First of all, here is the phrasing of the question:  Why don’t women hold the priesthood in the Mormon Church?  How do women lead in the Mormon Church?

The first “answer” was just a quote by Gordon B. Hinckley, and frankly it was the one I liked best, although I worried a smidge about how outsiders might perceive part of it:

“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way.  (Here we run the risk of sounding like we are saying “because the Lord, who is a man, told the leaders, who are all men . . .”  You get the point).  It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. They have their own organization. It was started in 1842 by the Prophet Joseph Smith (need I say “a man”), called the Relief Society, because its initial purpose was to administer help to those in need. It has grown to be, I think, the largest women’s organization in the world… They have their own offices, their own presidency, their own board. That reaches down to the smallest unit of the Church everywhere in the world…

“The men hold the priesthood, yes. But my wife is my companion. In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life in a great enterprise.” (This is my favorite part of his quote).

Common member answers that I thought would be generally acceptable to outsiders:

• God sets the rules.
  • “Well, the quick answer is God’s priesthood, God’s rules. In reading the Holy Bible you can see that the priesthood of God has always been exclusive. I’ve heard lots of speculation on this over the course of my years in the Church, but I still think that the quick answer is only one we know for sure right now.”
  • “I have a pretty simple understanding of this question. It’s God’s priesthood. He can give it to, or withhold it from anybody He chooses. If I thought the church was led by men, instead of by God himself, then I might think that they were selfish, or old fashioned, or just wrong. But knowing that the head of the Church is God, I let Him govern His Church any way He so chooses. But from the outside looking in, I know that you might not know that God really is in charge. You might still be suspicious. I can understand that. Still, the true answer is to ask God. If this is truly His church, then we have less objections to Him choosing to run it His way.”
• Priesthood is always restricted.
  • “The Lord has throughout the scriptures given different responsibilities to different people, based on all sorts of things.”
  • “In the days of Moses, for example, not every man had the priesthood. It is only in our day that every worthy male may be ordained into the priesthood of God.”
• It’s only a matter of time.  (This seemed a bit progressive, but the censors didn’t object.)
  • “My faith is placed in God, and should He choose to extend priesthood to the women of the church, I’m okay with that idea. It’s His church, His priesthood, and I will follow Him any way He leads.”
  • “As to why women do not hold the Priesthood, my answer is it is a matter of the Lord’s timing.”
• Priesthood blessings are for all, and it’s only used for service.
  • “The priesthood is used to serve others and perform ordinances of the gospel, the blessings of which are enjoyed by both men and women.”
  • “The priesthood power is not a gift or a right but an oath and covenant that a worthy man makes with the Lord. It is not a power for man’s own gain and a man is not better off than a woman because he holds this power. Women and men are entitled to the same blessings and promises when they live righteously.”
  • “I have no doubt that I, woman, am as significant to my Heavenly parent as any man. If you understand that the priesthood is all about service, then perhaps you’ll see how this is a vehicle for men to serve God and their fellowman.”
  • “The priesthood however, is not to be used to benefit yourself, but to benefit others, such as the sick, or anyone else (family or otherwise) who is in need of a blessing from God.”
• Women hold key leadership positions in the church. Sample comments:
  • “There are certain positions that are held by men, and certain others that are only held by women.”
  • “There are innumerable opportunities for women to serve and bless the lives of others through their church service. In the church I have always felt important and cherished. I feel that my contributions are appreciated and needed.”
  • “Women do lead in the church in many callings, and do a spot on job of it.”
  • “The five women in my life are leaders. They know what they want and what they don’t want. When they speak, I know I had better listen. While they do not currently have the Priesthood, they do certainly influence me. So do women who lead the children (the Primary organization) and the women’s organization (the Relief Society) and those who speak or pray or serve in the Lord’s house, the Temple.”

