suicidal or at least extremely miserable?  Would you feel torn between your (or your child’s) membership in the Church vs. his or her happiness and well-being?

I find especially perplexing the question of those people who are born intersex.

“Intersexuality is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An intersex organism may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes. Intersexuality is the term adopted by medicine during the 20th century applied to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female.” (Wikepedia)

If the parents of an intersex child feel forced to decide which gender the child should become through surgery, in order to allow for a future opportunity to serve a mission or marry in the temple, is that any different than transgender operations by those who feel that they’re trapped in the wrong body?  The parents and doctors might be wrong, and the child could grow up to feel trapped in the wrong body.  To me, I think that would be worse than being intersex.

In “The Family: A Proclamation To The World,” the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles stated:

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

Where does this leave intersex people? They’re neither one nor the other. Do they have to choose? Is their gender determined by how they feel, or is it determined purely by biology, which is sometimes still ambiguous?  Would someone who is intersex be able to serve a mission?  Marry in the temple?  What would life be like in a church where gender is virtually everything to someone’s identity, when s/he is neither one nor the other, or perhaps feels that his/her mind does not match his/her body?

I’ve tried to imagine what it would be like if someone said to me, “FD, you are a man, so you just need to accept it. You need to start thinking, acting, walking, talking, and dressing like a man. And therefore you should be attracted to women.”

Can you imagine what it would be like if you had to convince yourself that you were actually the opposite sex that you think and feel you are?

I agree with the the “Proclamation On The Family” that “(G)ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” I believe that our gender is eternal and that Heavenly Father didn’t just leave it up randomly to our DNA to decide whether we would be one gender or the other.

But…

I’m thinking more and more that gender really is a state of mind and spirit: one that is as much a part of us as all the other aspects of our spirit and intelligence. I am female because I feel and act female. If I were sitting in a male body at this very moment but with the same mind that I have now, would I consider myself to not be female?

Heavenly Father can and does allow some of us to be born into bodies that are defective or imperfect, for reasons that are often a mystery to us. The physical state of such individuals does not change their spirit. Could it not also be the same case with physical gender? Could he not have allowed certain individuals to be born into the “wrong” physical body, which then causes a conflict with their spirit, which is of a different gender?

We are taught in Mormonism that our physical bodies are imperfect, subject to disease and defect, and that our spirits and intelligences are eternal. Why, then, should our gender be defined solely by our physical bodies? Should not the mind and spirit take precedence over the body?

A commenter, Chedner, from the discussion on my blog said:

“Say, for example, a young man came to his father or his Bishop or any of his Priesthood leaders and said, “I feel like I am innately a girl.”  Would it not be easy to take a day or two of fasting, scripture study, meditation, and end with a sincere Priesthood blessing to discern the true, eternal gender of that child?  One may be surprised to find that this child’s mother was supposed to have a little girl, but something went awry within the womb and a male body was formed instead.  How is that not possible?  It doesn’t threaten any LDS doctrines. Nothing in our canon has to be further revealed, nothing has to be altered or made more perfect.  We simply need to fully embrace what we do have: gender existed in the pre-existence; our bodies are imperfect and prone to birth defects.”

A non-member commenter and trangender woman, Just Jennifer, had this to say:

“Simply put, our “gender” is inherent. It is something that is fixed at birth. And yes, it is anatomical, but not in the way that some think. A better term is “sexual differentiation of the brain.” And our genitals may be sexually differentiated at odds with our brains. It all has to do with hormone levels in utero. I was born a male physically. But my brain was female. I struggled for much of my life, not knowing what was wrong. Even when I figured it all out, it took some more years to reach the point where I understood what could be done to rectify the situation. I am now a happy and successful woman. And I am closer to God than I was as a very unhappy parody of a man. Those who wish to tell people like me that I should “just deal with it” are both ignorant and cruel.”

Zoe, a non-member transgender woman said:

“Your post shows not just compassion, but true understanding of a situation most people find incomprehensible. I can’t blame them either, it’s no easier for those of us in this situation. Many of us go through decades of denial, trying to be like others around us.”

Another commenter from my blog, Mina, a non-Mormon, had this to say:

“I just want to say thank you so very much for an amazingly compassionate position from all of you – as a trans-woman myself, I’m not used to such understanding from deeply religious people.  I’ll be honest in that this aspect of who I am caused me years of anguish. I had grown up in a very conservative Dutch Reformed community, and even though I knew I was different from a very early age – 4 or 5 if I remember correctly, I denied it into my mid 20′s. Then I came across a very interesting opinion piece by a young Catholic priest. Basically he took the position that we need to remember the Fall from Grace, and that one of God’s punishments was visitation of pests and plagues on Adam and his descendants. The world was MADE imperfect then and there, including how we develop from conception. We humans have added to this imperfection through chemical pollution and the like, and so intersex and transsex are to be expected.”

After reading her comment, I thought, “How sad, that a human being having been born into such difficult life circumstances could be met by anything BUT compassion from deeply religious people.  Can we Mormons do any better?”

What do you think?  Are we over-simplifying the teachings on eternal gender by Church leadership by interpreting them to mean that either male or female physical body parts are the only factors that determine spiritual gender?  Or are transgender and intersex people simply suffering from a mental and emotional trial which they need to bear through this mortal life?

Satan wanted God’s glory and power. His plan was to force every soul to choose good by taking away our agency. But that would have defeated God’s purpose- to test us.

“And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan… is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

“But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.” Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power… I caused that he should be cast down” (Moses 4:1-3.)

Many of us are non-starters: we just can’t do something unless were pushed.

Here are some comments made on STEAKS OF ZION blog about letting your children choose:

I think even though children hate to be forced to do things, on the flip side I know personally that children/youth do like to be told what to do to an extent.

