New Year celebrations are some of the oldest holidays known to man.  The Babylonians had an 11 day celebration to ring in the New Year about 4000 years ago.  This celebration began with the first New Moon following the Vernal Equinox (Mar 21).  The Romans continued to observe the New Year in March, but due to tampering with the calendar by various emporers, the calendar became out of synchronization with the sun.  In 153 BC, the Roman senate decided to start the New Year to match the same time the senate started sessions:  January 1.  Further calendar tampering continued, and Julius Ceasar decided to synchronize the calendar in 46 BC by allowing the previous year to last 445 days.  (This is known as the Julian calendar.)  Our current calendar is based on the Gregorian Calendar, (named after Pope Gregory 13th), and was introduced February 24, 1582 using the birth of Christ as year 1.  (However, it is widely believed he was off a few years–even by his contemporaries.  With all the changes in calendaring systems, it’s easy to see why.)

Many of you are probably familiar that April 1 was originally the day of the New Year, and it was the April Fools who didn’t know it had been changed to January 1.  A possible origin for April Fools Day may have been when King Charles IX of France officially changed the first day of the year from April 1 to January 1, some of his subjects continued using the old system, based on the Julian calendar.

——

We don’t normally associate January 1 with Christian celebrations, but there is a great story in the Bible.  If Dec 25 represents Christ’s birth, 8 days later (Jan 1) would be the day Christ was circumcised.  The story is found in Luke 2:21-30.  You may remember that Simeon was promised that he would not die before seeing the Lord Jesus.

Luk 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Luk 2:28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

Luk 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

The Eastern Orthodox Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, Lutheran Churches, and some churches in the Anglican Communion celebrate Jan 1 as The Feast of the Circumcision of Christ. According to Wikipedia,

The feast is celebrated with an All-Night Vigil, beginning the evening of December 31. The hymns of the feast are combined with those for Saint Basil the Great. After the Divine Liturgy the next morning, Russian Orthodox churches often celebrate a New Year Molieben (service of intercession) to pray for God’s blessing for the beginning of the civil New Year.

So, would anyone like to celebrate the New Year the Russian Orthodox way?

———–

Now, I thought the beginning of Elder Eyring’s talk introduces the idea of New Years Resolutions quite well:

I feel blessed to have the opportunity to speak with you on this Sabbath day. Different as we are in circumstances and experiences, we share a desire to become better than we are. There may be a few who mistakenly feel they are good enough and a few who have given up trying to be better. But, for all, the message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is that we can and must expect to become better as long as we live.

It’s hard to tell by reading just the print version here, but Elder Eyring is actually saying this is a kind of joking way “There may be a few who mistakenly feel they are good enough”.  I’ve always noticed that Elder Eyring frequently gets choked up with emotion (as he does later in this talk), and it is nice to see that he is trying to exhibit a sense of humor, though there were no chuckles here.  (I get tired of people who feel the need to cry every testimony, and it seems to me Eyring usually fits to this category–if the gospel makes us happy, why all the crying?)

I think there are some who won’t do any resolutions because they “have given up trying to be better.”  I admit that I often don’t do resolutions, and perhaps I fit into this category.  Are there any others willing to admit this?

———–

The next paragraph, Eyring seems to have misplaced the setting of a scripture, calling it a revelation to Joseph Smith at first.  That seems like a bit of a mis-characterization to me.  Rather than a revelation to Joseph, isn’t this a sermon/exhortation from the prophet Mormon?  Is this some sort of off-handed way to say that Joseph revealed the Book of Mormon, rather than translated the Book of Mormon?  Eyring says,

Part of that expectation is set for us in a revelation given by God to the Prophet Joseph Smith. It describes the day when we will meet the Savior, as we all will. It tells us what to do to prepare and what to expect.

It is in the book of Moroni: “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.” [Moroni 7:48]

That ought to help you understand why any believing Latter-day Saint is an optimist about what lies ahead for him or her, however difficult the present may be.

———-

Wait a minute–aren’t Mormons depressed because they’re trying too hard to be like Jesus, or is it true the Mormons live in the happiest State in the Nation?  Which side do you pick?

———-

Eyring continues,

We believe that through living the gospel of Jesus Christ we can become like the Savior, who is perfect. Considering the attributes of Jesus Christ should quash the pride of the self-satisfied person who thinks he or she has no need to improve. And even the most humble person can take hope in the invitation to become like the Savior.

Ok, I guess we all have need of New Years Resolutions….  How far do we take this analogy to be like Jesus?  Can we take it to exaltation/theosis?

———–

Elder Eyring gets choked up while relating the words to a children’s song.  I think the words could well be heeded on the bloggernacle.

“Love one another as Jesus loves you.
Try to show kindness in all that you do.
Be gentle and loving in deed and in thought,
For these are the things Jesus taught.”
[“I’m Trying to Be like Jesus,” Children’s Songbook, 78–79.]

I know that I can do a better job of “trying to show kindness in all that [I blog]“.  While feelings can often get heated on the bloggernacle, how do we disagree in a way that “show[s] kindness”?

——–

I liked Elder Eyring’s counsel to see the good in our spouses.  As marriage lengthens, it is really easy for all of us to become shorter with our spouses, and I don’t look for the good in my wife as I should.  I resolve to look for the good in my wife.

First, I give counsel to husbands and wives. Pray for the love which allows you to see the good in your companion. Pray for the love that makes weaknesses and mistakes seem small. Pray for the love to make your companion’s joy your own. Pray for the love to want to lessen the load and soften the sorrows of your companion.

I saw this in my parents’ marriage. In my mother’s final illness, the more uncomfortable she became, the more giving her comfort became the dominant intent of my father’s life. He asked that the hospital set up a bed in her room. He was determined to be there to be sure that she wanted for nothing. He walked the miles to work each morning and back to her side at night through those difficult times for her. I believe it was a gift from God to him that his power to love grew when it mattered so much to her. I think he was doing what Jesus would have done out of love.

