D&C 137 records a vision of Joseph Smith “in the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, January 21, 1836. HC 2: 380–381. The occasion was the administration of the ordinances of the endowment as far as they had then been revealed.” [Preface].  There are 2 important pieces of Mormon doctrine to consider here:  (1) baptism for the dead, and (2) children that die before the age of accountability (and baptism at age 8 ) will inherit the Celestial Kingdom.  Since it is a short section, let me quote it entirely.  This section is only in the LDS version of the D&C, but other accounts of this revelation can be found in the History of the Church.

1 THE heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

2 I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;

3 Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

4 I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

Since God is the ultimate judge, and “who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God “, the LDS baptize all and let God be the judge.  (I previously discussed baptism for the dead from a non-LDS Irish writer.)

So, this phrase “if they had been permitted to tarry”, got me thinking.  Following my mission, another guy about my age returned home.  I believe he got home on a Thursday and was slated to give his homecoming address on Sunday.  (I’ll call him Ted.)  He went out with some friends on Friday or Saturday night, and was involved in a serious car accident.  Sitting in the back seat, his car was t-boned at an intersection.  The woman sitting next to him was killed, and he received some fairly serious injuries, resulting in a delay of his homecoming address for about a month (which he gave standing on crutches.)

While it is probably a bit morbid to think about, a few people speculated that if he had been killed the day after his mission ended, he was probably very righteous and would have gone straight to the Celestial Kingdom.  After all, he was probably living more righteously at that point in his life than at any other time.

Ted went on to college on the east coast (I stayed in the west), he majored in art, I majored in math, and our paths really never crossed much.  I ran into his parents a few times, and they told me about his art exhibits, but neither one of us really made much of an effort to maintain contact.  Enter Facebook.  I noticed that he was friends with some of my friends, so I thought I would “friend” him and see what he was up to.  To my surprise, he had posted his letter of resignation from the LDS church.  There were many messages congratulating him for his courageous decision.

So, it got me thinking, what happens to those that perhaps died on a mission or similar circumstance, but “if they had been permitted to tarry”, they might have become wicked.  (I’m not saying Ted is wicked—I’m not the judge, but just saying, “what if”?)  Can we really be so certain of anyone’s final judgment?

I’ve learned some interesting concepts from class on Ancient and Medieval Church History.  Session #23 discusses Eastern Orthodoxy.  First, let’s have a little background.  The Eastern Orthodox Church officially split with the Catholic Church in 1054.  The Pope excommunicated the Patriarch in Constantinople, so the Patriarch did the same to the Pope.  There had been some different emphasis on theology for quite some time.  For example, while the Catholic Church claimed that the Pope held all the leadership, the Orthodox Church held a much less central authority.  The Orthodox belief of revelation is that God speaks through these councils, not one central person.

There were seven early councils (such as the Nicene Council.) These edicts of these councils are usually considered scripture in the Orthodox church.  The various Orthodox churches (Russian, Greek, etc) are quite a bit more autonomous.  The Orthodox church even holds out that there could one day be an American Orthodox church, if membership warrants such an organization.

Even before the official split, there were many tensions between Rome and Constantinople.  In the podcast, the teacher refers to Rome as the “Western” church, and Constantinople as the “Eastern” church.  The western church spoke mostly Latin, while the eastern church spoke mostly Greek.  In the West, the church had an emphasis on:

1. Sin
2. Grace
3. Justification
4. Salvation
5. Sacraments

The eastern church agrees, but has a larger emphasis on:

1. Apophaticism – an emphasis on the mystery of God.
2. Tradition
3. Theosis
4. Icons

I’d like to talk about Theosis.  Theosis is a greek word meaning Deification, as in the deification of humanity.  Unfortunately, I do not know the name of the teacher, but anyone can download the podcast to hear him directly.  I’d like to quote the teacher directly.

“[Theosis] is the word that really sums up salvation.  In the West, we talk about sin and justification as a way of understanding salvation.  In the East, the emphasis is on theosis or deification.  We are changed so that we become like God, or Eastern theologians will say it even more strongly than that.  As Athanasius put it, ‘God became man, that man might become God.’  That’s theosis, or deification.

Well, that strikes the western mind as kind of a problematic way to understand theology and to understand the transforming effect of grace.  The eastern mind though sees that as the real purpose of Christ coming into the world, to transform us that we become like him.  In some ways, we can see that if we’re talking about union with Christ, or becoming more and more like Christ or becoming more and more like God.  But in the eastern expression of theosis, it is stated so strongly that Christ became man, that we might become God that most western thinkers pull back from that.  It sounds like a kind of heresy of some sort.  I expect closer examination of the eastern idea of theosis, will reveal that the eastern theology doesn’t for the most part, go over the line, but it uses language that can be suggested of something that western Christians would want to avoid.

The people in the west that pick up this same idea are the mystics, and in the west, they were constantly accused of pantheism.  Because, to the western mind, this kind of language, and this kind of expression goes too far because it tends to blur the distinction between God and his creation.”

I decided to look up theosis on Wikipedia, and found this interesting quote from St Ireneaus (who lived 130-202 AD.)  He is considered a saint in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches.  “St. Irenaeus explained this concept in Against Heresies, Book 5, in the Preface, “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”

It seems to me that mormons have much in common with this idea of theosis.  This sounds quite similar to Lorenzo Snow’s quote, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” Comments?

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.

In the LDS Church, we are asked to do a lot of things. Performances, if you will.  Daily prayer, multiple times a day, over meals, with spouse, family, personal and in our heart at all times; Daily scripture study, with family, spouse and personal; weekly Family Home Evening;  Monthly Home/ Visiting Teaching; Regular Temple Attendance (at least once a month) and Family History Work; Pay tithes and offerings (10% of increase plus Fast Offerings and other contributions); attend our meetings, Sunday, weekday and other; Accept and perform callings given to us by the Bishop or Stake President; Acquire, keep, use and rotate a 1 year supply of food, 3 day emergency kit, supply of funds for emergencies; Strictly observe the Word of Wisdom: perform acts of services for others, meals for the sick, moving families in and out of the ward, yard work, repair work, community service, etc.;  Attend a yearly Tithing Settlement with the Bishop and a bi-yearly Temple Recommend Interview. And more.

These performances are meant to assist us in becoming more like our Savior and Heavenly Father. There is a spiritual meaning and intention behind each of these acts that should be carefully considered as we are doing them. These acts are not an end to themselves, but the means to an end. In most cases, they are recommended, strongly recommended and with a recommended frequency, but the regularity of performance is really a personal choice.

I get concerned both for myself and others that we may fall into the trap the Pharisees found themselves in. That the performances themselves begin to overshadow their meaning and the true intent. I fear that going through the motions becomes more important than real intent of the act itself.

For example, the purpose of Home Teaching is to “watch over the members of the Church, home teachers visit their assigned families at least once each month to teach and strengthen them. Home teachers establish a relationship of trust with these families so that the families can call upon them in times of need.” (LDS Church Website). But, if that relationship of trust is never formed because the Home Teachers do not take the time to really get to know the family and each of its members, does it really matter than they show up once a month? I realize it is a reported statistic, but what it purpose of the report? To prove we have gone through the motions?

Another example. Regular Temple Attendance. Most members of the Church (80%) are blessed to have a temple within 200 miles of their homes.  This means that regular attendance is more possible than ever before. The days of saving up for a lifetime to attend once and receive Temple ordnances for you and your family are rapidly coming to an end. Though, it is probably still true for some.  We only need to attend once for ourselves. The other times we go have a benefit to us and a service performed for others. We get to experience the serenity of the Temple environs, learn more of the meaning of the ordinances and provide a service for those who have passed from this life without receiving temple ordinances. But, if in striving to attend once a month as directed, we rush, do not fully pay attention and just go through the motions, are we really doing as we are asked to do? Maybe once a month isn’t possible or the right frequency for us?

Here are two stories from my Jewish experience.

Years ago, one of my great uncles was traveling in Africa (Ethiopia, I believe) and, as a very observant Jew, wanted to attend synagogue for the Sabbath. After the service, a man came up to him and, observing that my uncle had a pen in his shirt pocket, spat on him and accused him of defiling the Sabbath by carrying a pen in his pocket. Carrying a pen would be forbidden because one might be tempted to write with it on the Sabbath and that is considered work.

My family and I attended a large family reunion at a famous Jewish resort in the “borscht belt” of the Catskill Mountains of New York. This resort had seen its better days but was world famous in its heyday. I must admit there were more different types of Jews there than I had ever seen, from the most observant Hasidim with their black suits and peyos (side curls) to others in shorts and t-shirts. I imagine my family was the only Mormons there.

On Friday night, at the start of the Sabbath, one of the two elevators was set to automatic so that one need not push any buttons for it to operate. In other words, the doors open, you get in, the doors close and the elevator goes to the next floor. The doors open, people get in and out, the doors close and proceeds to the next floor. It allowed the people to ride the elevator without doing any work (pushing the buttons).