A friend and I have had a couple chats about parents forcing us to do things that we don’t want to do and it made me realise that even though we often hate our parents forcing us to do things, that having that gives you a real sense of security (although the person it’s happening to doesn’t feel it at the time). If we have our role models authorising us then I think we are more settled and stable we see that there is someone there for us and even though at the time it might seem crap, in most cases I think in the long run we are a lot happier. (house of the poor)

Our perceptions are funny things. There are many occasions where I ‘do not feel’ like doing something but then really enjoy doing it when I do. Fundamentally I don’t think we are very good at knowing what is best for us. (wellabletoovercome)

I think there really is a fine line to giving your child agency. (houseofthepoor)

I agree, this is further complicated by the idea that there is no general rule, that individual differences may change the approach. (wellabletoovercome)

I know we can choose to have a life coach or a personal trainer, but we are really doing this in many ways to take our free agency away – so we’re not responsible to have to get up in the morning and run or lift weights – or so we can have someone push us to make a doctors appointment, fill in our tax forms and do all those things that we know we should do but can’t push our selves to do on our own.

I feel like the child they are describing in steaks of zion. I would love a coach to force me to do all the things in my life that would make me be happier. I would hate it during the process some of the time but would ultimately feel its worth it in the end.

Questions

Wouldn’t I or we have the same attributes of procrastination after this life – maybe forgetting to charge up the sun for a planet?

Don’t we often in our lives put our futures and our spirits in the hands of others, because we would rather them do the thinking for us?

I’ve had some pretty tough bosses. I wonder how tough Beelzebub would have been, and, after it was all over, if I would have thought it worth it in the end?

Discuss.

The LDS doctrine of Baptism for the Dead is unique within Christianity. The explanation for the doctrine and additional references on the LDS Church website can be found here. There is also a fairly lengthy explanation on Wikipedia here. It is a controversial doctrine and many groups have protested this vicarious work for the dead, including Jews, Catholics and others. I find a certain ironies in their protestations.

The Background

In 2008, The Vatican issued an order to Bishops not to release parish records to Mormons. A news article is here. Its intent is to prevent Mormons from performing Baptism for the Dead for their own ancestors who may have been Catholic, whether practicing or not.

There has also been an on-going dispute between the Church and Jewish groups about the specific posthumous baptism of victims of the Holocaust by Church members. In most cases, the names of these victims were extracted and submitted by non-relatives of these people.  Church officials including General Authorities have met with representatives of the Jewish Groups in an attempt to resolve the issue as best they could. Here is the Jewish side of the story from the JewishGen Website. The actual agreement from 1995 is found here. The resolution involved removal of holocaust victim’s names from the International Genealogical Index (IGI), which lists the names of people cleared for Temple work and the ordinances which have already been performed on their behalf and the agreement to stop allowing members of the LDS Church to perform temple ordinances for Jewish people not their direct ancestors.   Recently, the same Jewish Groups have accused the Church of not complying with the agreement and presented their lengthy evidence of that non-compliance here. They also mounted a huge publicity campaign as well.

The Ironies

Irony #1 – The progress of genealogical research has been lead by the LDS Church – Because of the Church’s doctrine of Baptism of the Dead, it has literally invested millions of dollars to further genealogical research.  The Church dispatched an army of volunteers throughout the world to film as many vital records as possible.  The Church built the Family History Library (FHL) in Salt Lake City to house these records and has satellite libraries across the world. The Church has employed state-of-the-art techniques to assist governments and religious groups to preserve their records.  The church has also embarked on an effort to digitize and make available all the records it has acquired for access via the Internet. All this effort is for the purpose of assisting the members of the Church in identifying their ancestors to perform Temple Ordinances for them according to our beliefs. The ultimate goal is to perform earthly ordinances for all who have lived on the earth.

All of these resources have been made available to the general public, free of charge, without strings or expectations.  The public has been asked to share the information that they uncover in an effort to further their own work as well as of that of the Church.  Sharing is entirely voluntary and not a condition of using the resources of the Church.

The Church has even produced specific family history information to assist groups like the Jewish community and a CD-ROM which is sold through Jewish Genealogy Societies. The International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies (IAJGS) has held its annual convention in Salt Lake City a number of times to take at advantage of the so-called “candy store”(their term) of information at the FHL.

The worldwide hobby of genealogy would either not exist or not be as pervasive as it is without the work of the LDS Church and its doctrine of Eternal Families and Baptism for the Dead.  Popular websites like Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com and others  would probably not exist.

Irony #2 - Since Baptism for the Dead is false doctrine, why do you care? - The Catholic Church as well as other Christian Organizations has denounced the LDS practice of Baptism of the Dead as a false doctrine.  You can find examples here, here, and here.  The irony for Catholics is that they, as mentioned above, have taken an active role in preventing Baptisms for the Dead by not allowing Mormons access to their parish records, many of which have been preserved and filmed by LDS Church volunteers.  Another irony for me is that while the Catholic Church dismisses Baptism for the Dead as unbiblical, I might remind folks that Infant Baptism, a practice of the Catholic Church is not in the Bible at all. At least Baptism for the Dead is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, verse 29.

Irony #3 – If Mormons baptize our people, they will forever be known as Mormons – This is a specific claim of the Jewish groups.  I can, because of my background, understand this concern since, throughout history, various groups have tried to wipe the Jews out, either killing them or forcing them to convert to Christianity. Irony #3a, The LDS Church has been instrumental in helping the Jewish Genealogy groups in identifying Jewish records, preserving them and producing materials to help Jews identify their ancestors.  Irony#3b, The Jews worry that by having their relatives baptized, they will forever be identified as Mormons.  This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of agency associated with the vicarious work for the dead. Performing the ordnance does not automatically make anyone a Mormon. According to our theology, the person has the choice to accept or reject the ordinances.  The only designation on the earthly record is that the ordinances were performed.  Just as in this life, having those ordinances does not automatically make someone a practicing member of the LDS Church.  They have to want to belong and honor those ordinances.   Side irony:  Most Jews don’t even believe in a next life after we die.