———–

I think this counsel can be applied to the bloggernacle as well.  We ought to pray for the love which allows us to see the good in those we disagree with.  We ought not to be so judgmental, especially on divisive topics.  One wouldn’t think that the next paragraph would be divisive, but it sure can be on the bloggernacle as we talk about families.

That is because the greatest joys and the greatest sorrows we experience are in family relationships. The joys come from putting the welfare of others above our own. That is what love is. And the sorrow comes primarily from selfishness, which is the absence of love. The ideal God holds for us is to form families in the way most likely to lead to happiness and away from sorrow. A man and a woman are to make sacred covenants that they will put the welfare and happiness of the other at the center of their lives. Children are to be born into a family where the parents hold the needs of children equal to their own in importance. And children are to love parents and each other.

That is the ideal of a loving family. In many of our homes, there are the words “Our Family Can Be Together Forever.”

———

I think the Prodigal Son is one of my favorite parables of Jesus.  It is the story of both Judgment and Forgiveness, and I think its’ application is one of the most difficult.

The story of the prodigal son gives us all hope. The prodigal remembered home, as will your children. They will feel your love drawing them back to you. Elder Orson F. Whitney, in a general conference of 1929, gave a remarkable promise, which I know is true, to the faithful parents who honor the temple sealing to their children: “Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold.”

Then he goes on to say: “Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.”4 You can pray for your children, love them, and reach out to them with confidence that Jesus reaches for them with you. When you keep trying, you are doing what Jesus does.

When we look at people with drug problems, or serious sexual offenses, how do we apply this story?  Recitivism for drug addicts and sexual predators is very high.  Some believe they can’t be rehabilitated.  Governor Huckabee’s pardon of a man who went on to kill 4 police officers seems that he was trying to use the example of the Prodigal Son.  From the Washington Post article,

“If I could have known nine years ago this guy was capable of something of this magnitude, obviously I would never have granted a commutation,” he told Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly on Monday night. “It’s sickening.”

Huckabee defended his decision,

On Tuesday, Huckabee defended his decision to commute Clemmons’ sentence during a call to “The Joe Scarborough Show” on 77 WABC radio in New York. If his critics had been there in the governor’s mansion, Huckabee said, “They would have seen a 16-year-old kid commit crimes of which normally, there would have been a few years. And if he’d been white and middle-class with a good lawyer he’d have gotten probation, a fine and some counseling. But because he was a young black kid, he got 108 years!”

“People don’t go to prison for murder” with that sort of sentence, Huckabee said.

The recent hit movie, The Blind Side, seems to be a feel good story of a family who took in a Prodigal Son, Michael Oher, and turned his life around from a life of crime and gangs.  How do we practically apply this parable, when it is so easy for criminals to deceive?

One evening when my wife and I had the opportunity to reflect on the timeless story of Adam and Eve, it struck me that their different responses to God’s commandments, and to Lucifer’s “temptation”, perfectly exemplified the different mindsets of TBMs and NOMs, and symbolically portrayed the age-old struggle between Orthodox and Liberal in any faith. And as I meditated on their dramatic dialog with Lucifer, with each other, and with God, it donned on me that Adam and Eve were the perfect TBM-NOM couple.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the TBM and NOM labels, allow me to briefly explain. Generally speaking, the mantra of TBMs is “follow the Prophet” while the mantra of NOMs is “follow your conscience.” This is not to say that TBMs don’t believe in following their conscience, nor that NOMs don’t believe in following the Prophet. Rather, the main difference between TBMs and NOMs relates to who they believe holds the “trump card” in situations where their personal views differ from Church leaders’ views. In such cases, TBMs typically believe they must yield to the authority and judgment of Church leaders, while NOMs typically believe they must follow their conscience even at the expense of disobeying Church leaders. This deference to authority by TBMs, and deference to personal conviction by NOMs, is typically an outgrowth of their divergent views about Church history. TBMs truly believe the Church’s official historical narrative (which supports Church leaders’ exclusive claim to priesthood authority and their special status as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators), while NOMs disbelieve or seriously doubt the Church’s official history (and therefore seek a new order or approach that gleans all the goodness Mormonism has to offer while pruning away the doctrines and practices that don’t bear fruit for them). These divergent views about Church history are usually accompanied by differing views about the nature of prophets and apostles. TBMs typically view prophets and apostles as authoritative guides who “will never lead us astray” in spiritual, temporal, and even political affairs, while NOMs believe that even prophets and apostles unavoidably “see through a glass darkly” when it comes to discerning God’s will, and may therefore occasionally lead us astray despite their best and most sincere intentions — hence NOMs’ inclination to rely ultimately on their own convictions.

Because TBMs typically view Church history and prophetic accuracy as clear-cut, black-and-white matters, they typically view obedience to Church leaders as a simple choice between good and evil. By contrast, NOMs’ murky view of Church history and prophetic discernment causes them to view obedience to authority as a complicated challenge where one must constantly navigate through innumerable “gray areas” of inconsistency and ambiguity, continually confronting the dilemma of choosing between the lesser of two evils, or the greater of two goods.

With that generalized description of TBMs and NOMs in mind, let’s examine how Adam and Eve exemplified these two different approaches.

Adam’s “TBM Response” to Lucifer’s Suggestion to Eat the Forbidden Fruit

Adam’s response to Lucifer when he suggests that Adam eat the forbidden fruit reflects a typical TBM mindset. When Lucifer suggests that Adam eat the forbidden fruit, Adam’s has an instant, knee-jerk rejection. With almost child-like disbelief that Lucifer would even dare suggest that Adam break the rules, Adam responds to Lucifer that because God told him not to eat the fruit, he would not eat it.