Well my uncle got into the non-automatic elevator with two young ladies. They asked him to push the button for floor 2 because they got into the wrong elevator. They told him they could not push the buttons themselves. He said to them that the scriptures say that they should not work nor should they make anyone else work (See Exodus 20:10).  The two young ladies looked at him with a rather quizzical look. They did not understand what he was saying.  He then pushed the button for their floor.

So, I worry that we, as a Church might be getting a little too carried away with the performances (the checklist as we have discussed recently) we are asked to do without the thought of the spiritual significance of what we do.

In some cases, if a 1 year supply is good, a 3 year supply is better. If the Word of Wisdom means abstaining from coffee and black tea, then abstaining from any caffeine, “hot” drink or chocolate is better. If going to the Temple once a month is good, going every week is better.

The regularity of these things is really a personal choice and should be aligned with all the other things we are doing in our life and should be based on our own spiritual growth and development. After all, the objective is to become like Jesus and Our Heavenly Father,  become the best person we can, serve others and return to live with them in the eternities, not rack up a bunch of impressive statistics.

A close friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous recently saw in the shadow of the temple his story follows

In October, I was fortunate to attend the Portland, Oregon, screening of the movie, In the Shadow of the Temple. http://www.intheshadowofthetemple.com The screening was hosted by the producers, Karen Di Millia and Dennis Lavery. Prior to the screening Dennis and Karen spoke for 10 minutes and explained how they started this project. After the screening they took questions and answers for roughly 30 minutes.

Lavery and DeMillia, who are not–and never have been–LDS, originally planned to make a movie about people who had left the religion of their youth. They attended a meeting of the Portland Humanist Society, explained their project, and asked if anyone had such stories they would be willing to share. In the course of discussing the project with members of the society, they were told that who they really needed to talk to was Sue Emmett, who had left the LDS church. After talking with Sue and others with whom she put them in touch, they decided to re-focus their project on the experience of those who have left the LDS church.

They did hundreds of hours of interviews over two years and edited it down to a 55 minute film. The film is very moving–a tribute to those who shared their stories as well as DeMillia and Lavery’s videography and editing skills.

About two dozen people appear in interviews in the film. Each story is unique, but a common thread runs throughout them all. All faced a similar rejection by family, friends and community. Some of those interviewed have left the church. Others no longer believe, but remain active because of family or community pressure. The latter are filmed in shadows, to obscure their identity. The film refers to these people as “Shadow Mormons.” They define “Shadow Mormons” as those who privately do not accept the exacting doctrine of the Church, but publicly profess to be true believers. They are in shadow to protect their relationships with family, friends and employers.

Someone commented to me after the film, “That’s you. You’re a Shadow Mormon.”

Yes, I’m a Shadow Mormon. Maybe that’s why this film hit me so hard. I haven’t believed in over 20 years – most of my adult life. Yet, during that time I’ve paid my tithing, gone to the temple, served in bishoprics and high councils and done all the things that were expected of me. Why? Because I am tied to the church by family and community.

The story of “Grace” (not her real name) resonated with me because it was so similar to mine. Her pain, and anger, were born of all the energy she has given to a religion that she doesn’t believe in. Finding out that the Church was not true was like a death experience for her. Like me, she tried following the Church’s teachings to fast, pray, read the scriptures and yet never felt she received the “burning in her bosom” that is promised in the scriptures.

What of the families and communities of these people? What are their stories, their experiences with loved ones who go through a process of losing belief and leaving the church. Only one person who was a family or friend agreed to be interviewed for the film. The believing husband that was interviewed told how he still loved his wife, even though she has left the church. What about the others? Are they embarrassed to say that the Church was more important than their relationship with the person who left?

The saddest stories, to me, were of divorce caused by one spouse believing and the other not believing. Michelle (another woman interviewed in the film) said her heart was broken that her husband would choose the Church over her. He told their marriage therapist that if she had not been Mormon he never would have married her. “There was more to me than being a Mormon,” she said. “And I thought that there was more to him.”

The dictionary defines empathy as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” We could all use a little more empathy for those around us. I have had several people tell me, “I can’t imagine how a person could leave the church.” Either they need a better imagination or they need more empathy. Maybe they just need to see this film.

One of the questions at the screening–one that Lavery could not answer–was, “How do we get the right people to see this film?” Sadly, many members of the church would not even consider it. (It screened in Salt Lake City in October and got almost no media coverage.) The film does not try to de-convert anyone or disparage the doctrine of the church. It doesn’t assert that someone is right because he or she believes, or that someone else is right because he or she leaves the church. This film is about accepting people regardless of what they believe, and about how we treat those who believe differently than we do. I wish every member of the church could see this film.

Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbylWK-i2Q&NR=1

At the out-set I should explain that I am not a Biblical scholar nor am I especially good with languages.  So I would appreciate, and even expect, some dialogue regarding the thoughts that I want to express here.

Isaiah 58 is, for me, the most inspiring text in the scriptures that discusses fasting.  In this post I want to consider some of the ideas it expresses.  Isaiah’s concern is that Israel’s focus in their fast is themselves.  He writes that people complain ‘Wherefore have we fasted… and thou seest not? Wherefore have we afflicted our soul and thou takest no knowledge’ (Isa 58:3)?   They fast ‘to make [their] voice heard on high’ (Isa 58:4).

The Lord in response to this behaviour asks the people to turn the focus of their fast outward.  ‘Is this not the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?  Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?’ (Isa 58:6-7).

The sense I get is that this practice should be directed toward others.  To fast is not just to go without food as a sacrifice, but it is to render service or make especial effort to love those whom we struggle to love.  Fasting so that our own voice is heard in Heaven is condemned while serving our fellow men is central to our fast.  In fact, it seems that to give up food is a means by which we can ‘draw out [our] soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul’ (Isa 58:10).  As we voluntarily go without we are to think about or focus our time upon those who go without involuntarily.  To do this expands our compassion and love.  In fact, it seems that in this act we emulate Christ, who voluntarily suffered so that he might perfect his capacity for ‘mercy and empathy’ [2].

Isaiah outlines some of the promised blessings that may come from such a fast (see Isa 58:8-12).  In v.9 he says ‘then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity’.  I believe the Lord’s answer is not synonymous with having our voice heard on high.  I believe that that answer is ‘Here I am’.  I believe the Lord promises us his presence and comfort and yet, Isaiah reiterates that this will only come if we put off those behaviours which afflict others.  Thus as we give up, or put off, food so are we also to put off those actions which offend or hurt.  The food in one sense becomes a symbol of our sin, which we desire to put off.

In addition the Lord promises us that as we turn our lives outward to those around us, as we learn to expand our capacities for love and service, that our lives will become ‘like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not’ (Isa 58:11).  The poetic allusion to Christ as the Living waters is wonderful and yet what is significant here is not that we come to the Living Waters, but they become placed within us.  In this sense we become like Christ, in that we become fountains of love rather than cups which need filling.  Fasting is one of those spiritual practices that helps us to place the Living Waters in us.

In v. 12 the Lord promises that such people will be those who help prepare Zion.  In speaking of this verse Eugene England has said ‘The Lord has, in these verses, drawn a straight line from fasting for the hungry to becoming a “repairer of the breach”–to preserving peace that will “raise up the foundations of many generations” instead of dooming those generations to nuclear destruction. The Lord is describing, with the extra power of poetic language, a precise and inexorable moral law: mercy begets and multiplies mercy; sacrificial giving will beget and multiply kindness, understanding, patience, brotherhood–even between enemies.’ [3]  In this sense again through Fasting the Lord promises us that we will begin to learn how to heal the wounds which afflict ourselves and others; we will learn how to break down those barriers that restrict us from being at-one with each and with God.

I am inspired by these verse because I would like to be someone who exhibits these characteristics and yet it is clear to me now that only by directing my fast toward others will this be made possible.  I feel that I have too often fasted so that I might receive a particular job, or even so that I might get good marks in my education.  I feel the urge to repent and turn toward God and other people, and to do this through fasting.

Notes:

1. Jana Reiss, Mormonism as Praxis in Sunstone, 12/1/04 [Salt Lake City UT.: Sunstone Education Foundation, 2004], p. 16-27

2. Neal A. Maxwell, A Choice Seer in Ensign, August 1986.

3. Eugene England, Fasting and Food, Not Weapons: a Mormon Response To Conflict in BYU Studies, vol. 25 [Provo Ut.: BYU Publications, 1985), p. 154.

Please explain your answer.

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Here is my point – my two points, really.

1) This great sermon was delivered as a higher level discourse to his most dedicated followers – including those who eventually would form the new faith of Christianity.  Its standards absolutely are not easy, and its directives absolutely are not natural.

Sometimes we hold the general population of the Church (and each other and others) to these standards, while Jesus himself took great care not to do so of the general population of his followers. This often is a good example of unrealistic expectations – and of demanding others live a standard we ourselves are unable to master.

2) This great sermon was delivered mostly to the MEN who would form the leadership of his movement, even though there is no reason to believe that the listeners were all men.  (I personally believe there were women present.)

QUESTION:

Did the gender composition of the listening group have an impact on the content of the sermon?