Irony#3c, Jewish population growth is practically zero (source). This is true for two specific reasons: 1) Assimilation, intermarriage and non-observance.  There is an alarming trend in Judaism to assimilate into the country population, intermarry with non-Jews (I did) and/or not practice their religion. The result is less Jews or those who identify themselves as Jews in the future. 2) Low birth rate.   Population growth of Jews around the world dropped to -.5% while birth rate growth in Israel is 1.6%.  This still puts Jews below the world birth rate growth of 1.4% since the greatest Jewish population is in the US.  Obviously, the holocaust took a huge bite out of the Jewish Population. Some estimates are that there may have been 26 to 40 million Jews if not for the mass murder. So, if Jews are worried about disappearing from the face of the earth and being labeled as Mormons, they might consider having more babies.

Conclusions

1.      Church Members should stick to doing Temple Work for their own family.  I think we have seen an increase in this effort.  If we all did that, no one could argue with us that we are baptizing their family that is not our family.  But I wonder if the Temples of the world would be even less busy, if that was the only work performed?

2.      People doing genealogy should recognize and thank the Church for the great service it provides to the genealogical world and should realize the intentions of the Church in making this effort.  They should take the time to thoroughly understand the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead and vicarious work for the dead and how we believe it works in the hereafter. Recognize that, in spite of their beliefs, we are doing it in accordance to our beliefs and there is absolutely no malice intended but love for mankind being the driving factor.

3.      The Church must do its best to live up to the agreements they have made with the Jewish Groups.  I think that the new Family Search is an effort to prevent duplication of ordinances and prevent widespread ordnance work for those not of our own family. Names must be removed from the IGI and other databases when identified as Jewish names not part of LDS family temple work.

4.      Stop the whining.  Work with us to resolve the problem and not in the media.  That does not help foster a good working relationship.

So where do these medical miracles come from?  Certainly, from the minds and work of Doctors and medical researchers.  In most cases, many years of study, trials and treatments bring about these things. But, really, who is the author of these miracles?

The first thought that comes to my mind, is that these things come from God.  That He has given the gift of intelligence to the people to discover medical miracles that prolong life.  That He inspires them and allows certain positive things to happen to make these advances a reality. Because all good things come from God.  I don’t think you’d get an argument about this from a religious person.  Secularists would argue otherwise, but then they argue anything that has to do with God and religion.

Here is the LDS Church position on prolonging life:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe that allowing a person to die from natural causes by removing a patient from artificial means of life support, as in the case of a long-term illness, falls within the definition of euthanasia.  When dying from such an illness or an accident becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence.  Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable.  These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer. ” (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/euthanasia-and-prolonging-life

But, on the other hand, I wonder if God, in His infinite wisdom and perfect Plan of Salvation would allow unnecessary prolonging of a life that might, through the natural progression of things, pass away from the infliction.  It seems that He allows those inflictions as part of the cycle of life.  Could it be that these medical miracles actually thwart the Plan of the Father?  Could these seemly positive things be the product of him whose purpose is to put obstacles in the way of God’s children who try to realize their greatest reward, that of Eternal Life?  Could these medical miracles be his work? 

Could it be Satan?

Kind of a crazy premise I know, but I can think of a number of reasons why it could be so.

For an older person, at the final stages of his/her life, it would seem cruel to intervene medically to prevent that person from passing through the veil to the other side to a possible reunion of loved ones, an assignment and peace and rest from the trials of this life.

For an infant, born prematurely with a life threatening condition, needing only to gain a mortal body, being hooked to wires and tubes, treated for months to receive a partial life, with multiple challenges and a difficult existence.

Think of the resources, both time and money that go into prolonging a life. The millions of dollars poured into research.  The profits made by huge corporations.  The fact it can drain a family’s life savings, leaving them in debt forever.

Now, there are many, many examples of lives being prolonged that are fruitful and worthwhile.  There is no doubt about that. 

There are many stories about miracles that have happened to cure someone of an infliction.  But, in many of those cases, they are without medical intervention and a mystery to medical personnel.  That is very different than what I am discussing.  Those non-medical miracles are given to us by God.

So, what do you think?  Again, I know it is crazy, but it is something I thought about.

Sometimes we forget that the early restored church focused a lot on the millenium, which many of them believed was imminent.  As if they didn’t have enough stress!

This lesson is mostly a compilation of various prophecies about the second coming and the millenium.  Here are the ones specifically referenced in the manual:

• The Civil War, starting in South Carolina (some might say still going strong in South Carolina)
• Wars poured out upon all nations (two major world wars plus a host of others – the 20th century has often been called a century of warfare)
• Famine, plague, earthquakes, thunderbolt & lightning (the first three are standard CNN fare; the last two are part of the Queen song Bohemian Rhapsody)
• A seer raised up by God (although Mormons consider this to be Joseph Smith, the Bickertonites, another branch of Mormonism, are still looking for this seer)
• The moon will turn to blood (I always wonder whether this means it will be red which is a common scientific phenomenon or whether someone will be murdered on the moon, which might be a good premise for a sci-fi novel)
• The Son of Man will descend in the clouds of heaven (not to burst Charles Manson’s bubble, but I don’t think he qualifies based on this description alone)
• The wicked will be destroyed off the face of the earth (or does this mean that the play Wicked will finally end its Broadway run?  See how enigmatic prophesies can be!)
• Judah must return (Jews for Jesus?)
• Jerusalem be rebuilt (this would be a lot easier if it weren’t a war zone)
• A temple will be built in Jerusalem with water issuing from under the temple (a wellspring or someone left the water running in the bathroom?)
• The waters of the Dead Sea will be healed (I assume this means freshwater instead of brackish, but maybe it has something to do with overfishing–see today’s AM post for more discussion on this point)
• The sun will turn to darkness (hey, that happens every night!)
• Earthquakes in diverse places (pretty common nowadays)
• The seas will heave beyond their bounds (sounds like global warming)
• There will be “one grand sign” of the Son of Man in heaven that people will mistakenly say is a comet or planet
• Contrary to popular belief, all flesh will be subject to suffer from disease and famine, including the righteous  (sorry if this isn’t in your plans . . .)

After the Second Coming, here are the prophecies regarding the millenium:

• Christ will reign personally (this doesn’t sound like there will be an election since the majority of the planet is still not Christian; or maybe he will just be really persuasive.)
• The earth will be renewed (like a library book?) and receive its paradisaical glory (this is the only place you ever see that word paradisaical)
• The nations will dwell in peace for 1000 years (that would be a nice change)
• The earth will be as a sea of glass, one great Urim & Thummim, and when we look in it we will see as we are seen (So, if the internet is a Urim & Thummim, maybe this is like Facebook?)

The lesson talks about some of the good things about focusing on the Second Coming & Millenium:

1. It motivates us to live the commandments and be good people.
2. It provides a sense of urgency to fulfill the three missions of the church.
3. For those enduring trials, there is an end in sight.

But there are also some potential negative side effects of this focus:

1. Developing a complacent attitude that “this world” is temporary anyway and doesn’t matter; hardly an effective way to foster our stewardship of this earth (e.g. why recycle?).
2. An expectation of reward for good deeds (rather than doing things out of a love of God & our fellow human beings).  This is kind of like the Santa Claus effect on children–10 months out of the year they behave like troglodytes, but they are perfect angels once Christmas is around the corner.
3. A hyperbolic worldview in which danger lurks at every corner and there is a war for our souls at every turn; fear is not a good basis for Christian charity toward others or rational, balanced decision-making.

What are your thoughts as you think about the Second Coming and the Millenium?  Do you make an extra effort to be good when the moon turns red due to a solar eclipse when there are dust particles in the air?  Does thinking about the Second Coming motivate you to be a better person or is it too “out there” to contemplate?  Discuss.

As part of my graduate program in counseling I have to write a personal theory, which includes process and goals of therapy, explanations for personality, psychopathology, etc. The first part, however, forms the basis for everything else: the nature of the person. I have been working on it for a while, trying to pin down exactly what I believe about the human race, and what is true about people across time and cultures. Here is what I have, with brief explanations: 

1-We are eternal.

The basic essence of who we are (i.e. intelligence) has always existed. We have been developing for eternity.

2-We are naturally compassionate and gentle, but seek to avoid suffering.

We are born with a predisposition to be kind and non-aggressive. However, sometimes in our pursuit of avoiding suffering we act aggressively or in negative ways towards others and ourselves.

3-We are a combination of our being, our spirit, heredity, and sociality.

Our being (intelligence) is our basic essence. We received traits of our mother and father (God) when we were given spirits, and from our earthly parents when we were born. We are also influenced by our environment. These four aspects make up who we are now.

4-We need choice, structure, and attachment to grow.

We cannot grow as much when our ability to choose is restricted. Consistent structure of some form (e.g. values, commandments, morals, etc.) is necessary to prevent chaos. We must also possess secure attachment to at least one other person. Significant disruption of any of these areas may result in neuroses, psychopathology, suffering, and essentially, damnation. This is why I believe in a Savior. One who can fix what breaks.

Are any of these points confusing or too simple? What do you think makes up a person?

The majority of the lesson centers on section 76 of the Doctrine & Covenants, which relates a vision received by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in the John Johnson home in Hiram, OH (where both were tarred & feathered by the mob, injuring Sidney Ridgon’s head in the process, which always made me wonder if he was quite right after that.  But I digress.)  The photo to the right is the actual room in which they received it.  Joseph Smith had been working on his translation of the Bible in 1832 (in the actual room in the picture).

“From sundry revelations which had been received,” the Prophet later said, “it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body, the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one.”  (1832)

Joseph had just read John 5:29:

And shall ^acome forth; they that have done good, unto the ^bresurrection of life; and they that have done ^cevil, unto the resurrection of ^ddamnation.

When he and Sidney were pondering what this meant, a vision opened to them in which they saw God the Father, Jesus on his right hand, the three degrees of glory, and Satan separated from the rest with those who follow him.  This is an interesting example of an effort to translate resulting in an entirely new revelation, similar to the Book of Moses and Matthew 24 in the POGP.

Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.  [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.  (1844)

This manual is just chock full of King Follett discourse.  Just sayin’.

Q:  Is this idea intimidating or does the idea of progress make it easier to handle?

Q:  In our eternal progression, why do you think we need to improve “from one small degree to another”?  Is this how you learn and grow?  Why do some people stop progressing?