Adam’s response to Lucifer exemplifies the typical TBM mindset where all proposed actions are screened to determine whether they would conflict with any pronouncement by Authority, and if so, they are immediately rejected. Adam’s almost-automated thought process resembles that of a computer that refuses to do X simply because it was pre-programmed not to do X. Adam’s response to Lucifer demonstrates that he does not condition his obedience on his understanding or agreeing with God’s rationale for forbidding him from eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; the mere fact that God has forbidden it is enough to persuade Adam not to do it.

Of equal significance is what Adam does not do when Lucifer suggests he eat the forbidden fruit. He does not carefully ponder Lucifer’s proposal before deciding to reject it; he does not weigh the pro’s and con’s of eating the forbidden fruit or consider how doing so might fit into God’s larger plan. Nor does Adam even consider the possibility that eating the forbidden fruit might actually be necessary to fulfill God’s other commandments. In addition, Adam does not engage in any dialog with Lucifer before deciding to quickly brush aside his suggestion to eat the forbidden fruit; Adam is clearly not interested in learning the rationale behind Lucifer’s suggestion. The mere fact that Lucifer is suggesting he do something that would violate one of God’s commandments is enough to cause Adam to completely distrust and discount Lucifer’s proposal.

In addition, it is interesting to note that when Lucifer tempted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, he did so with the enticement that it would make Adam “wise”. Adam’s instant rejection of Lucifer’s offer to become wise through unapproved means demonstrates Adam’s absolute trust in Authority; it displays Adam’s confidence that if there is something important to know, God will reveal it to him in due time, and that he therefore need not go behind God’s back and obtain wisdom from alternative sources.

Although Adam’s TBM approach is admirable for the absolute trust and loyalty to God that it displays, it is sobering to recognize that Adam’s unquestioning and absolute obedience –if not tempered by Eve– would have ultimately prevented their spiritual development and unwittingly foiled God’s plan for all mankind. But to be fair to Adam and his like-minded TBMs, we can’t really blame them for taking God and his Prophets seriously when they speak. Just as nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, nobody expects God to tell us, whether personally or through his authorized representatives, not to do something that is actually necessary for our eternal progression.

Eve’s “NOM Response” to Lucifer’s Suggestion to Eat the Forbidden Fruit

Eve’s response to Lucifer’s suggestion to eat the forbidden fruit is the polar opposite of Adam’s. Rather than immediately rebuffing Satan, she actually engages in dialog with the enemy of righteousness. The notable fact that Eve does not immediately dismiss Lucifer’s suggestion to break God’s commandment seems to indicate that: (1) Eve’s mind is at least open to the possibility that God’s commandments must sometimes be broken; and (2) she must rely on her own judgment to determine whether, when, and how she should obey, rather than absolutely and unquestioningly obeying all commandments at all times.

When Lucifer suggests that Eve eat the forbidden fruit for the purpose of gaining knowledge, Eve apparently sees some merit in his unorthodox proposal. Apparently recognizing that knowledge of good and evil is a necessary part of her eternal progression, Eve considers Lucifer’s proposal further by asking whether disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit is the only way to obtain that knowledge. It seems here that, unlike Adam, Eve intuits the concept of “necessary evil” — situations where we must break one of God’s laws in order to obey a higher law or accomplish a greater purpose. In such cases, technical disobedience to lesser laws enables obedience to higher laws — although the Adams of the Church (TBMs) may interpret such measured disobedience as just plain rebellion at worst, or a lukewarm commitment to God at best.

When Lucifer assures Eve there is no other way to obtain knowledge than by disobeying God’s commandment and partaking of the forbidden fruit, Eve believes Lucifer and partakes. Of course, Eve’s decision to eat the forbidden fruit could be seen as incredibly gullible and foolish. After all, how could she trust that Lucifer was telling her the truth when he said there was no other way to obtain knowledge? And how could she use Lucifer’s assurance as a basis to disregard God’s clear and direct command not to eat the forbidden fruit? Accordingly, Mother Eve’s act of disobedience has been viewed by many as the Original Sin for which she and all mankind have been deservedly punished.

But LDS leaders have taught that Mother Eve should be lauded and revered as a heroine of mankind for her decision to disobey God, not chastised and vilified as a disobedient rebel. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained:

When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. . . .

For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose. . . .

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. . . .

Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall. (Dallin H. Oaks, “‘The Great Plan of Happiness’,” Ensign, Nov 1993, 72.)

Is it possible that one of the reasons God required a “willful breaking of a law” in Eden was to teach mankind the paradoxical principle that we sometimes need to disobey ecclesiastical authority and break “the rules” to fulfill God’s greater purposes for our existence? When I consider Brigham Young’s words: “I am fearful they [Church members] settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation,” I wonder, specifically what “purposes of God in [our] salvation” are “thwart[ed]” by “a reckless confidence” in our Church leaders? In light of the LDS doctrine that God’s purpose is to help us become like him, does Brigham Young’s statement mean that it is actually un-Godlike to give unquestioning, absolute Adam-like obedience to our ecclesiastical authorities? Was he advocating a more examined, Eve-like approach to decision-making that recognizes sometimes disobedience is paradoxically necessary to accomplish God’s greater purposes?

Adam’s Redeeming Love

Regardless of what people may think of Adam’s initial failure to recognize the wisdom of eating the forbidden fruit, his loving response to Eve when she informs him of her disobedience and inevitable expulsion from Eden more than redeems him. When Eve informs Adam of her disobedience to God, his choice is a stark one: become separated from Eve and remain innocent and uncompromisingly obedient in a sheltered paradise, or stay with Eve by joining in her disobedience and expulsion. Adam’s willingness to endure disapproval, chastisement, and exile to remain with Eve demonstrated that his love for her exceeded his concern for his own comfort, safety, and approval. By recognizing that the greatest good was to stay together with Eve, and that the greatest evil was to be separated from her, Adam demonstrated he ultimately understood what the Gospel is truly all about.