Generally speaking, the list of attributes included in the Beatitudes are considered throughout history to be feminine.  Jesus was speaking primarily to men about how to change and grow (repent) and become godlike.  So,

1) Might the Sermon on the Mount have been different if the primary audience had been women?  If so, how?

2) How can we take the general message of repentance (change and growth and the acquisition of godly characteristics) and use it to achieve the proper balance we need to become “perfect” (complete, whole, fully developed)?

3) Must every individual acquire all the characteristics listed – or can a spouse/companion share that endeavor and, between two, create one united, balanced, “prefect” whole?

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.

“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” (D&C 101:78)

The entire topic of choice and free will did not originate with the LDS Church. For hundreds of years, philosophers and theologians have contemplated the idea of free will, both in a religious and a natural sense. It is not my intention to discuss these ideas, but if you are interested, you can start at Wikipedia on Free Will and Free Will in Theology . I wish to focus my attention to the LDS concept of agency and how we are affected by its use in our lives.

“Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.  All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” (D&C 93:29-30)”

We are taught that there was a war in heaven before the world was.  That some chose to follow Satan and were cast out.  Those that chose to follow the plan of Our Heavenly Father and Jesus also chose to come to earth, assume a mortal body, and be subjected to the trials of this earth in the hope we would find the Gospel, live a life of obedience and sacrifice and gain our reward to return to live with them throughout eternity.  This simple lesson is taught in primary and by the missionaries to investigators.  But the power to choose and the possible ramifications of our choices are much more complex and difficult than a simple lesson would indicate.

Every choice we make has consequences associated with it.  And while it is assumed that choices are made between good and evil, sometimes choices have to be made between good and good.

“And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. “ (Moses 3:16-17)

When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they were forced to make a choice between two seemingly good things.  That of being obedient to the Father and being fruitful and multiplying, thus creating the mortal human race.  Luckily for us, they choose the later.  But in doing so, they suffered the consequences of their act of obedience by introducing a number of bad things to the world such as death, sin, sickness, suffering, trials, etc.  Many good things also happened like happiness, joy, children, blessings, and the ability to choose.

What can we choose?

There are many basis areas when we have almost complete control of our choices.  We decide which way to go.

• Many Life Choices – Where to live, where to go to school, what kind of career to have, with whom to associate, who we marry (Gay folks notwithstanding for now), whether or not to have children, etc. Those sort of things.

• Our Morality – What kind of person will we be, law abiding, honest, trustworthy, loyal to others. Much of which is driven by:

• Our Religion and Faith – We can choose whether we will follow a set of religious principles or not.  We can choose which religion we want to belong to or identify with and we can choose to be active in that religion or not.  We can choose to follow the religion of our parents or we can go in a different direction entirely.  We can even choose if we want to believe in God at all or not.  I firmly believe that having faith is a choice reinforced by our experiences, both spiritual and temporal.  On the other hand, I can also see that not having faith or losing faith can be the result of the same thing. But, I think the key idea is the choice.  We can choose to believe in spite of the lack of experiences which reinforce our choice. I know this is hard, but as Paul said,

“faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

We can continue to hope those experiences will come.

• How we react – We can choose how to react to things around us.  In spite of the hand which we are dealt (see below), we can let the things we cannot control, control us, or we can choose to take control of our situation and make it better.  As a child, this is not always possible or we may not have a sufficient maturity level to fully comprehend it. As an adult, we can gain complete control over most of the circumstances and the ill effects of our life.  In some cases, it requires incredibly hard work, sometimes alone or with the help of others, God and our faith, but many people have overcome horrendous circumstances to go on to lead highly productive, happy lives.

What we can’t choose?

While we have this ability to control our choices for most of our lives, there are a few things we cannot choose or where we lose our ability to choose.

• The circumstances of our birth – As far as we know, we do not or cannot choose who our parents will be, the circumstances of our birth, such as where we are born, whether our parents are rich or born, whether they will be good parents, and whether we get to be brought up in the Gospel or not.  We cannot always control the health or condition of our physical bodies.  We may have chronic problems or physical limitations.  It appears we just have to deal with it one way or another.

I’ve always been somewhat bothered by the seeming randomness of it all, whether it is part of God’s plan or just luck, good or bad.  And if it is part of God’s plan, why some people never find the gospel in this life?  Isn’t that what we are supposed to do?  In other words, “Jimmy, you promised!”  But can he really deliver?  I know we are given trials in this life to help us improve, but some folks just seem to get a disproportionate share.

• The consequences of our own decisions – If we have the complete freedom to choose, we do not have the freedom to choose what happens as a result of many of our choices, good and bad.  For example, the economy.  We could have done everything right with regard to preparing for a “rainy day” and still suffer some effects of the bad economy we now face, like losing a job.  We could have mitigated the effects substantially by following the things we are taught at Church, like having a year’s supply, staying out of debt, saving our money, etc.  If we become addicted to drugs, alcohol or other harmful things, we lose the freedom to choose to do it or not do it without a lot of painful effort. If we choose to be dishonest or commit a crime, and get caught, we cannot control our punishment. If we stop following the commandments, turn our back on the church and leave it, we cannot control our eternal consequences. That is, if all we have learned is true. If not, then maybe we will be OK after all.

• The consequences of the decision of others – If God is truly watching over us, then the actions of others should be mitigated by what God has planned for us personally.  That is, IF that is the case.  But, if God allows the actions of others to affect our lives in spite of “the Plan,” then we are subject to other’s poor choices.  Such as we are driving down the road, minding out own business, following all traffic rules and we are hit and killed by another driver, who is not following the rules. That sort of thing happens every day.  Part of the Plan?  Perhaps so, but we had no choice in the matter.  I suppose we could have chosen to stay home and in bed that day. But, as my grandmother used to say, “Who knew?”

There would be some who might say, “well, if you are really in tune with the Holy Ghost, He would warn you that a bad thing might happen and to avoid that spot at that time.”  Yeah, right.  Yes, it could happen, it might happen, but sometimes does not.  Seemingly, good, God-fearing people die all the time under circumstances they did not or could not control.  Part of the Plan?  Maybe.  There are a million other examples I could cite.

As I stated in the beginning, I think choice is among the most important gifts God has given us. We can use it wisely or use it foolishly.  Our happiness on this earth and in the eternities seems to depend on the choices we make.

Do you think choice is that important?

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

Having said that, I need to point out that depression and issues relative to similar physiological difficulties that suppress our joy and impede our growth in this life can be an exception to that last statement. I hope NOBODY takes what I said above as a reason to feel guilty over their struggles to conquer those types of difficulties. I realize completely that there are some things for some people for which enduring to the end is the only course. That’s why medical help should NEVER be stigmatized in any way for depression or other similar challenges. If proper medication provides a degree of peace for someone, taking that medication is an act of establishing a degree of accountability that will be rewarded, imo.

I believe the whole doctrine of accountability is one of the most beautiful in Mormonism. It see it as so much more expansive than restrictive. We tend to focus on the “punitive” aspects of accountability (“You are responsible for the effects of your actions when you are accountable and will be punished for your mistakes.”), but we also should understand more fully the “merciful” aspects of that same principle. (“You are not responsible for the effects of your actions when you are not accountable and will be covered by God’s grace for those mistakes.”)

We understand and acknowledge openly the concept as it relates to the “extremes” (children and the mentally handicapped on one end; fully accountable adults on the other end), but we often overlook it when dealing with the “emotionally handicapped” and the “abused” and any others whose thoughts and actions are influenced by things they didn’t choose – things often outside their full control. We are learning more and more about how to treat these things, but I believe there are still so many manifestations of these types of issues which we haven’t even identified completely. Therefore, “Judge not” becomes an even more vital command.

Having spent much time talking with many people who struggle mightily with feelings of guilt and isolation and despair and unworthiness, I have come to believe that many of them do so largely because, to some degree, they are wired to do so (either at birth or through trauma) – that they simply can’t help those feelings of despair and guilt that arise out of unrealistic expectations. I believe strongly that those people are not “accountable” for their actions during those times of guilt and despair in quite the same way as others are without those episodes. I’m not saying that they are completely free from the responsibility to understand their condition and try to “repent” (simply meaning “change”); I believe all have the command to look inward at themselves, identify their weaknesses and strive to improve.  What I am saying is that “repentance” in these cases often is as much (if not more) about learning practical coping mechanisms (including taking medication) and proactively acquiring personal characteristics than it is about the classic “exercise of will” often associated with repentance.

If we understood more fully that accountability is the concept that allows repentance to be a positive thing (that we have been given the freedom to proactively participate in the progress of our souls – to construct a process of growth that includes almost anything that helps us become “righteous” (right / in harmony with God), I believe we could begin to tackle the “natural” guilt associated with the effects of the Fall in a much more productive and ennobling manner than we tend to do currently.  We could separate “sin” (for which we are accountable), “transgression” (for which we might or might not be accountable), “weakness” (for which we are not accountable) and “natural, mortal crap” (which just is, well, crap).

So, how do you think of accountability?  Do you see it as a positive or negative concept?  How do you think what we now call “disabilities” affect accountability?  Are there other things that you believe reduce or impact accounatbility?  What are some things that we often associate with sin and guilt that you believe should not be classified as sin and induce guilt?  How do you feel about taking medication to alter one’s natural moods and/or actions? What are any other implications of accountability that are not addressed in this post?