• they are they who received the testimony of Jesus, (received meaning accepted or just heard it?)
• and believed on his name (so, must be Christian, at least eventually)
• and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—that by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;  (so, correct ordinances are necessary.  Because of the rite itself or because of making a commitment and promise that changes your demeanor?)
• and who overcome by faith,  (rather than by logic, brute force or personality)
• and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. (sealed in marriage or through being endowed?  does this mean communal salvation – e.g. being sealed to all the Saints?)
• They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.  (I always wonder if we’re talking about Jesus or Adam on this one).
• They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things— (given all things in this life or the hereafter?  things meaning “truths” or actual things?  This seems to contrast with the telestial people below who are getting tripped up by God; maybe this is just a byproduct of being free from the snares of our own bad behavior.)
• they are they who are priests and kings,  (but HUMBLE priests & kings, priestesses & queens)
• who have received of his fulness,  (what is ‘his fulness’?  shrank not to drink the bitter cup?  being aware of and accepting the fulness of truths?  something else?)
• and of his glory;  (so, to receive of his glory, we have to be sanctified enough not to be consumed by it)
• and are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.  (why does Melchizedek always get so much credit?  BOM usually just lists the order of the Son of God.  Where are the editors?)
• Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— (does “sons of God” qualify or soften the meaning here, making it clear we are not “equal” with God?)
• wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.  (much better version of community property.  It’s all about who’s pitching in, after all.)
• These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
• These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.  (This doesn’t refer to men as “judges in Israel,” so maybe those guys are less empowered subordinates with a multi-level hierarchical approval process for damning people; or maybe it’s like an interview process and God & Jesus are the ultimate decision makers).
• These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.  (I love that phrase “just men made perfect.”  Not perfect men made judges.)
• These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.  (More on the bodies in a moment).

Terrestrial – Pepsi Glory (We’re #2, so we try harder!)

There’s a list of those who will receive Terrestrial glory in D&C 76:  81-85, 100-106, 110-112:

• “Behold, these are they who died without law; (so, like those guys in the Blue Lagoon? Does this mean they can’t inherit celestial under any circumstances?  That doesn’t sound quite right.)
• and also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.  (So, what if they never heard it in the first place or had really bad missionaries?)
• “These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.  (Unwitting dupes?)
• These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.  (Interesting word choice.  So, what is “his fulness”?)
• These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.  (Christians who reject theosis?  ‘Cause that’s what it sounds like.)
• “Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.  (That makes me wonder – are our resurrected bodies better or worse based on degrees of glory – e.g. no cellulite in Celestial?  That’s motivating!)
• These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.”  (“not valiant” means what?  And “crown over the kingdom” implies we rule rather than being subjects.)

Q:  How can we avoid being “blinded by the craftiness of men”? What can we do to help others avoid being blinded?

Telestial – Back of the Bus!

Here’s the description of Telestial glory folks from D&C 76:

• These are they who are liars, (Are they all going to be confused when they start talking to each other and don’t know who is lying and who’s not?  Will it be like a cutthroat soap opera?)
• and sorcerers, (Like David Copperfield?  What about Houdini?)
• and adulterers,  (Wouldn’t it be weird if you’re all saving your DH’s seat in the CK, and he just doesn’t show, and then you find out this way?)
• and whoremongers,  (Pimps? Words like “whoremonger” make me think we could use a NIV of LDS scriptures)
• and whosoever loves and makes a lie.  (I always wonder if that means “loves a lie” or “lies about love”?)
• These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.  (So, God’s tripping them up on earth?  Is that because they lost the light of Christ and had to deal with the natural consequences of their bad choices?)
• These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.  (Although, as we’ll see below, this is more like “they feel horrid” than Hell = Guantanamo 2).
• These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work.  (So, they just suffer until then.  There’s an end in sight apparently.)

Q:  Is this a better alternative to traditional notions of “Hell”?

The True Nature of Hell

“The great misery of departed spirits in the world of spirits, where they go after death, is to know that they come short of the glory that others enjoy and that they might have enjoyed themselves, and they are their own accusers.”  (1843)

“A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.  Some shall rise to the everlasting burnings of God, for God dwells in everlasting burnings, and some shall rise to the damnation of their own filthiness, which is as exquisite a torment as the lake of fire and brimstone.”  (1844)

Q:  How can a man be “his own tormentor and his own condemner”?   Does this make Hell seem more just?

To the teachers:  Please share any other thoughts or tips you have for fellow teachers out there.  Most of this lesson is just reading from D&C 76 about the different kingdoms; it might be fun to do a puzzle to get through the material (e.g. a “fill in the blanks” as you read through D&C together or a “sorting” puzzle to put the descriptions in the right kingdoms).

To the rest of you:  What are your thoughts about the 3 degrees of Glory and the insights from D&C 76?  Personally, this is one of my favorite aspects of our theology because everyone’s a winner (comparatively)!  Discuss.

We believe in holding meetings, and in asking all members to attend these meetings; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We schedule all meetings, we plan all meetings, we have endured many meetings, and hope to be able to endure all meetings. If there is any reason to hold a meeting, we seek after these things.

I can’t remember where I first heard the following sentiment expressed, and I can’t find a source on Google, so it probably is a very twisted version of something someone once said (how about that disclaimer!), but I love a couple of thoughts about meetings that have stuck in my mind:

It takes an excellent meeting to be better than no meeting.

There is no meeting so unimportant that it can’t start on time; there is no meeting so important that it can’t end on time.

Given how religiously we cling to the idea of the importance of meetings, I want to ask a few questions that I believe are profound and important:

Why should we hold meetings? (What is their purpose?) Why should we not hold meetings? What meetings need to be held in person, face-to-face? What meetings can be held in alternate ways – and what ways would be most effective, particularly by employing modern technologies? What meetings are essential to a designation of “active” in the Mormon Church? Are there meetings that are strictly supplemental – that can be skipped or attended sporadically by “active” members and have that lack of or sporadic attendance be no dig deal?

PS. I added “eternity” as a category for this post, because some of our meetings feel like they take that long.