Adam the Head and Eve the Neck: Both Members of the Body of Christ

When I shared these thoughts with my wife after separately reflecting on the Adam and Eve story, she responded: “Those are interesting observations, but there’s one big problem with your theory: even though it was Eve who made the right decision, Adam was given stewardship over her.” And my wife was right. God’s decision to give Adam stewardship over Eve is another puzzle in an ancient story already filled with paradox. After all, if it was Eve whose “wisdom and courage” made humankind’s existence possible as Elder Oaks has explained, and if it was Adam who was too slow to figure out something as quickly as Eve, then why not just put Eve in charge?

My response to my wife’s valid observation was along the following lines:

You’re right that it seems unfair that Adam was put in charge when it was Eve’s wisdom and courage that led to the right decision and the right result, but that’s exactly how it works in the Church today too. Although the Adams of the Church are put in charge, it’s the Eve’s of the Church that ultimately set the Church’s course. Just about every major change in Church policy and practice has been preceded by a chorus of Eves pleading with the Adams in charge to implement a change of course. For example, Lowell Bennion publicly disagreed with the Church’s priesthood ban long before 1978 and was fired from his CES job as a result of his “rebellious” views. But when the Church abandoned the priesthood ban in 1978, Elder McConkie acknowledged to a conference of CES instructors that he and other prophets and apostles had previously spoken with “limited understanding” when they had supported the priesthood ban. So in effect, there you had an Adam of the Church acknowledging that the Eves of the Church had been right all along. So it’s like the mother said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding: the man may be the head of the family, but the woman is the neck, and she turns the head in whatever direction she wants.

In light of the lessons we learn from Adam and Eve’s divergent approaches to deferring to authority versus relying on personal judgment, perhaps TBMs and NOMs can show greater appreciation for one another. As the Apostle Paul said, we are all “the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (Cor. 12:27) Hopefully, none of us will ever be guilty of saying to another member of the body of Christ: “I have no need of thee.” (Cor. 12:21.) Hopefully, the Adams of the Church (TBM’s) can recognize the valuable role that the Eve’s in the Church (NOM’s) play in moving us all closer to a correct understanding of God’s will, even if occasionally it appears their calls for change seem to be rebellion, disobedience, or disrespect for authority. As the Apostle Paul taught, we must show proper respect to all members of the body of Christ, and particularly those members that seem less honorable: “those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour.” (Cor. 12:23.)

Likewise, hopefully the Eves of the Church can be patient and take hope in the understanding that the Adams of the Church have good motives: they want to obey God, they want to do what is right, and they want to protect and preserve the truths God has given us in times past. Although their role as guardians of truth causes them to view any proposed change of course with great suspicion, they do ultimately come to recognize the wisdom of the course changes proposed by the Eves of the Church, and on a timetable that, although not swift enough for some, hopefully occurs before large numbers of members of the body of Christ decide to amputate one another.

So here’s to Father Adam and Mother Eve’s opposing but complementary approaches to learning, to life, and to love.

OK Paul technically isn’t exactly an international DJ, not unless you consider that you can listen to his interviews on line.

He’s a returned missionary and member of the Grays Ward in the Romford Stake Essex England.  Paul got the show after being a presenter at Hospital Radio Chelmsford for a year and chased a local station for airtime:

“When I was asked to join Phoenix FM the station manager warned me that radio presenting wasn’t all easy but in fact involved a lot of voluntary service too.  I responded that I was a missionary in France for 2 years for the church and was used to giving service to others, as well as being actively involved in the church weekly.  The station manager was intrigued by this and I was invited to the station to explain more about my religious beliefs and the voluntary service I had done in France.  I was then offered the chance to begin a brand new religious show once a week that they had been wanting to start but couldn’t find anyone with the religious background to do it.  I put together the idea for a chat show where he would bring in local religious leaders and ask them about their beliefs on air and their views on current issues.”

Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson from the Church of Scientology – Listen   here

Highlights:

10 million members around the world. Their anti-drug program “Say no to drugs say yes to life”.  Human rights educational programme and other great work they do in the community.  We discussed the 8 dynamics, the founder of the church L. Ronald Hubbard and where the word “Scientology” comes from.

The core beliefs of the church of Scientology are:

Man is a spirit, he has lived before and that man is good. Through wisdom and knowledge man can improve any area of his life he wants. Scientology is all denominational and non-conversionary and members bring with them their own beliefs.

Great Interviews ( All the ads and music have been stripped out)

Habibur Rahman & Forad Edu – Islam / Alfurqaan Foundation
Father Matthew Bemand – St Thomas Church of England
Councillor Dudley Payne – Mayor of Brentwood
Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson – Scientology / Jive Aces
Ed Wellman – PhoenixFM Monday Classics
Richard Burch – Brentwood Buddhist Society
Chris Day – Crown Street Christian Fellowship
Reverand Peter Thomas (Baptist)
Reverand Trevor Jamison (United Reformed Church)
Julian May – ELIM
Father Paul Keane – Brentwood Catholic Cathedral
Bishop David Barter

The show can be seen at www.phoenixfm.com/proverbs98.php

Let us know your views

Surely, you have seen some of these folks:

• instead of communicating their true feelings, they use hackneyed cliche phrases (that are uniquely Mormon) to fit in
• they give the VT lesson never deviating to share their own true feelings unless those feelings could have been uttered by Julie Beck herself
• they prefer the standard Sunday School answers rather than thinking and sharing their own reflections
• they exercise a form of brand management:  doing the things that spell out “I’m a good Mormon,” and hiding anything that detracts from that image
• they are excessively careful of everything they say and do from a PR standpoint for the church

What would you do if every time you wanted to talk to your spouse, you had to consider the church in the relationship?  What if every time your child wanted advice from you, you referred them to what a church leader said or taught instead of sharing yourself with them?  What if every relationship was colored by your feelings of guilt or anticipation related to your own spiritual standing?