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?

Aloysius’ proclamation of self-declared hetrodoxy made me ask myself: Is he really at odds with Church doctrine in rejecting the notion that the LDS Church is “an exclusive conduit to God”? In other words, does the LDS Church even claim to be “an exclusive conduit to God”?

But first, what exactly does it mean to say the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”? Does it mean you have to be a member of the LDS Church to receive divine inspiration? Or to have your prayers answered? Or to receive a divine calling or mission in life? Or to be worthy of being considered a servant of God? Or to develop a relationship of discipleship with Christ? Or to receive peace, joy, and glory in the hereafter? What does it mean to say the LDS Church claims to be an exclusive conduit to God?

After giving this matter much thought, I’m still not sure of Aloysius’ exact intended meaning when he says the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”, but of one thing I am sure: numerous statements from LDS leaders and publications over the years create wide enough latitude in LDS doctrine for any active and faithful member of the LDS Church to comfortably reject the notion that the Church is “an exclusive conduit to God” or a “sole avenue to God”, and to feel completely in harmony with Church leaders in doing so.

For example, LDS leaders and publications have made the following statements about God’s communication and relationship with mankind in general, and with non-Mormons in particular:

1. “[W]e claim that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Latter-day Saints.” -Elder James E. Faust [1]

2. “All men share an inheritance of divine light. God operates among his children in all nations, and those who seek God are entitled to further light and knowledge, regardless of their race, nationality, or cultural traditions.” -Elder Howard W. Hunter [2]

3. “[T]he Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have.” -Book of Mormon [3]

4. “The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered.”-Elder Boyd K. Packer [4]

5. “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. . . . We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.” -Elder Orson F. Whitney, quoted by Elder Ezra Taft Benson [5]

6. “We believe that most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve him to the best of their abilities. We are indebted to the men and women who kept the light of faith and learning alive through the centuries to the present day. . . . We honor them as servants of God.” Elder Dallin H. Oaks [6]

7. “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. … We believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation.” Elder James E. Faust [9]

8. [I]ndividual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.” [8]

The quotes above make clear that the LDS Church teaches and claims:

• that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Latter-day Saints;
• that “all men” receive “divine light” and that “God operates among his children in all nations“;
• that the Lord grants to “all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his [i.e., God's] word“;
• that the Light of Christ and the Holy Spirit were present, and that the prayers of the righteous were answered, even during the period of time referred to by Latter-day Saints as “the Apostasy”;
• that Latter-day Saints are not the only people in the world accomplishing God’s “great and marvelous work“;
• that non-Mormon religious leaders are “servants of God”;
• that “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others,” have had moral truths “given to them by God“;
• that “God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way toeternal salvation“; and
• that “there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb [i.e., Jesus Christ] because of their loyalty to him and his life-style”.

What, then, could somebody possibly be referring to when he says the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”? It seems likely that such a statement would be based on statements by LDS leaders like the one quoted below, which are made frequently:

This is the true Church, the only true Church, because in it are the keys of the priesthood. Only in this Church has the Lord lodged the power to seal on earth and to seal in heaven as He did in the time of the Apostle Peter. Those keys were restored to Joseph Smith, who then was authorized to confer them upon the members of the Quorum of the Twelve. [9]

Based on the quote above, and numerous statements like it, there is no doubt that the LDS Church claims to be the exclusive holder of priesthood keys necessary to authoritatively perform priesthood ordinances (and therefore the “only true Church“).

Which brings us to the $10,000 question: is the LDS Church’s claim to exclusive possession of priesthood keys the same as a claim to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”?

Interestingly, the quotes that appear below, which were published in recent Church curriculum, seem to indicate that at least one of Mormonism’s founding prophets, Brigham Young, would have rejected the notion that the LDS Church is “an exclusive conduit to God”:

It has appeared to me, from my childhood to this day, as a piece of complete nonsense, to talk about the inhabitants of the earth being thus irretrievably lost—to talk of my father and mother, and yours, or our ancestors, who have lived faithfully according to the best light they had; but because they had not the everlasting covenant and the holy Priesthood in their midst, that they should go to hell and roast there to all eternity. It is nonsense to me; it always was, and is yet (DBY, 384).

So far as mortality is concerned, millions of the inhabitants of the earth live according to the best light they have—according to the best knowledge they possess. I have told you frequently that they will receive according to their works; and all, who live according to the best principles in their possession, or that they can understand, will receive peace, glory, comfort, joy and a crown that will be far beyond what they are anticipating. They will not be lost (DBY, 384).

If [people] have a law, no matter who made it, and do the best they know how, they will have a glory which is beyond your imagination, by any description I might give; you cannot conceive of the least portion of the glory of God prepared for his beings, the workmanship of his hands (DBY, 385).

I say to every priest on the face of the earth, I do not care whether they be Christian, Pagan or [Muslim], you should live according to the best light you have; and if you do you will receive all the glory you ever anticipated (DBY, 384–85). [10]

CONCLUSION:

The LDS Church’s claim to exclusively possess priesthood keys — and the relevance of that claim to the eternal salvation of mankind, particularly to the 99.99% of humanity who are not, were not, and will not be Mormons — is a complex and nuanced claim. That exclusive claim to priesthood keys is inextricably intertwined with the Church’s universal doctrines about God’s universal love, concern, inspiration, and operation among all mankind, as well as the Church’s universal doctrines that all persons who lived by whatever moral law or light they received in their mortal lifetime — “no matter who made it,” “whether they be Christian [or] Pagan” — “will will receive peace, glory, comfort, joy and a crown that will be far beyond what they are anticipating.”

Bearing in mind these complex, nuanced, and intertwining exclusive-yet-universal LDS doctrines, if we say the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God,” I think we risk stating an innocent-but-careless half-truth at best, or an intentional deception at worst. Furthermore, based on the numerous quotes from LDS leaders above, I feel perfectly comfortable rejecting the notion that the LDS Church is “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”, because I do not believe the LDS Church makes such a claim in the first place.

To be clear, my purpose in writing this post is not to engage in semantic nit-picking in attempt to make Aloysius “an offender for a word”. (For the record, Aloysius and I are official Facebook friends; a bond stronger than the cords of death.) Rather, my purpose is to illustrate the complexities and nuances of LDS doctrine on this topic, which make it extremely difficult to accurately summarize the Church’s claims, or stated conversely, make it very easy to unintentionally mischaracterize or overstate LDS claims by making them sound more exclusivist than they really are.

SOURCES:

[1] Elder James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, May 1980, 12 (emphasis added).

[2] Howard W. Hunter, “The Gospel-A Global Faith,” Ensign, Nov 1991, 18 (emphasis added).

[3] Alma 29:8 (emphasis added).

[4] Boyd K. Packer, “The Light of Christ,” Ensign, Apr. 2005, 11 (quoted on Church website at: http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/) (emphasis added).

[5] Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59 [quoted by Ezra Taft Benson, "Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints," Ensign, Jul 1972, 59] (emphasis added).

[6] Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign, May 1995, 84 (emphasis added).

[7] Elder James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, May 1980, 12 (emphasis added).

[8] Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61 (quoted on Church website at http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/) (emphasis added).

[9] Henry B. Eyring, “The True and Living Church,” Ensign, May 2008, 20–24 (emphasis added).

[10] “Chapter 39: Eternal Judgment,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 285 (emphasis added).

There is one problem, however.  This wealth of information is NOT equally available to members of the Church.

If you are reading this, you are someone who is now perhaps a minority in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: an English-speaking member with access to the internet, probably living in America.  This means that you are able to read virtually everything that has ever been written about Mormonism.  And if you can’t find it online, chances are that your local library can get it.  If not, you can buy it on Amazon and have it shipped to your home without having to worry about crazy shipping costs or customs duties.

Over half of the Church’s membership now lives outside of the US.  Many of these members have little or no knowledge of the English language.  Their resources in terms of information regarding their own religion is scarce.  Often the only things they have in their own language are official materials put out by the Church: the scriptures (sometimes only an incomplete translation of the Book of Mormon, and perhaps no Bible Dictionary or Topical Guide), the RS/Priesthood manual, other auxiliary manuals, and maybe the Liahona.  No Journal of Discourses, no Jesus the Christ. Forget Rough Stone Rolling and don’t even think about Mormon blogging.

A bit over year ago, I barely knew what a blog was and the term “Bloggernacle” was a foreign word to me.  Back then, I still told my non-member friends who asked that the Church allowed polygamy to take care of all the spinsters and singles and the suggestion that Joseph Smith married women who were already married to other men would have just been anti-Mormon rubbish to me.  I wondered how my Baptist friend in high school who told me years ago that Joseph used a hat and stone to translate the Book of Mormon ever got wind of such a crazy idea which, of course, I denied. Never would I have believed that any Church leaders could have possibly been against black civil rights in the 60′s because they were all too “nice” or “enlightened” to have such backwards views.  Probably the only thing that would have surprised me more was that our “politically neutral” Church sent a letter to California wards telling members how to vote.  But of course, if I had known about the ERA then I wouldn’t have needed to be so surprised.  Yes, it’s been an action-filled year for me.