The beginning of the lesson talks about Joseph’s re-translation of the Bible (the JST) that resulted in clarifying passages and words throughout the Bible, the Book of Moses, the expansion of Matthew 24, and several “spin-off” revelations as Joseph asked for further enlightenment about different principles, including D&C 74, 76, 77, 86 and 91.  From the Book of Moses:

“For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”  Moses:  1:37, 39

The “Plan of Salvation” as we have it today resulted from JS’s efforts to restore “plain and precious” parts of the scriptures that would more clearly explain what happened before we were born, what happens after we die, and why we are here on the earth.  Some components that were restored or clarified by JS:

• That we existed before birth in a pre-mortal world with God & Jesus.  Exactly what this looked like is still up for grabs, though.  Did we live in families?  In BYU-approved housing?  Was there a dress code?
• That there was a plan, and we all sanctioned it.  Even those who have never voted in a single election apparently weighed in on this one.
• That Satan had an alternate plan that was rejected, resulting in his being cast out.  I always wonder if we had debates or if we vacillated at all; or were we just so dang smart we immediately saw through that “bad” plan?
• That matter is eternal; that God “organized” rather than “created” the earth.  That we are eternal in nature, without beginning or end.  This puts us on much more equal footing with God than in other faiths, and is considered blasphemous to some.  Yet, as a Mormon, I have to say this is one aspect of our religion that totally ROCKS!
• That obtaining a body, gaining knowledge and growing in faith are the purpose of life on earth.  This is a Mormon way of putting it; the Protestant version is that we believe our works save us rather than grace.  It is through grace we are saved; it is through our progression we increase our ability to withstand glory (God’s and our own).
• That beings with bodies are more powerful than beings of Spirit only.  The body is not a corruption that defiles us; it glorifies us and is a part of the soul.  This is again, a very unique teaching of Mormonism.  The body is not just a hollow husk that we gratefully discard at death; it is essential to our progress, and it is more glorious and powerful than spirit alone.
• That each of us has moral agency and will be held responsible for our choices of good or evil; that those choices affect our ability to receive and channel spiritual light.  We are constantly in motion, either progressing or digressing.  This idea that it’s not really possible to stand still is probably true, but a little disturbing.  Life is long.
• That our eternal reward is not pass/fail, but is based on the degree of glory we have attained through enlightenment, faith, increasing our intelligence, and becoming like Christ and our father in Heaven.  Another aspect of Mormonism that I find very appealing; we are not “God’s pets,” but His children.

Q:  Are there other specific aspects of the plan of salvation and the purpose of life that we know because of revelations to the Prophet Joseph Smith that I missed?

Q:  Which of these do you find most compelling, enlightening and helpful?  Are there any you don’t care for or find helpful?

Q:  Do you like our plan of salvation more or less than those proposed by other religions (e.g. Hinduism, Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism)?  What do you like and not like?

Eternal Intelligences

“Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.  God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.”  (1844)

Q: How does this influence the way we understand our own nature?  How does this influence how we should treat other people?

Q:  Are you one of the stronger or weaker intelligences?  How do you know?  When you meet a weaker intelligence, do you think “I am so awesome!”?  Do you think that’s what happens when a stronger intelligence meets you?

Bodies Rule!

“The design of God before the foundation of the world was that we should take tabernacles [bodies], that through faithfulness we should overcome and thereby obtain a resurrection from the dead, in this wise obtaining glory, honor, power, and dominion.”  (1843)

“We came to this earth that we might have a body and present it pure before God in the celestial kingdom. The great principle of happiness consists in having a body. The devil has no body, and herein is his punishment. He is pleased when he can obtain the tabernacle of man, and when cast out by the Savior he asked to go into the herd of swine, showing that he would prefer a swine’s body to having none. All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not.”  (undated, JS quoted by William Clayton)

Q:  How does this knowledge affect the way we should care for our bodies?  How is this unique perspective different from other religions?  From secular views?

Q:  How can we strengthen the connection between our bodies and spirits to make our bodies receptacles of light?

You Wish The Devil Made You Do It

“President Joseph Smith … observed that Satan was generally blamed for the evils which we did, but if he was the cause of all our wickedness, men could not be condemned. The devil could not compel mankind to do evil; all was voluntary. Those who resisted the Spirit of God, would be liable to be led into temptation, and then the association of heaven would be withdrawn from those who refused to be made partakers of such great glory. God would not exert any compulsory means, and the devil could not; and such ideas as were entertained [on these subjects] by many were absurd.”  (1841, paraphrased in Times & Seasons)

“Satan cannot seduce us by his enticements unless we in our hearts consent and yield. Our organization is such that we can resist the devil; if we were not organized so, we would not be free agents.”  (1841, JS quoted by William P. McIntire)

Q:  Does this view marginalize Satan’s influence because we are really the ones who are free agents and responsible for our actions?  Would you rather you could blame Satan for your shortcomings?

Q:  Does Satan like his job or does he think it totally blows but he’s just putting on a happy face for the minions?  Does he get burned out?  Is he just watching the millennial clock?

For the teachers out there, good luck!  For the rest of you, discuss.

-Revelation Ch. 20 (vs. 12-15)

Love is a burning thing and it makes a fiery ring. Bound by wild desire, I fell into a ring of fire.

-Johnny Cash

In the LDS church, members are written into the book of life with their baptism and confirmation. For some, the love affair with the gospel can truly become a fiery passion. That passion produces its greatest defenders, but sometimes the fire consumes its lover. So the stage is set for the most intense crime of passion, the greatest act of violence… the blotting out of a name from the book of life.

Whether it is voluntary, through writing a letter of resignation, or involuntary, through excommunication, the removal of a name from membership is violence.

