In this episode, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Jennifer Finlayson-Fife, Chelsea Fife, and Michael Fife discuss these tensions, their possible origins, and the reasons for the ascendance of “obedience to leaders” rhetoric and a focus on performing activities that yield more easily measurable results. They also explore the call to deeper discipleship and the understandings and pathways that help keep the ideal of free agents freely submitting to the divine will based upon their own relationship with God. The primary questions underlying the discussion are: What is spiritual maturity? How can we work toward it and come to live joyfully in a church culture that doesn’t always encourage us to grow too far beyond “I Am a Child of God”? How do we become “adults” of God? How do we remember always that the true call is not to remain children but to mature to the point where we are ready to become brides of Christ, full partners with God, partakers of the eternal life?

After listening, please share your ideas in the comments section below!

Joshua 10:40

Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus 20:13

Discuss, my friends:

Mormons are certainly not the only ones out there who are guilty of “seeking for a sign.”  Many faiths use stories to illustrate evidence of God’s approval or disapproval.  And this is not to discount the idea that prayers are answered.  But it seems that there is a distinction between answers to prayers and requesting divine intervention or a sign from God that something is the right course of action.

So when does living prayerfully by faith turn into seeking for a sign?  Here are some thoughts:

• Providence:  This idea is that God guides everything for the wealth and growth of His kingdom and church.  What it might sound like:  “God wanted me to be in that car accident so that I could give a Book of Mormon to the other driver.”
• Aggrandizing Stories:  The premise is that divine or occult sources “testify” of the truth of the gospel.  For example, Satan’s forces have been “witnessed” surrounding the MTC, ready to destroy the missionaries if they leave its protection.
• Wanting to be “commanded in all things.” Some things are either obvious or just too trivial for God to care about (I think).  What it might sound like:  “And so I said a quick prayer in my heart about whether I should order the beef or chicken, and I got a clear feeling I should go with the chicken.”  Now, I suppose if the beef turns out to be rife with mad cow disease, perhaps not so trivial.
• Projection. Projecting what you want on God; making your agenda His.  What it might sound like:  “Sally, I know you don’t see this yet, but God wants me to take this job and move our family across the country.”
• Fatalism. When we become something “acted upon” vs. something that “acts.”  The argument goes:  “If God wanted things to be different, He’d make them different.  Therefore, submitting myself to His will means I don’t have to do anything, and it will all work out.”

I’m perfectly willing to concede that inspiration occurs, and that we can be directed by the Holy Ghost.  But, at times, there seems to be a fine line between intervention and invention.  There are two main views on divine intervention:

1. that miracles occur frequently and God intervenes freely in our lives
2. that miracles occur, but are limited in frequency and only occur in accordance with natural laws

I fall firmly into that second camp.  So, if I’m right, why might people sometimes imagine more divine intervention that there is?  Here are some possible reasons:

• We seek confirming evidence.  Everyone wants to “prove” a belief they hold is right.  This happens all the time on the b’nacle (and pretty much everywhere).
• We want to feel personally important. If God’s involved in my life, I must be remarkably important out of the billions who’ve lived.
• We want to absolve ourselves of responsibility. We can rationalize:  “This isn’t about what I want–it’s what God wants.”

According to McConkie, signs come according to the will of God and not the will of man.

• Signs can cause the wicked to fear and tremble.  (Being struck dumb I suppose.)
• Signs can help the weak in faith begin to develop faith in God.  (But “faith precedes the miracle,” right?)
• Signs strengthen the faith of those who already believe in God.  (Vindication?  Proof?)
• Signs can symbolically teach us of Christ and the gospel.  (I’m thinking serpents on a stake in the desert as a type of Christ, as well as the medical profession).
• Signs can tell of important impending events in the world.  (Signs at the Savior’s birth and death in the BOM and NT).

So, what do you think?  How do you tell the difference between real miracles and signs and what we want to believe to make ourselves feel better (proven right, important, or doing God’s will)?  Is the way we gain an LDS testimony (a spiritual witness) ”seeking for a sign”?  Discuss.

There was a big disagreement about this on my mission.  An investigator who had been given a chapel card showed up for church just as the sacrament service was beginning.  When the bread tray came to him, he was unsure what to do, so he took a piece of the bread.  Just then, an older missionary who was serving in a branch leadership role jumped up from his seat on the stand and commanded the man (in Spanish) to “Drop it!” which he did.  Needless to say, the investigator never returned.  To explain his actions, the missionary referred to the following scriptures:

3 Ne. 18: 28-29 28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to ^apartake of my flesh and blood ^bunworthily, when ye shall minister it;

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and ^ablood ^bunworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

While this missionary was perhaps alone in his strict interpretation of these scriptures in this specific situation, there is clearly a scriptural prohibition to prevent someone taking the sacrament unworthily.

Should non-members be asked not to partake?  The current mormon.org provides a description of our services for visitors:

A typical meeting would consist of the following:
Hymns: Religious songs sung by the congregation (hymn books are provided).
Prayers: Offered by local Church members.
Partaking of the sacrament (communion):The sacrament consists of prepared bread and water, which is blessed and passed to members of the congregation by priesthood holders .
Speakers: Typically a meeting will have two or three assigned speakers.
We do not pass a plate to request donations as part of our worship services.

There is no specific prohibition made here instructing visitors to not partake.  Does that omission imply non-members are welcome to partake in the spirit of worship although it is not a renewal of their baptismal covenants?

Children and the mentally disabled frequently partake because they are considered innocent and in no way unworthy.  What about ex-Mormons who are not returning to the church but attending due to familial obligation?  What about crazy people (there are lots of brands of crazy)?  What about ex-Mormons who are crazy?

If intervention is desired, who should intervene?  How and when should this take place?  Isn’t a lay member intervening kind of like a citizen’s arrest?  This is one area where I agree with Elizabeth I:  I have “no desire to make windows into men’s souls.”  Nor have I seen anyone burst into flames for touching the sacrament or keel over dead like Uzzah the ark-steadier.  My tendency would be to leave it up to the individual, but perhaps I am being remiss.

And when do you feel you should recuse yourself from taking the sacrament?  For major infractions only?  If you are yelling at the kids to hurry in the morning?