Sometimes when I sit in church on Sundays, I feel like I’m in a different world than that of my fellow branch members.  Although most of them have a good grasp of the English language, most of them are not at the level that they would be able to read Bushman or listen to Mormon podcasts.  They would know about as much about Prop 8 as you all know about ekteskapsloven and probably assume that The September Six were a rock band.  Tell them that Emma wasn’t Joseph’s only wife and some of them would surely deny it.  And I’m sure that they’re still telling their friends that polygamy was needed because of all the widows and singles.

When I think about it, I’m not sure who is better off: them or me?  Would I be better off if I could go back to the days when I had no clue about any of this stuff?  Or should they have the opportunity to know more about the history and current events of the Church that they claim is true?

Since the majority of Mormons in this world do not have access to and/or do not have the language skills to read anything other than the few official Church publications in their own language, are they at a disadvantage?  I certainly don’t expect the Church to start broadcasting news to its international membership or sponsor the translation of Rough Stone Rolling into 85 languages.  Perhaps the Church really can’t do anything more in the case of non-English speaking members.  But is it thriving as a result of their ignorance?  And if so, does it really matter?

So who is better off?  Them or us?  We’re always told that we should acquire as much knowledge as possible since it’s the only thing we will take with us from this life.  Is Church history an exception?

Who will be able to withstand the challenges that the Church faces in the future?  Will it be those who have a solid knowledge of the real Church history so that they have a chance to distinguish truth from rumour, or will it be those who stick to the official publications?

Does the history of Mormonism stand in jeopardy of being forgotten or altered as the non-English speaking membership of the Church abroad continues to grow and become a clear majority?

• On one end (and according to most TBMs), anyone, at least in theory, can know the Church is true as long as they sincerely ask God, and as long as they aren’t too sinful.
• On the other end, there are people who firmly believe that no one can know anything for certain about God. As an LDS missionary, I met a woman who would counter every testimony by saying, “you don’t really know for sure, you only think you know.” Yeah, this was pretty awkward, especially in church. Also, it was rather odd how she alone could be certain that no one else was certain.

In addition to addressing the question epistemologically, it’s also important to take into account the historical usage of the term “true”.

In the 19th century, when sailors would get their bearings on ships, they would say that their heading was “true” if it would lead them to their destination. If they found that their heading was not leading them to their destination, their heading was considered “false”.

In 19th century America, when people would debate about religion, they would often argue if certain beliefs were “true” (or if they were useful for steering your life so that you would end up in heaven). If a belief was “false”, it would not help you get into heaven and by default, it would send you to Hell.

A number of Protestant (mostly Evangelical and Fundamentalist) denominations still use the “true”/”false” classification system for religious beliefs, arguing that their doctrines were “true”, and that anyone who said anything different was teaching false doctrine.

From this perspective it still doesn’t make a lot of sense to say “the church is true” (since a church can be anything from a building to a belief system), but the statement that the gospel is true is an assertion that the Gospel will lead you on to an eternal reward.

This is why it is so common for people to say that Mormons are going to Hell. The logic is that if: 

1. Mormons have beliefs that are not approved of God (such as the Book of Mormon or the prophetic authority of Joseph Smith) and
2. Their unapproved doctrine is false in the sense that it will lead them away from a heavenly reward then
3. Mormons are going to Hell.

The question of whether individuals or groups are capable of plotting “true” courses towards heaven (as well as the question of whether there can be more than one “true” course), are still widely debated.

I’d be interested to hear what others think.  Do you believe everyone can know?  Can anyone?  Can you?  Discuss.

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.

Growing up with younger siblings, I always had a hard time believing that Satan couldn’t possess kids under the age of eight.  And that goes for myself too, since if what my parents have said is true, I was a bit of a devil child.  But, in all seriousness, I have some questions that make it hard for me to not see conflicts between the doctrine of the Age of Accountability and other Church doctrine.

“From latter-day revelation, we know that little children are redeemed through the mercy of Jesus Christ. The Lord said, “They cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me” (see D&C 29:46–47). They are not to be baptized until they reach the age of accountability, which the Lord has revealed to be eight years of age (see D&C 68:27; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 17:11). Anyone who claims that little children need baptism “denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption” (Moroni 8:20; see also verses 8–19, 21–24).” (LDS.org, Topic Definition, Little Children And Baptism)

I’ve always wondered, then, why some kids under the age of eight can do bad things — really bad things — like commit murder, sexual assault, etc.  Although such occurrences are rare, they have happened and I wonder how the doctrine of the Age of Accountability and the power of Satan can explain them.

We believe that God can only influence us to do good and Satan can only influence us to do bad. But since “power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before (God),” how are they even capable of doing bad things? That children are influenced by adults and the world around them is certain. Those children under the age of eight who do commit crimes are clearly under the influence of someone or something, but I’m not exactly sure what it is.

A seven year-old who stabs his playmate or displays sexual aggression is not accountable for what he has done and is not guilty of sin in the eyes of God. I understand that. But what is the power driving a child to commit such a crime? If someone is not forcing him to do it, what is influencing him, if not Satan?

I’ve also wondered about how the Age of Accountability applies to matters of homosexuality and gender confusion.  From as far as I can remember (which is about age 4 or 5), I have known that I was attracted to boys (I am female). I was too young to know what a heterosexual was or that I was one. I simply knew that I wanted to chase boys. Many homosexuals and transgenders report much the same thing: that they knew from a very young age that they were either attracted to the same sex, or perhaps felt that their physical gender was in conflict with their mental/emotional gender. Even if they were too young to understand the technicalities or significance of these feelings, they were at least able to recognize the feelings in themselves.

So, getting back to how this applies to children under eight and how Satan cannot influence them, it seems to me that in order for this doctrine of the Age of Accountability to be true, homosexual or gender conflict cannot be categorized as “temptation.”  And if it’s not a temptation, then how can it be from Satan?  If the homosexual feelings or gender confusion (not acts, but desires) are temptations coming from Satan, enticing them to engage in homosexual behaviour or making them desire a gender reassignment operation (both of which are potentially grounds for excommunication among adults), then how could a little child under the age of eight ever be capable of experiencing them? If Satan has no power over them, then they can’t come from him. But to say they come from God would be blasphemous in the eyes of many.  God can only encourage us to go good, while Satan can only entice us to do evil.

So, in conclusion, I have two questions:

1.) How are some children under the age of eight capable of committing heinous crimes, without being forced into it by anyone, if Satan has no power over them?

2.) How can a child under the age of eight experience homosexual desire and/or gender conflict if such thoughts and feelings are to be classified as temptations from the adversary?

Once again, Joe Spencer provides an excellent recap of the lesson here.  He specifically makes a great point that the correlators of the lesson manual seem to fundamentally misunderstand Joseph’s point about governing ourselves.  To quote Joe regarding the section entitled  Leaders teach correct principles and help those they lead learn to govern themselves:

“I think it important to point out how the title of this first section completely misunderstands and so ultimately misrepresents Joseph’s teachings within the section. Joseph indeed teaches that leaders teach correct principles, but he does not teach that leaders also help those they lead learn to govern themselves.”

I’m sure the mistake was well-intentioned, but it does cut to the heart of what many members find irritating in the church today, the administrative or corporate quality that the church has developed.  We have sacrificed leading for managing in some cases.

One wonders what Joseph Smith would say if he time traveled to a modern ward.  He might not fit local leadership’s perceptions of what would qualify him for some callings.  After all, he was only ever a member of the church for 14 years (before his death).  He might be considered a relative newcomer with little experience in some circles within the church.  He died young enough that many wards would not consider him old enough to be a High Priest.

What are the qualities of leadership, according to Joseph? Here are the ones mentioned in the lesson:

1. Leaders teach correct principles.  ”I told him I obtained power on the principles of truth and virtue, which would last when I was dead and gone.”  (1844)  How does teaching incorrect principles result in loss of power?  Do those incorrect principles die when the teacher is dead and gone?
2. Those they lead govern themselves.  JS:  “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”  (quoted by John Taylor in 1851)  “I do not govern them at all. The Lord has revealed certain principles from the heavens by which we are to live in these latter days . . . and the principles which He has revealed I have taught to the people and they are trying to live according to them, and they control themselves.”  (quoted by Brigham Young in 1870).  How does this differ from managing and being the decision maker for others in our stewardship?  What are the pitfalls of this kind of free-for-all leadership style?
3. Leaders receive the wisdom they need from the Spirit.  “A man of God should be endowed with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, in order to teach and lead the people of God.” (1843)  How does a foolish leader differ from a wise one?  Are leaders always teachers first and foremost in the church? “There are many things of much importance, on which you ask counsel, but which I think you will be perfectly able to decide upon, as you are more conversant with the peculiar circumstances than I am; and I feel great confidence in your united wisdom.”  (1840)  JS routinely deferred all decisions to the lowest level possible.  The recent statement by TSM similarly referred members to go to local leadership rather than writing to church HQ for every matter.  Why is this good counsel?  Are there exceptions?
4. Leaders acknowledge the Lord’s blessings to them.  Weird.  There isn’t really a matching quote for this in the lesson, but the lesson quotes do talk about the need to pray for our leaders.
5. Leaders in the Lord’s kingdom love those they serve.  “I possess the principle of love. All I can offer the world is a good heart and a good hand” (1843)
6. Leaders teach through their love and example. The example given here is Zion’s Camp, which always seems like a really bad camping trip gone awry that is then parlayed into a “character-building” lesson.