The voluntary resignation commits violence against the authority of the church, with the pen slashing and stabbing at the institution in the effort to eliminate its ability to exercise dominion and judgment. It challenges the veracity of the book of life itself. It comes from the place where the book has no power

The involuntary excommunication is the violence of corporal punishment. It is the parent who believes the only remaining path to teaching is to strike. The hope exists that the subject will make the correction in response to the intensity of the pain, and thus it becomes seen as an act of love. It is the great hammer of judgment and rejection that is meant to crush the pride out of them. The final and terrible weapon. It comes from the place where the book has complete power, because the veracity of the book of life is the very blade that cuts.

When a person has given up the desire to participate in the church community, technically they could go on living with at worst the inconvenience of having to explain that they aren’t interested each time they move, or when a new bishop or ward mission leader is called. They could pro-actively request to be marked as a “do not contact”, although that never completely stops the most zealous of missionaries. This path is not insufferable. So it makes me curious to know some of the reasons why someone removes their name from the records of the church. What made that necessary? Did it accomplish what you hoped?

When a church member has “qualified” for excommunication, and I am talking mostly about those who are moral people but whose philosophical positions are in opposition to the church, disfellowship basically accomplishes the most necessary functions to protect the church. The person is not able to participate in any public worship practices which would indicate endorsement or condoning of their positions, like holding callings, praying in meetings, or exercising priesthood. The only thing that excommunication does beyond that is the blotting out of their name from the book of life. It is an “eternity-level” punishment with no “temporal-level” impact above and beyond disfellowship. So why is such a measure necessary? Does this escalation produce more consistently desired results over disfellowship?

In a way, it almost seems like these acts of violence are like retaliatory interplay between rival gangs, as illustrated by this clip of Sean Connery explaining the escalating violence of “the Chicago way” from The Untouchables.

I have personally had my moments where I felt like participating at all was just no longer the path for me, and as I’ve tried to navigate the actions and causes which I feel inspired to take I have contemplated the possibility of church discipline. However, I’m just not sure I will ever see a need to resign my membership, and although I don’t really fear it, I do hope that I am never excommunicated. Its more about the gesture, than whether or not the book of life is efficacious. I don’t see the good I would accomplish in my own act of ultimate rejection, and I don’t want to look at (in the eyes of my local leaders) the church which means so much to my family and friends as it sets me aflame.

Could we live without this kind of violence? What would be the negative effect if tolerance, long-suffering, and real forgiveness were to trump whatever is the motivation to blot out our names?

Take this assessment and find out:

(Taken from D. Jeff Burton’s For Those Who Wonder : forthosewhowonder.com. Similar to a Correlation Department survey on Religion and Life conducted among LDS Church members in the mid-1980s)

So share if you dare, or simply sit back and contemplate the combinations and their consequences for our church!

Joseph Smith had a lot of experience with grieving.  The lesson lists his bereavement resume in a jumbled order, so here it is chronologically:

• 1810 – brother Ephraim died (JS age 5)
• 1823 – brother Alvin died (JS age 18)
• 1828 – lost first son, Alvin (JS age 23)
• 1831 – twin children Louisa & Thadeus died (JS age 26)
• 1832 – adopted twin son Joseph died due to exposure from mobbing incident (JS age 27)
• 1840 – father Joseph, Sr. died (JS age 35)
• 1841 – son Don Carlos died and brother Don Carlos died (JS age 36)
• 1842 – other unnamed son died (JS age 37)

Q:  How did Joseph’s life experiences influence the revelations he received and the foundational concepts of the restored church?

How to Give Comfort

Joseph says:

I feel disposed to speak on the subject in general, and offer you my ideas, so far as I have ability, and so far as I shall be inspired by the Holy Spirit to dwell on this subject.  (1844)

So, he is not making a pronouncement of doctrine or revelation.  He just says that he feels moved to speak because he has experience.  Perhaps, there’s a bit of counsel here for all of us – if you don’t have experience with grieving, you don’t need to speak about it.  At times, people seem willing to chip in their two cents because they understand the Plan of Salvation, but they may do it in a ham-fisted way because they really don’t have experience with actual grieving.  So, mourn with those that mourn.  But if you don’t have mourning experience, shut yer trap.  (Since I have very little personal experience, I fall into the latter camp).

Q:  Many people join the church because they seek comfort at the time of grieving.  How can we offer lasting comfort and not just empty platitudes?

How to Understand Truth

I want your prayers and faith that I may have the instruction of Almighty God and the gift of the Holy Ghost, so that I may set forth things that are true and which can be easily comprehended by you, and that the testimony may carry conviction to your hearts and minds of the truth of what I shall say. (1844)

He doesn’t specifically say that all he is going to say will be true, just that he wants to share truth and a hope that individuals will be able to feel the conviction of what is true in their hearts and minds.

Q:  Why is it important that Joseph acknowledged he wasn’t always speaking doctrine or revelation, but sometimes just an opinion?

How to Live & How to Die

And may we contemplate these things so? Yes, if we learn how to live and how to die.

This has been a warning voice to us all to be sober and diligent and lay aside mirth, vanity and folly, and to be prepared to die tomorrow.  (1843)

For some reason, the highlighted phrase sounds like the Klingons (sorry, non-Trekkers) saying, “Today is a good day to die.”

Q:  What does this counsel mean to you?