• Every family member or friend’s struggle would be a sign of your guilt for having failed them OR a sign that you should cut them off so you will not be tainted by association.
• Every new person you met would be an opportunity for a convert rather than a friend (and if not a convert, not a friend).
• You would carefully choose your words and deeds to demonstrate to others around you that you are living up to what you think they expect.
• If you ever did disagree with someone, you’d have to make sure that somehow your disagreement put YOU on the side of the church and THEM on the other side.
• If your spouse suddenly stopped attending church or became disaffected, you would stop loving them because they jeopardized your “perfect” image or your expectations for the Celestial Kingdom.

Matthew quotes Jesus as saying (Matt 10:34-37):

34 Think not that I am come to send ^apeace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s ^afoes shall be they of his own ^bhousehold.

37 He that ^aloveth father or mother ^bmore than me is not worthy of me: and he that ^cloveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

It seems that this comes with a few caveats:

• The church does not equal Jesus, even if one believes Jesus is at the head of it.  The church is a human institution that should ideally inspire us and draw us closer to Him.
• It’s pretty arrogant to put yourself (or your perceptions) in the role of Jesus and to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is rejecting you as the Savior was rejected.
• Being righteous does not equal being right.  In fact, once you start getting too concerned about the latter, you can kiss the former goodbye.
• The greatest two commandments are to love God and our fellow man as ourselves.  If we can’t even unconditionally love those closest to us (family and friends), how can we expect to love our enemies (also required)?
• “Perfect love casteth out fear.”  We can’t love people if we are consumed by fear of rejection (from either man or God).

Is this a particular problem in the church?  Do people really live their lives like this?  Do you know anyone like this?  Are you like this sometimes?  How do you take off the mask and “let your light so shine”?  Discuss.

This trend is probably to some extent backlash against the histo-centric year we are having with D&C as focus of GD class and JS manual in RS.  There may also be some desire to reaffirm our status as Christians when other religions often stigmatize us as not being Christian.  So, what would it look like if Christ were the center of our worship?  Here are some possibilities of how lessons & talks might be more Christ-centric:

1. the atonement of Christ; his role and divinity
2. how to apply Christ’s teachings:  how to be followers of Christ
3. stories from the life of Christ, events that happened to him in his lifetime
4. the parables of Jesus – sharing and elaborating on these messages
5. how to develop a personal relationship with Jesus; understanding Jesus’ nature as a personal friend

Have I missed any major angle above?  It occurs to me that these topics might get stale if covered for 3 hours every week.  Also, if speakers only focused on 1 or 2 of the 5, it would get very repetitive.  I also notice that as I look over the list, I don’t find them equally appealing.  Personally, I would prefer them in this order:  2, 4, 3, 5, 1.  What order would you prefer?  I think the order in which they are usually focused at church is the order I listed them above:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Do you agree?

Do you feel that Church should be more Christ-centered or that it is sufficiently Christ-centered?  Which of the above focuses would be of the most interest to you?  Are there some ways of focusing on Christ that you don’t find appealing?  How do you think our focus (especially by topic) compares to other Christian churches?  Discuss.

Here’s the parable:

51 Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field.  (What exactly are they digging for?)

52 And he said unto the first: Go ye and labor in the field, and in the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my countenance.  (So, rather than a team huddle and off they go, he talks to them one at a time.)

53 And he said unto the second: Go ye also into the field, and in the second hour I will visit you with the joy of my countenance.  (What if the guy is skylarking?  I don’t think he’s going to get “the joy of his master’s countenance” in that case.)

54 And also unto the third, saying: I will visit you;

55 And unto the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.  (So, is this about the twelve apostles specifically and seeing the face of the Savior?  Otherwise, why 12?)

56 And the lord of the field went unto the first in the first hour, and tarried with him all that hour, and he was made glad with the light of the countenance of his lord.  (Light and joy seem to be synonymous here.)

57 And then he withdrew from the first that he might visit the second also, and the third, and the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.  (So, he withdraws from the first.  He can’t visit everyone all at once.  Only one at a time.)

58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season— (They received it, but it was time bound when it was “expedient”?)

59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the ^alast, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;  (This only showed from the first to the last, but then it goes on to add from the last to the first and the first to the last.  Does he do this 3 times in reverse order in between?)

60 Every man in his own ^aorder, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.  (So, they got a full hour with the lord in which they and the lord were both glorified.)

61 Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these ^akingdoms, and the ^binhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.  (Earthly kingdoms or 3 degrees of glory?  Are these planets?)

62 And again, verily I say unto you, my ^afriends, I leave these ^bsayings with you to ^cponder in your hearts, with this commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall ^dcall upon me while I am near— (So, the Lord is not always near?  Does that mean sometimes he won’t hear us?)

• Who are the servants?  Everyone?  The 12 apostles?  Prophets through time?  Those that are called or who seek the Lord’s face?  Only those who have received the second comforter?
• Why are the workers sent out one at a time, each in his season?  Are the workers all working alone like the kids in “Holes”?  Does this mean it refers to our time on earth?
• What is the significance of the workers digging in a field, but with no other specified purpose?  Is the digging symbolic of something (e.g. seeking for treasure, preparing the ground for planting), or is it meant to signify a meaningless and mundane yet difficult and dirty task?
• What is the “joy of my countenance”?  Seeing the face of God literally (the second comforter)?  Receiving inspiration?  Obtaining a testimony or other spritual experience?  This is a phrase unique to this passage of scripture (“light of thy countenance” is also in Psalms; “full of joy with thy countenance” is found in Acts.)