How do you think we generally stack up as a church today, from the lowest levels of leadership to the highest?  Are there some of these that are more of a watch-out for us than others?  Are there some that tend to be harder at different levels than others?  Are there other principles of leadership that should be mentioned here but aren’t?

Discuss.

What is Knowledge?

“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft.”  (1839)

(Note the singular use of the word “truth.”)  How does an open canon (ongoing revelation) enable members of the church to accept all truth as it is revealed regardless of the superstition, bigotry, ignorance or priestcraft of the day?  How does ignorance, bigotry, superstition and priestcraft still creep in?  What can individual members do to embrace truth and eschew superstition, priestcraft, bigotry and ignorance?

“Knowledge is necessary to life and godliness. Woe unto you priests and divines who preach that knowledge is not necessary unto life and salvation. Take away Apostles, etc., take away knowledge, and you will find yourselves worthy of the damnation of hell. Knowledge is revelation. Hear, all ye brethren, this grand key: knowledge is the power of God unto salvation.”  (1843)

Joseph Smith takes his definition of “knowledge” for granted.  He seems to use it to mean revelation, not facts, scientific evidence or information.  How does this definition alter our view of the role of knowledge in our salvation?

How to Gain Knowledge

The lesson gives examples of how to gain knowledge, all of which are based on learning from those who know more, not through scientific experimentation or scholarly research.  Even revelation can be viewed as gaining knowledge from a Person (God) who knows more than we do.

How can we seek out the best teachers?

What Are the Obstacles to Gaining Knowledge?

The lesson outlines several obstacles to gaining knowledge (or one might say obstacles to revelation):  Word of Wisdom violations, creeds, and doubt and darkness.

Word of Wisdom.  When the School of Prophets was convened for 4 months of study, the Word of Wisdom was given to the members of the school so their minds would be clear and open to “knowledge.”  (Not as a temperance movement or a cultural marker of obedience as it is used today).  How does considering this original view of the Word of Wisdom change your perception of it?

Creeds.  JS specifically felt that other religions’ adherence to creeds was an obstacle to “knowledge” (remember that he used the word knowledge synonymously with revelation).

“I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”  (1843)

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.”  (1843)

“I say to all those who are disposed to set up stakes for the Almighty, You will come short of the glory of God. To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions.”  (1843)

How do creeds limit our ability to receive revelation or accept changes to our current thinking and interpretations?

How do creeds compare with the efforts to correlate church materials (rather than remaining completely open to multiple interpretations and speculations)?

There are times when this total open-mindedness seemed to cause Joseph problems (e.g. Kinderhook, etc.).  Are there ways in which this complete open-mindedness can cause current members problems (e.g. speculation, wishful thinking, foolish notions)?  How can we avoid that?

Doubt and Darkness.  When we listen to teachers who do not have more (spiritual) knowledge than we do, or we allow doubt to overcome belief, we stop gaining additional (spiritual) knowledge.

“Knowledge does away with darkness, suspense and doubt; for these cannot exist where knowledge is. In knowledge there is power. God has more power than all other beings, because He has greater knowledge; and hence He knows how to subject all other beings to Him. He has power over all.”  (1843)

“When men open their lips against [the truth] they do not injure me, but injure themselves.  When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.”  (1844)

“As far as we degenerate from God, we descend to the devil and lose knowledge, and without knowledge we cannot be saved, and while our hearts are filled with evil, and we are studying evil, there is no room in our hearts for good, or studying good. Is not God good? Then you be good; if He is faithful, then you be faithful. Add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, and seek for every good thing.  A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God.”  (1842)

How do we sometimes let doubt create distance between us and additional spiritual knowledge?  How does listening to bad (spiritual) teaching cause us to lose (spiritual) knowledge?

Does pursuit of knowledge (facts, information) sometimes lead to loss of knowledge (spiritual knowledge, revelation, closeness to God)?  How can we avoid that while still embracing learning?

So, this is a pretty good lesson, IMO.  What do you think of some of the questions it poses?  Discuss.

We really do worship a different Jesus than you do.

I mention sometimes to my family and friends my frustration over certain song lyrics and how they influence how we view Jesus, his mortality and His perfection. I realize it bothers my wife that I obsess over two particular phrases, from two particular songs, but they represent to me much of what is wrong (even “abominable”) about the perceptions and teachings that have come down to us through the ages.  These phrases are:

“Little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes,” (Away in a Manger) and “He never got vexed when the game went wrong, and he always told the truth.”  (Jesus Once Was a Little Child)

Then I realize that the second song is a uniquely Mormon song, and I recognize that the fruits of the Great Apostasy still have not been rooted out of our minds completely.

I use the song lyrics simply to illustrate the tendency for people to deny, in practical terms, His humanity – His mortal half. Really, who even can imagine a normal baby who never cries?  I’ve had six children go through (or currently be in) every stage that is normal to children, and that image is totally foreign to me.  Just as importantly, I also use the lyrics to highlight the way that “perfection” is interpreted now in our society (and too often in church, as well) as opposed to in the scriptures themselves.

Just to consider in light of the image of a crying baby and a vexed child: There is a difference between “sin” and “transgression”. One is a willful choice; one is a mistake made in ignorance or without real choice. The latter “transgression” is MUCH broader than most people realize, and it is captured wonderfully in our 2nd Article of Faith. I want to focus this post on how we view the word “transgression” – and the implications of that view on our eternal progression, particularly in this earthly life.

As an example of something that is quite serious but done in ignorance, think of a child born in a home where terrorism is taught as a way of life. Great rewards are promised for suicide death in the name of God. (If you can call life with many virgins a reward, but that is for another post.)  If that young boy grows up and carries out a suicide bombing that kills people, is his action a “sin” or a “transgression”? How can we really know for sure – seeing only the result and not what caused it? If he were mentally disabled, we would understand and allow for an exception. How can we be sure exactly what constitutes “mental disability” in God’s eyes – exactly what one person understands or does not understand?

Another example – a very emotional one: We are commanded to abstain from sex with anyone who is not our spouse. In the case of rape, there is a sin (the one who rapes) AND there is a transgression (the one who is raped). The victim does not sin, even though the commandment truly is broken – since sex outside of marriage has occurred. The Atonement covers that “technical violation”, since it was not done intentionally or willfully. Therefore, the victim remains “clean” in the eyes of God – as if no law had been broken.

Now, turn to the example of Jesus. We know he was subject to the Fall because of his mother’s fallen status. This means that He inherited from her the ability to “sin”, but it also means He inherited from her the same type of weaknesses and inclinations and tendencies to “transgress” as we do from our mortal parents. ***This means that he had to go through the process of overcoming His “natural man” exactly like we do.*** The only difference is the lack of actual sin.

Have you ever considered that Jesus was acting in His role as Redeemer (Payor of a debt) and Savior (Rescuer from the Fall) for everyone else, but also as Savior for Himself? Lest I be called a heretic, remember, I also believe He never “sinned” by acting in opposition to what He understood and knew. I’m just saying that we are not held accountable for our transgressions; as the 2nd Article of Faith says, the Atonement paid for them. Therefore, I believe, the Atonement also paid for His transgressions, as well – those “innocent” mistakes He made as a child and as He was learning and growing from grace to grace. His crying as a baby didn’t need to be included, since crying is not a transgression, but his actions or words while vexed during a game or his childish untruths (if he told them) would not be imputed as “sin” if he didn’t know better at the time.  He probably was a more naturally obedient child than most (although some of the smartest, most gifted children are the biggest handful), but I think it’s instructive that, like other prophets, He was not accepted “in His own country” – by those who watched Him grow up as just a normal child in their eyes. It’s difficlut to believe that would have been the case if he had been the “perfect little angel” of our songs.

I believe when He condescended to come to earth, He agreed to do so in a way that put Him in subjection to the Fall – so He could experience EVERY aspect of mortality that we do. I believe that in doing so there had to be a way provided for *all* of us to be freed from the effects of the Fall – including He who condescended to become as one of us – in every way other than succumbing to actual sin.

In the end, I return to how “perfection” was applied under the Law of Moses (and in Lucifer’s plan) – never making a mistake and following everything with exactness, generally at threat of punishment. I then look at Matthew 5:48 and see that Jesus defined it as “complete, finished, fully developed” – covering lots of mistakes by allowing for repentance and focusing on spiritual growth toward an eventual completion of character. I read of his final statement on the cross in that context (“It is finished.”) and see in it his acknowledgment that his own exaltation had been worked out – that he was complete – that he could say, legitiamtely, to the Nephites when he appeared to them, “even as I, or your father who is in heaven in perfect.” If we understand this difference in the scriptural meaning of perfection, I believe it can change and empower the way we look at Jesus – and our children and our friends and our fellow saints and our leaders – and ourselves, making us much more able to “have joy” in this life and in the life to come.