“The Dead” vs. Death

I have a father, brothers, children, and friends who have gone to a world of spirits. They are only absent for a moment. They are in the spirit, and we shall soon meet again. The time will soon arrive when the trumpet shall sound. When we depart, we shall hail our mothers, fathers, friends, and all whom we love, who have fallen asleep in Jesus.  (1844)

When we lie down we contemplate how we may rise in the morning; and it is pleasing for friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each other’s embrace and renew their conversation.  (1843)

This makes death sound more like a slumber party than being torn from our loved ones, or like Brigadoon.  Joseph does not talk about death conceptually at all; he only speaks of “the dead,” those people whom we love, with whom we have shared our lives, and with whom we will commune once more.  This is another insight into Joseph’s views on the communal nature of worship and salvation, that we covenant with other seekers of Christ, and we bear one anothers’ burdens, and rise together and greet one another with joy in the resurrection.

Q:  Why is it significant to speak of “the dead” rather than “death” in LDS doctrine?  What is the difference?

Parents Grieving for Children

He told us that we should receive those children in the morning of the resurrection just as we laid them down, in purity and innocence, and we should nourish and care for them as their mothers. He said that children would be raised in the resurrection just as they were laid down, and that they would obtain all the intelligence necessary to occupy thrones, principalities and powers. (Mary Isabella Horne remembering Joseph’s words in a statement she gave in 1896)

Q:  How does this idea provide comfort to grieving parents?

Joseph made a lot of these statements in 1844, right before his own death.  How was Joseph an example of someone who knew how to live and how to die?

What are your thoughts on this difficult lesson?  Anything particularly resonate for you?  Any additional words of advice for those teaching it?

Discuss.

Please welcome first time guest blogger Denae.

I did not marry my husband with the hope that he would convert, I do not encourage missionaries to come over to our house, and I do not think I have less of a marriage, or less of an eternal future because of my marriage. What I wish people would understand is we are not the only church that believes in our own religiosity, we are not the only ones that have the right to convert other people. If I have the right to try and convert my husband, than he has the right to try and convert me! If I want him to respect my ability to chose my religion that I have to respect his ability to chose his religion.

I can’t begin to tell you how many people have said “So when are you going to start bringing your husband to church?” I have a 30 second answer, a 2 minute answer, and a 5 minute answer, depending on the person and the situation. So far most people are pretty good about it, but… it is still annoying. Mormons have such a reputation about trying to convert people that my husband is afraid to spend any time around my church friends or to go to any church activities, for fear that he will be descended upon like a storm of locusts, everyone being super nice to him in hopes of trying to convert him. I hate that because I want people to accept him exactly like he is. He is not a lesser person because he is not LDS.

I have a bit of a controversial belief. Everything that I have been taught of the nature of God and my own personal experience with God, does not lead me to believe in an exclusionary God. I can’t believe that God would really split up a family after death because they didn’t perform a specific ceremony because they weren’t all worshiping under the religious name. That doesn’t sound like a nice God; that sounds downright mean. So I don’t believe that my husband (and any potential future children) will be separated at death. Maybe in the hereafter we’ll have to do some extra work, maybe take some extra classes, something like that, but ultimately we’ll still be together.

Meanwhile in addition to the frequent conversations about trying to convert my husband, I have to deal with the constant references about having a lesser marriage. Even though I don’t believe I have a lesser marriage, it is still not fun to listen to it. I have even heard references to it being a commandment to marry another LDS person.

So I don’t know if I have a question per se but just what your thoughts are. I am completely open to disagreement on my current belief about what will happen to combined families not married in the temple in the hereafter. Also, if anyone has comments about how families are treated where one spouse is not LDS, or maybe this would even apply if the spouse is not active, or (fill in the blank). I look forward to the comments, thanks!

In a Priesthood lesson a few months ago, we were discussing “things I’ve learned in life” – everyone taking turns sharing something with everyone else. He said something that broke my heart – that I am sure I will never forget. This brilliantly humble man, whose Gospel knowledge blows us all away but who sits quietly throughout most lessons and just listens, said:

“I have learned that our deepest and most difficult trials can bring us closer to God than anything else can. I am profoundly grateful for that lesson; I just wish I had not had to learn it the way I did.”

2) In high school, I was blessed to sing for David Dahlquist, one of the most impressive musicians and directors I have ever met. (A song he wrote – “Lullaby” – took second place in the 1980 All-Church Music Contest.)

“Mr. D” had numerous opportunities to leave our little farm community school and pursue a career at the college level and beyond. He stayed, however, because he simply loved touching kids’ hearts and helping them find glory and majesty in music. The sheer joy and rapture on his face when a song “clicked” with his students was wonderful to behold. He touched more lives directly and profoundly in his 30 years as a teacher than perhaps anyone else in the history of the towns that feed into that high school. Other than my father, he probably is the one teacher who has been the greatest inspirational example in my life.

His and his wife’s story is told in the September, 2002 Ensign – (”In a Quiet House”). It illustrates Dave and Maria Elena amazingly well. What it doesn’t mention is that Mr. D served as a Bishop and as a Stake President during some of the time (the last few years) the story details. Their story will break your heart and fill your soul.

Please read it now at the link above. (This post will still be here when you are done. Really, go ahead and read it before moving on here. Don’t keep reading this; read it first.)

As difficult as it is to understand and accept experiences like these, I am inspired by our ability to rise above anything that happens in our lives by holding fast to a faith – any faith – that allows us to see the good even in the trials that break our hearts. Stephen is an inspiration to me. As he said so eloquently elsewhere, “All we can hope for is for God to bring us home.” I am grateful for that faith and that hope – and I pray that I will not have to learn the lessons my friend and Mr. D learned in the same way they did as God works to bring me home. 

(Please pardon a personal request: Mr.D retired a few years ago, and a scholarship fund was established in his name to help an exceptional student each year who sings at Payson High School pursue his or her college career. If you know of anyone who can read his story and bring this fund to a greater audience – or bring it to someone who can endow it to provide a regular scholarship off of the interest, I will be eternally grateful.)