Discuss.

If you want to build a ship, don’t herd people together to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.

Today’s post is from guest poster Melodrama.  As I thought about the ramifications of the ideas in different realms of my life and particularly in my worship, I was struck, because the point of the quote actually seems so opposite of my experience with the corporate nature of the church. Most lessons or talks focus on checklists or commandments or assignments: the ABC’s of revelation, the 4 steps to repentance, lists on chalkboards of how to keep x commandment better.

Is it because they are afraid that if they teach us the longing for what Joseph Smith claimed to have had, a very personal relationship with God, that they can’t deliver? Or are the checklists and assignments necessary for the institution of the church to survive and thrive?

I thought of K, a little girl I taught in Primary. At her baptism, her excitement got the best of her as she literally ran from the chapel to the font when it was her turn. Or a woman I watched baptized in the inner-city ward I used to attend. She could not contain her joy as she was raised out of the water, and it was manifest in a boisterous shriek of happiness. Her active participation in our church was short-lived, typical for the baptisms in that ward. I used to complain that the people the missionaries brought forth were not ready to fully commit to the church and its teachings, but who can deny the joy in her heart that day and who can tell the power it had in her life?

Others express their joy in a more subdued and quiet way, but these examples of those whose emotions were oblivious to procedure and protocol made me reminisce of my own baptism. While I don’t remember the details, and I’m certain I was not a runner or a screamer, I do not recall being assigned to baptism. I like to think I am pretty typical, that I chose baptism, not because I was commanded to do so, but because even as a little girl, I sensed the love of God and had a longing for the divine.

And nearly 30 years later, as I sat in church one Sunday in my ward in December, I was notified we would unexpectedly end one hour early due to problems with the facilities. When the bishop came in to announce it, one woman physically clapped at her excitement. As everyone went to find their children and leave, one man said, “I’ve never seen a happier bunch of Mormons”. It sort of begs the question, why build a boat if you have no desire to set sail to sea? If church is supposed to answer those longings for us, why are we happiest when we are freed from our obligation of attending? Must we have herdings and assignments because our longings are not enough to sustain us in the work of building a ship?

I wonder, are we efficiently building boats only to turn around and build another one and never recognize the endless immensity of the sea?

Recently I saw Religulous here and he touched on Horus here and a few of the parallels between the story of Horus and Jesus.

Many Mormons when they start delving and  unravelling events in our history also delve into what they can find out about (possible origins)

to the bible or even if you want to say conspiracy theories. Horus is one I have heard of members in our church and Christians of all faiths looking into as they go deeper into their historical studies of the Bible. Look at some of the comparisons sited by religious tolerance

Questions

Is this whole thing grasping at straws or is it uncanny the parallels between the two stories of Horus and Jesus?

Please Discuss

Notes: Religous Tolerance

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/25/horus-bible-parallels/feed/ 21 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/16/the-unsung-hero-of-the-nativity/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/16/the-unsung-hero-of-the-nativity/#comments Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:53:42 +0000 Hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3377 As I was setting up our nativity scene this year, I noticed the wisdom and cultural/racial diversity of the Magi, the docile farm animals (not minding the afterbirth on their food despite being herbivores), the grace and adoration of the Madonna with outstretched arms (and nary a stretch mark) toward the cooing babe, the aloof Boticelli-like angel who frankly doesn’t look like she’s that into it, and then I noticed Joseph’s face, searching vainly for some family resemblance as he peers down at Baby Jesus.  Often pushed aside in favor of the other players, Joseph is clearly the unsung hero of the Nativity.

Why is Joseph the unsung hero of this story?  While he is not a principle player (the mother & child take those roles), he is also not one of the quirky supporting cast members to this scene.  Among all the players, he is the one person who had the most power to create a very different narrative to this story.  Consider the following from Matthew:

18  Now the ^bbirth of Jesus Christ was ^con this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.  (“Before they came together” could mean marriage or consummation, or in other words, Joseph knew he wasn’t the father.  “She was found” also makes it sound as though he discovered it because it was evident rather than through a spontaneous confession.)

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick ^aexample, was ^bminded to ^cput her away privily.  (IOW, he wasn’t buying this “found with child of the HG” story, but he was also a mensch.  He could have been outraged, humiliated, veangeful, etc.  There are frankly some current examples of women in the middle east in similar situations that end quite differently.)

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a ^adream, saying, Joseph, thou son of ^bDavid, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the ^cHoly Ghost.  (Now I’ve had some pretty cool dreams, but this is a rather important matter to rely on a dream.  He didn’t even have a visitation, just a dream.  Surely he had plenty of times he had to doubt this.)

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his ^aname ^bJESUS: for he shall ^csave his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 ^aBehold, a ^bvirgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his ^cname ^dEmmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.  (So, Joseph is basically marrying into a situation in which he, the man in a male-dominated society, has to play the role of father to a kid that isn’t his and he gets no say in naming the kid and even his say in how the kid will be raised is questionable.  Plus, a bunch of pressure because of who the kid’s Father is.  This took a lot of faith and humility.)

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his ^awife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her ^afirstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.  (So, a delayed honeymoon as well–more inconvenience to Joseph–just to make it totally clear who the Father was.)

I was given a tool (the church) and I used it for all kinds of things – it was a hammer, a door prop, a food masher, whatever. I loved my tool.

Suddenly, life started to demand new things from me and the tool wasn’t cutting it. I felt betrayed. This tool was supposed to last.