Just as I believe we can allow him to cry as a baby and become vexed as a child and still maintain our acceptance of him as a God, I believe we can allow ourselves to be human without being overwhelmed by guilt as a result.

Are there any other lyrics that bother you when it comes to describing Jesus – at any point in his life?  I am interested particularly in those that deny his humanity, but would like to hear of others – and why they bother you.  Are there other ways that you believe doctrine has evolved over the years and added unnecessary guilt to our simple existence as mortals in a fallen world?  Am I off my rocker when discussing Jesus’ Atonement applying to himself, as well?

One of the top fifteen factors that can transform a reasonable, amiable, friendly person with reasonable, friendly beliefs and ideas into a ranting, screaming, judgmental zealot with poisonous, nauseating, self-righteous dreck for beliefs.

A member of the Church cannot go many Sundays without hearing about the fortitude of early Saints in overcoming persecution.  A fast and testimony meeting often includes statements about persecution against the Church in the past or present.

Persecution, persecution, persecution!

When Joseph Smith was murdered, the New York Herald printed:

The death of the modern mahomet will seal the fate of Mormonism.  They cannot get another Joe Smith.  The holy city must tumble into ruins, and the ‘latter-day saints’ have indeed come to the latter day.

Little did the New York Herald and many of the Church’s critics know that persecution and tragedy can bring a people closer and make them stronger.

Such is the case with Mormonism.  While there were divisions and schisms (schisms which included many prominent members), the majority of the early Saints followed Brigham Young after Joseph Smith’s death, building a strong and unified Church in the mountains of Utah.

The writings of Brigham Young and Church leaders found in the Journal of Discourses and other sources are filled with rants about the persecution the Church suffered.  It was a constant subject that was no doubt continuously on the minds of the entire Mormon Church.  This is understandable, as the Church was continually subject to misconceptions, unwarranted criticism and unfriendly government intervention.  They were living through persecution.

However, as the Church became more and more accepted by others and granted equal rights, the constant banter of persecution did not cease. And even today, with the Church enjoying many of the rights and privileges early Saints could only dream of, the Church continues to complain about persecution or reflect on past persecution.

With an “us vs. them” attitude, members will cry injustice or discrimination at the drop of a hat.  Some allow this attitude to grow into arrogance and bitterness toward others.

I have seen cool-headed members blow their tops at protesters at Temple Square.  I have seen missionaries jump into attack mode at the slightest mention of criticism from those they teach.

Does the church suffer from persecution complex?  And are the side effects of a persecution complex in some ways as dangerous as persecution itself?  What do you think?

Saturday is a special day
It’s the day we get ready for Sunday
We brush our teeth and we go to the bathroom
So we don’t have to do it ’til Monday

Well, that’s how my sister and I used to sing it anyway.  So, how liberal or orthodox is your interpretation of Sunday observance?

Rescuing one’s “ox from the mire” is a Mormon euphemism for breaking the Sabbath.  This phrase (sort of) originates in the NT when the Savior was accused of doing work when He healed a man of the dropsy on the Sabbath.  The Savior’s response is in Luke 14:5:

5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the ^asabbath day?

This begs the following questions:

• Why do we say “ox in the mire”? There is no “ox in the mire” in scripture referring to Sabbath breaking.  My theory is that it’s because people are too dainty to use the accurate phrasing.  So, the next time you are caught in a questionable Sunday activity, just say, “Sorry, bishop.  My ass was in a pit.  This was just one of those “ass in a pit” situations.”
• So, when (to re-coin the original phrase) is one’s ass in a pit? The answer varies greatly from person to person.  There are some who would go so far as to not read the newspaper or turn on the TV on a Sunday.  There are others who will eat in a restaurant on a Sunday if it is a special occasion.  Our classic “ass in a pit” scenario occurred a couple months ago when we awoke to find the second story of our house had flooded overnight.

I found an interesting talk from 1972 that included results of a study.  The study showed that most active members shopped at least once per year on a Sunday (43% once per year, 21% 6-10 times per year, 32% 1-2 times per month, and 4% nearly every Sunday).  Active members were asked to respond to a variety of situations to see if they would “break the Sabbath” (percentages indicate the % of respondents who agreed it was warranted):

1. Someone is sick and needs medicine (98%)
2. To buy gas to attend a distant church meeting (82%) – this might be perceived differently now that most gas purchases can be done with no human interaction.
3. At church, you discover there is no bread for the sacrament, so you buy some at the store (46%)
4. The car needs gas for personal use (42%)
5. Your parents want to take you to dinner (38%) – my parents would never suggest such a thing.
6. Friends are visiting from out of town, and you take them to dinner rather than cook (31%)
7. You go to dinner for a celebration with a significant other (28%)
8. Friends are coming over, and you need to buy snacks to serve them (25%)
9. Your son gives a talk at church, so you take the family out for ice cream as a reward (15%) – hopefully the talk was not on keeping the Sabbath day holy.
10. You get a run in your pantyhose (11%) – not sure how the men responded on this one
11. There is a “Sunday-only” sale and you really need to save money (11%)
12. Someone you like asks you on a date (8%) – not sure how the marrieds answered this one, unless they were also flexible on adultery . . .

Here are some that were not on the list that I would add:

• Pool owners – do you swim on Sunday?  (My parents claim there are alligators in the pool on Sunday; since they live in Florida, they might be right.)
• Do you vacation as a family on Sundays?  (Which usually involves things like restaurants, hotels, buying gas, air travel, etc.)
• Do you purchase from vending machines on Sunday?
• Do you speed on Sundays, causing policemen to work in order to give you a ticket?

These numbers might be different if the same questions were asked today, although I suspect they are pretty similar today.  So, when is your “ass (or ox) in a pit”?  Is it the same or different than your family’s threshold?  Your in-laws?  Your spouse’s?  (And let’s try to avoid the Sabbath = Saturday rigamarole that has already been addressed at Gen Conf ad nauseum).  Discuss.

I wish to speak to those in a similar situation to me on my mission. This could be a youth seeking a first testimony, hoping to realize Moroni’s promise at their bedside. It could even be a prospective missionary hoping to do the same. It could be a life-long member seeking a renewal or reassurance of testimony.

I also want to speak to others struggling with testimony in a very different way. I believe some of us here, while believing we had a strongly rooted testimony in the restored gospel, have encountered things that may have challenged that testimony This could come in many forms: a realization of the imperfections of the prophets and apostles (past and present), or, on a related note, a run-in with some fragment of church history that just does not seem to sit well with you, or any number of other reasons that lead us to a point of confusion or frustration and a difficulty to believe as fervently as you once had.

Finally I wish to speak to the members of the church as a whole—assuming that all of us are continually seeking to define, defend, and renew our testimonies.

First, to those seeking a first testimony or renewal/confirmation of testimony: I wish to share a couple anecdotal stories that illustrate the dangerous expectation that we as individuals and as a church sometime have: the expectation to obtain our “witness” by some miraculous means. The first given by Orson Scott Card, a well-known LDS columnist.

Years ago, two young women we knew went on a temple trip. A temple official addressed the whole group, saying, “At this temple, we are keeping records of the spiritual experiences people have while doing temple work. When you’re through, we’ll give you paper so you can write down yours.”

The two girls had opposite responses. Girl A — let’s call her Agnes — felt a thrill of excitement. As she went down into the water and performed baptisms for the dead, she kept watching her own emotions — and in the process she found herself having stronger and stronger feelings, until she was convinced that she had had a great spiritual experience. So Agnes wrote it down with all the fervency of youth.

Girl B — Betsy — felt a great dread. What if she didn’t feel anything? What if she was the only one who had nothing to write about? And, indeed, while she felt good about taking part in the sacred ordinances, she had no great rush of feeling, no sign from God, no special connection with the other side.

Afterward, when everyone else (or so it seemed to her) was furiously writing, Betsy was miserably disappointed in herself for not measuring up.

Both of these girls were cheated out of the real temple experience by the false expectation — the demand, really — that they have and share a “spiritual experience.”

My second story comes from Elder Godoy as he recounts in General Conference an experience he had when visiting a ward in Brazil.

A few years ago, when I was serving as an Area Seventy in Brazil, my family and I were on vacation in the beautiful city of Florianópolis. On Sunday, as usual, we went to the closest church that we could find. My wife and I and our oldest daughter attended a Sunday School class where they were discussing our personal testimony of the gospel.

At some point in the lesson, the teacher asked the class members if they would share a powerful spiritual experience they had while developing their testimony of the Church. While some brothers and sisters were sharing their stories, I mentally reviewed my own experiences as a convert for something I could share with them, but I could not think of anything very remarkable in my process of gaining a testimony.

While I was thinking and listening to the others’ experiences, I realized that the teacher expected me to participate. She was listening to the other members, and she let me know that she was waiting for my great experience to be shared. After all, I was an Area Seventy, and I should have something impressive to share. Feeling that the time was passing and she was waiting for me, I tried harder to find something that would fit in this category of a powerful event, but I was not able to think of anything, to the disappointment of the teacher. For all I wanted to help, I could not meet her expectation.

Both of these stories focus on the point I wish to make here. Often times we as a church, and as a culture, focus on the importance of obtaining a witness to the truthfulness of the church. We often do so using such language as “a burning of the bosom” or other well-known Mormon phrases. We hear about people that experience a proverbial Pentecost at their bedside. We do this often times, to the exclusion of the stories that tend to be more common in the church: obtaining a witness through everyday experiences that nevertheless tell us in our mind and in our hearts that the gospel is true, godly, and good. To those struggling in faith because you have not had a “profound spiritual experience” rest assured that your testimony is no less valid than someone who has. You belong to a sometimes silent majority in the church to which General Authorities belong.

Elder Godoy of the Seventy concluded his story (the part that follows the foregoing excerpt) by saying that his testimony was not based on one irrefutable event either, but the sum total of many experiences that led him to believe that the seed was “GOOD.”

This word, “Good,” leads me to my next topic and audience: those who have been shaken in their testimony.

Some of you, like me, me have encountered things that have made you scratch your head and wonder a bit from time to time about the “truthfulness” of the gospel or the restored gospel.

Here I need to pause and question just what exactly we mean when we say “truth, or truthfulness.” We are often taught that the church is true or false, black or white, right or wrong, miraculous or a fraud. While I hold these statements in large part to be true, I also believe that this view of the gospel can be destructive for some. Viewing the gospel, the church, and its leaders in such a binary fashion can be disastrous. It leads many, including myself for a time, to believe that if the history of the gospel, the church, and its leaders is not blemish-free, then the logical conclusion is that it is altogether false. As a matter of fact, I know people who have left the church based on this premise.

I wish now to return to the word, “Good.” If you find yourself questioning the truth of the gospel because the church and its leaders do not have a perfect history, I encourage you to find strength and encouragement from this fact, not discouragement and a lack of faith. I believe that the reason why so many of us are so bothered by blemishes, is because we believe in the church so strongly, and we care so much about it… not that we care to little and wish to discard it. We would do well to remember a few things.

I can sum them up in an old adage: While the Catholics say the Pope is infallible, none of them believe it. And while the Mormons say the Prophet IS fallible, no one believes it. Do not be discouraged that we are lead and have been lead by imperfect men. While they are prophets and apostles, and I do not mean to minimize that fact, they are men—just as we are men. We are all walking through the lone and dreary world whether we want to believe it or not–you and me, and the prophets and apostles. We, just as the apostles and prophets, have been separated from our God and must seek daily to discern between truth and error, to hear His voice and discern between it, our own wills and desires, and those of the world. It was Paul, the great apostle himself, who said when addressing the Corinthians that he “saw through a glass darkly.” I think it presumptuous to assume anything different concerning our modern day apostles.

To conclude my thoughts on the word “GOOD,” that Alma and Elder Godoy use, I mean to say that GOOD means neither perfect nor infallible. If calling the church, an institution, by the adjective true, seems odd to you, especially because we recognize that we as individuals and as a church are a work in progress, imperfect and fallible, then you are not alone. What an odd usage of the word! To mean it’s like calling a ham sandwich true. It just doesn’t mean anything… unless of course we understand that when we say true, we mean Good, or “of God,” etc. And I do think that is what we mean when we say “the church is true.” So, to those of you struggling due to encountering history that challenges your testimony of the church or of its leaders, remember that above all else, you know that the church is GOOD, and that it as well as all of us are a work in progress.

Finally, I wish to address all of you as individuals that are just like me: seeking to define, defend, and renew my testimony. I believe all of you, whether you have experienced any of the aforementioned feelings or not, will one day experience some sort of discomfort as you explore the foundations of your former, current, and future faith. But discomfort is a good thing, it means we are thinking, feeling, evaluating, readjusting, redefining, in sum developing our understanding of God and Man. And so far as I have understood it correctly, that is the very meaning of life.

Wendy Ulrich, a PhD, focusing on religious and specifically Mormon psychology, describes our relationship with God in much the same terms as she would any long-term relationship, even a marriage.

The first of these stages is a honeymoon stage of blinding idealism, in which we delight in our new partner and are sure that the problems faced by other couples, other parents, other believers will not bother us. We are in love, full of hope, enthusiastic about our new relationship. We relish being loved and cherished, but even more we relish being someone who is easily loving and good. We are sure we have found a wonderful spouse, child, church, relationship with God, and we are also sure that this will last. We finally know how to be in a relationship, or how to get answers to prayers, or how to be part of a community. We are happy, sure that little problems that come up will be readily resolved. This stage lasts weeks and sometimes years, but it intermittently gives way to the second stage of committed relationships, the power struggle.

As the power struggle gradually takes over more and more of the relationship we begin to wrestle for control. We may try any of a number of old or new tactics to try to coerce, cajole, reason, manipulate, blackmail, convince, bribe, punish, or flatter our partner in the relationship into changing to give us what we want, whether what we want is a spouse who does the laundry or a God who explains Himself to our satisfaction. While some of these tactics may work with spouses or children or parents, they do not work with God. He invites us to change instead, and this is often very painful. We want the world back the way it was when we were innocent and full of hope and before we had discovered the snakes in the grass, but He evicts us from the garden and tells us to keep walking. Much of our behavior is about trying to get safe, and much of His is about trying to help us see that our safety lies in our submission to and trust in Him despite pain and struggle, not in our freedom from physical or emotional discomfort. We keep thinking that there are answers and solutions to all difficulties if we can just get someone else to see our point of view and give us what we know we need. And that someone else keeps holding out on us, keeping us guessing as to what to try next. We are sure that if we could just change them we could get things back to the honeymoon, not realizing that this is not only impossible, but unhelpful.

The third stage of committed relationships, which usually comes after years of vacillating between lingering idealism and the increasing futility of the power struggle, is withdrawal. At this stage we essentially give up, although we may not leave. We resign ourselves to not really getting what we want, not really changing the other party, and not really being happy. We are tired of fighting, but we can’t recoup our lost idealism. We go through the motions of relationship but we are frustrated and we feel more or less betrayed and misunderstood. This period of withdrawal allows us to regain some independence, pursue other sources of satisfaction, and develop other talents and interests. If we are lucky we begin to work on ourselves–whom we can change–instead of working on our partner whom we cannot change. With the Church or with God, this means we begin to face that there are some questions we will not get answered, some differences that will not be worked out, some losses that will not be prevented. This is a risky stage, a stage when some people decide there is nothing to hold onto because they are no longer in love (stage 1) and no longer have hope for change (stage 2). But as we continue to work on ourselves, see reality more clearly, and resolve our own issues we have a chance of moving toward stage 4.

The fourth and final stage of committed relationships is about renewal. Not exactly a renewal of the honeymoon, but a more mature, realistic, and truly loving renewal. We come to accept our spouse or our parents or the Church, and we come to accept ourselves. We allow God to run the universe, and we become more content to let go of things we cannot change. A deeper, more mature love begins to emerge, with fewer power struggles and less disengagement. We do not need to see all the answers, and we do not need perfection by our standards in order to not be embarrassed or ashamed of our Church, our partner, or our God. We reinvest in the relationship, not because we have decided to risk yet one more time that we will not get hurt only to have the rug pulled out yet one more time from under us, but because we have learned that hurt can be survived, that this is a risk worth taking, and that it does not mean we cannot be happy or that we are irrational suckers or that we are doomed to failure because we take another chance on trust or because we fail or are failed again. We see ourselves and our partner more realistically, and we do not run from either vision. We recognize that we can be hurt by being betrayed or we can be hurt by not trusting, but we don’t get the no-hurt choice because there isn’t one, at least not until we simply choose not to read betrayal into every ecclesiastical failure, or abandonment into every unanswered prayer.

I encourage all of you, to continue developing your relationship with God. To not avoid those moments of disillusionment and frustration that come with a growth in knowledge, but to confront them, embrace them, and learn from them. Learn more about yourself, and learn more about God. Indeed, realize that your testimony is a process.

To those struggling with doctrines or moments in church history, again anchor yourself in what you know to be good, and I do believe that you know the church is good, or else you would not be here today. Be comforted that God does not expect perfection of anyone, not you, nor the leaders of the church, but he does expect that we all move in the right direction and follow another admonition of Paul, to “cleave to that which is good.”

To those struggling to find a first testimony or those seeking to renew it through prayer, continue to pray. While God may not visit you with angels in the night, or even a physical feeling or burning, he will hear you and reveal truth to you in the way that he knows will benefit you most. For some that may be an angel, or a feeling, but certainly not for all.

My testimony, like yours, is very much so a work in progress. I even hesitate today to say that “I know” certain things. But I am comfortable in saying that my faith is that God is there, that Jesus Christ lived and died for us, and that God has revealed much for our good through ancient and modern day prophets, and that he will reveal much to us individually if we seek him out and say as Samuel did, “Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth.”… “Hear” of course being used figuratively.

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?