Then, I start looking at the tool (I don’t throw it away rashly), and I see a button. I press the button and realize that this tool is actually a flashlight. It’s been a flashlight the WHOLE time. I’d been using it inappropriately from the start .

Sure, it worked for all kinds of things, and I suppose it still could, but for the first time, I can start using it for what it really is. Can’t really blame the salesman, he probably didn’t know what it was either. And I’m glad I didn’t throw it away. Now, that is one cheese-ball analogy, I know. But it’s how I feel.

After a life change or a crisis of faith, some people would like their “old testimony” back. I remember times when I wanted that old testimony back so badly.  It’s like I wanted that world back where my tool worked for everything.  But we can’t.  As human beings we grow.  We can never have THAT testimony ever again.  Not anymore.  And as long as we’re scrambling for it, we’re not moving. The sacrament of doubt is ruthless but it’s so worth it. The scales fall from our eyes, and we can finally see the world for what it really is.

And again, I have no solutions other than time, books, people, time, patience, time, more books, a vacation, time and patience. Maybe a massage, too.  I do know, though, that it’s hard to move on until we find new purpose.

I see the church as tool, like a flashlight, that gives me more God. Its truthfulness and exclusivity are nice (like, sure, I could use my flashlight as a door prop), but it shines light on life, and that’s why I keep it.

So, what is the church to you?  Does this analogy speak to you?  Discuss.

Inequality of inheritance and opportunity among the children of men leads many people to question the Creator’s impartiality and justice, and, therefore, his very existence…Suffice it to say here that differences among men are not due to His partiality and favoritism.  He is doing all in His power for all men.  Men too are responsible for themselves and for one another.  This is man’s world as well as God’s.  The Lord’s influence among men is always for good, towards building a brotherhood of man.  Anything which tends to destroy the brotherhood of man is not inspired of God…Jesus, in his parable of the Good Samaritan, broke through racial bigotry and prejudice to teach the brotherhood of man on a spiritual plane.

For starters, how do you know if you are 99 or a 1?

The Ninety-Nine

In most organized religions, the larger group will be the most faithful, loyal, and active-in-practice. These are the people who lead a productive and often religious life, although not necessarily a personalized spiritual life. The majority of faithful LDS (and of all organized religions) may live their whole lives without really straying too far from the 99 and find great value and happiness. Most people within the 99, whether they have ever strayed or not, view the journey of the one as being dangerous and best to be avoided as a rule.

The One

To be a 1 is most simply to become separated (physically, emotionally, OR spiritually) from the flock enough for a reunion to be a non-trivial effort. Sometimes weakness, immaturity, or rebellion might actually be a reason for straying, but it’s certainly not always the case. Even the word straying is slightly misleading, as sometimes the separation from the flock is not so clearly a choice. Often while the 1 is astray, they feel like the 99 are, well.. sheep. The 99 might be willing to accept that comparison given certain biblical parables, but another aspect of the perspective of the 1 is that the shepherd is not Jesus, as we often think, but only church leaders.

Of course, that is actually true for most Christian churches. It is a common belief that Jesus has entrusted (or called) a number of human beings with the responsibility to “feed His sheep”. When it comes to LDS, although we do have a lay ministry, which means that technically I could be called to be the bishop of my ward (or shepherd of my flock) next week… we are still more like a mega-flock which is made of smaller flocks. The mega-flock is shepherded by General Authorities, and the local shepherds are mostly just extensions of the shepherding philosophies of those above them.

For a shepherd, a successful rescue of the 1 is mostly limited to a complete return to the flock. Reconciliation to the ideas they struggled with is directly connoted with repentance, which also assumes that the separation from the flock is always either a result of poor judgment or else a lack of proper commitment (i.e. the truth has always been there and no one has to be surprised.) Some shepherds prefer to perpetuate that idea, as it helps to dissuade the 99 from wandering too far and hopefully avoiding the thorny paths. Warnings about wandering are constantly given.

“First, in the Church, we don’t criticize; we don’t discipline members for what they think. But if they teach things that are going to lead people astray and to unhappiness, then we sound the alert. We don’t discipline them for their attitudes or their tendencies. We warn people if they go on that path: there are snares there, so stay away from them. It’s just that simple.” – Boyd K. Packer, from his PBS Helen Whitney interview

The Journey Can Be a Part of Growth

Yet, some 1′s find that the journey astray becomes an integral part of their spiritual lives. This idea can sometimes be unfathomable to some of the 99. After all, wickedness never was happiness, and the condition of separation from the flock in and of itself is often directly associated with some degree of wickedness. Of course, separation is usually not happiness, but its not always related to wickedness. There are pitfalls, yes, but a major reason for the severity of those pitfalls is that there is very little support for the 1, unless/until they return to the 99. LDS leaders receive thousands of letters from 1′s and their families which illustrate vividly the pain that is out there, and perhaps that is why there seems to be little acknowledgment of any positive value in the journey itself.

“We encourage people to get all the education they can. We’re not afraid of it. [...] But if you get hung up and involved and intellectually lose your way — and some do leave — they’re questioning everything. But their questions don’t have a productive insight. The mind is the source of inspiration, but if you get wandering too far the inspiration will stop. And that’s a bad place to be in life — to be without guidance and help, to be without a conscience, in other words.” – Boyd K. Packer, from his PBS Helen Whitney interview

To be “without a conscience” is not a fair characterization, though. There are many 1′s who experience this separation as a result of following their conscience. However, to be “without guidance and help” is all too often the case, but… are the shepherds without any responsibility?

Should the Shepherd Stay or Should He Go?

It is never simple, though. If the shepherd leaves the 99, what happens to them? I think the focus on the 99 leads many 1′s to feel abandoned or rejected, and sometimes even to judge the shepherds as being too corporate in their treatment of the flock. I think this statement from Elder Packer in a 1993 talk to the correlation committee demonstrates the reasoning.

“Those who are hurting think they are not understood. They are looking for a champion, an advocate, someone with office and influence from whom they can receive comfort. They ask us to speak about their troubles in general conference, to put something in the curriculum, or to provide a special program to support them in their problems or with their activism.

When members are hurting, it is so easy to convince ourselves that we are justified, even duty bound, to use the influence of our appointment or our calling to somehow represent them. We then become their advocates — sympathize with their complaints against the Church, and perhaps even soften the commandments to comfort them. Unwittingly we may turn about and face the wrong way.
[...]
If we are not very careful, we will think we are giving comfort to those few who are justified and actually we will be giving license to the many who are not.“

The gist of that statement is that the church is essentially made for the 99. In ironic consolation, it does at least acknowledge that the 1 is sometimes justified, but what will the shepherd do for them? The oft-overlooked intention comes later in that talk:

“The comfort they need is better, for the most part, administered individually.”

Here he places the task of going after the 1 at the feet of local shepherds. It makes sense that they know their flock more intimately, and would be better qualified to help. Why then are there so many 1′s who still feel like there is no shepherd looking for them? The shepherds call out for them to come home, but not many go out to meet them where they are. What if the declaration that those who stray are without guidance and help has become self-fulfilling prophecy?

Tao Te Ching 38
When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.

Ritual is important in religion. It is important in life. Can we become so clever that we reject the rituals? Sure, we know that waters of baptism don’t actually clean someone physically from intangible sin. The person doesn’t really die and then come back to life. The bread and wine of sacrament are not flesh and blood.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, spilled his blood and died for our sins upon a wooden cross. He was a symbol of great sacrifice. Did God really have to do that physically? Isn’t it the same to just think about the symbol? Can’t we just talk about? We can be very logical and concrete. There is no proof that it really matters. It is silly and naive to do such things, childlike. They are not necessary.

Or does that perspective tear away the husk of true faith?

We seek the sweet kernels of corn inside. We seek the fatty meat and milk of the coconut. It’s hidden inside past the husk. Those delightful morsels can’t become fruit without the husk to shield and protect them while they grow. Once the fruit is mature, is the husk of no use? No. It holds and protects what is inside — a container for something delicious.

The master knows that deconstruction beyond ritual is the borderline of chaos. The capstone can not shine and reflect in the rays of the glorious sun without the base stones holding it up.

Ritual is the husk of true faith. This is the reality. Can you let go of your illusions and let it happen?

Here’s the other version of the story I dug up after breaking into secret Illuminati archives and comparing translations with those hidden in the depths of the Vatican library. I decoded the rest using a Knights Templar cipher wheel obtained from a street vendor selling souvenirs outside the US Capitol building. The final scripture becoming visible under the moonlight reflected off the roof of the chapel at Rennes-le-Château.

Genesis Chapter 22

God: Abraham, I want you to sacrifice your son as a burnt offering. I know he’s your only son, and it was really a huge deal for you when Isaac was born, but I command this. Take him up to the mountain, slice his throat and burn his body.

Abraham: Uhhhhhhh…. Are you sure Lord? That doesn’t sound quite right.

God: Yes. I am sure. Go do it. This is a commandment.

Abraham takes Isaac. They go up to the mountain. Abraham builds an altar and piles kindling around it.

Isaac: Ok dad, where’s the lamb? You said we were coming up here to make burnt offerings to the Lord.

Abraham: Sorry little buddy, the Lord said you are the sacrifice.

Isaac: What! That doesn’t sound right dad. I have faith in you though and trust you to make the right decision.

Abraham binds Isaac and places him on the altar. He raises his knife. At last minute he drops the knife and begins to weep. An angel of the Lord appears.

Angel: Abraham, why did you disobey the commandment to slay your son?

Abraham: I’m sorry. It’s just not right. I won’t do it. I accept any consequences of this decision, but I will not obey this commandment and do what I know is wrong.

God: Abraham, thou good and faithful servant. Because you were willing to risk disobedience, and because you were faithful in doing what is right, you will be blessed. From this day forth, I will be your God. You and your posterity will be my people. I want a people who think through things and make good decisions. I don’t want a people who will do evil, even if they believe I command it.

Wouldn’t that have made a cool scripture? Maybe it really happened like that, and we have an edited version from corrupt scribes. It wouldn’t be the first time it happened. Discuss…

“Today, I lost my faith in humanity.

Seriously. What is wrong with you #$^@*^#%@ people? Today, I was walking home, and found a dead man on the street.

A dead man.

A &*#^$*^##$*^ DEAD GUY – SHOT FIVE TIMES – FIVE! and left to lie on the sidewalk of a busy, well-traveled (by foot and car) highway overpass. Rigor mortis and mottling had already set in, considering the man was lying in a pool of his own blood.

He appeared to be about 50-60 years old – a homeless man, gutshot on the sidewalk. When I bent over to check his vitals, I noticed about 10 cars drive past me. Not a single person stopped. Not a single person called 911. He’d been there for hours, apparently.

What is wrong with the world? How can you just not care THAT MUCH? I waited about 10 minutes for an ambulance, had the police ask me questions, and everybody just had an air of indifference about them. It was disgusting.

The man had no family – no ID – no way of knowing who he was. Just another unfortunate homeless man, I assume. There was something almost frighteningly beautiful about attending the “funeral” of a man with no name, waiting next to his body in the autumn chill. The epitome of macabre.

Please remember that your lives aren’t the most important thing in the universe. Other people are just as worthwhile as you are. Please remember, before it’s too late.

Before we have another empty funeral.

Before there’s another man with no name.”

What can this modern experience in America teach us about the meanings in the parable of the Good Samaritan?  What does it say about our ability to become spiritually numb?