Common members answers that made me nervous:

• Priesthood?  No, thanks!  I’ve got my hands full with these dishes and dirty diapers, thank you very much!
  • “When I read or hear similar questions such as these I want to laugh. To me a question like this is akin to asking for more responsiblity, more accountablity, more work, more angish (sic) etc. . . . I guess my question would be, why would a woman want to hold the priesthood?”
  • “Honey, we women have enough to do! Why worry about holding the priesthood too? Just lovingly hold that dear husband of yours and support him as he honors the priesthood.”  I think I threw up in my mouth a little on that one.
  • “Personally, I would rather lead at home as a mother, than anywhere else.”  I have been rendered incapable of speech by that one.
• Men and women are inherently different.  Mommies have babies, and daddies do (insert awesome entitled stuff).  All right, that’s a very loose paraphrase.  But the old “boys and girls are different” routine often strays into sexist stereotypes easily sniffed out by investigators (unless they too are sexist).
  • “Just as men have not been appointed to bear children in this life, so women have not been appointed to bear the priesthood.”
  • “Men and woman have different responsibilites. The man has the responsibility of holding the priesthood and using those keys given to them (sic) in righteousness. Woman (sic) have another kind of responsibility that of bareing (sic) and rearing children.”  Seriously, what is up with the grammar and spell check on mormon.org??  There is clearly no basic editing.  (same comment)  “Each of us, man and woman have a sacred roll (like the shewbread of the temple?) like our Heavenly Parents that is not talked of much, but is essential just the same.”  I’m unclear what it is that is not talked of much.  The roles of parents seem talked about a lot.  Heavenly Father is talked about a lot.  So does this mean that Heavenly Mother is not talked about?  If so, there’s subject-verb disagreement in that sentence.
• Women have access through men.  This is really close to saying women still get the blessings, but it has the twist of sounding like men take care of women and women are dependent on men.
  • “As a woman I have total access to the blessings of the priesthood through my father, husband, bishop, and home teachers. Our home teachers visit my family in our home monthly and look after our well-being.”
• Women lead by example (aka being modest).  This one kills me with its irrelevance.  How do we go from a question about women and the priesthood to talking about how women should dress?  Yet, here we go.
  • “Many women in the Mormon Church also lead by setting an example of virtue, and do not follow the tight/low cut/body revealing fashions of this day but instead understand their true beauty is enhanced by their choice to be modest in dress.”
  • “Young girls need righteous examples of Christlike women to whom they can look as they try to make good decisions in today’s world. Women who are modest, caring, honest and virtuous lead these girls to Christ.”
• Men need the priesthood because women are better than they are (aka Male Guilt Syndrome).
  • “My wife is a remarkable woman, and does all of this without the priesthood. I, however, need the priesthood because I’m not a woman, and would fail miserably without it.”
  • “Because men are rather selfish and self-centered by nature, they need extra guidance and teaching to acquire compassion and selflessness. Serving in the priesthood is that schooling process for them. Women, on the other hand, are much more natural in their abilities to love and serve and teach. Priesthood is not required for them to emulate the Savior’s commandment to love one another.”

Here are some things I could possibly say if I were answering this question:

• I don’t know why women don’t.  Perhaps that will change at some point in the future.  Women do use priesthood power within temples (but it’s not suitable for mormon.org which is primarily focused on a non-LDS audience).
• We have no paid clergy at the ward level, so priesthood is not a career in our church.
• Women hold at least as many leadership positions as men at the ward level, and are probably more influential in these roles.  Women speak in church to the congregation every Sunday and teach lessons to adults.
• Our scriptures specifically state that anyone who uses “unrighteous dominion” loses his priesthood power.

What were your reactions to these answers?  Did you like some I didn’t like or dislike ones I liked?  What would your answer be to that question?  Are you motivated to create your own profile yet?  Discuss.

It is not intentional.  In fact, I have, and would still call myself a feminist.  What are my qualifications for such a preposterous claim?  Well, first I wholeheartedly support equal rights and opportunities for women in all forms within a society.  Second, I was raised by feminist (then-single) Mormon housewife/full-time teacher.  Third, I have studied, support and work with feminist theory and research in my University education.  Fourth, I try to support my wife in her decisions regarding being a working-mum or SAHM.

Yet, none of this did not help realise something.  Lisa described this way, ‘When I got married I really thought that we would be equal partners, and we were.  We really were.  He did as much of the housework as I did, we both worked, we both made money… But as soon as I had a baby I was just shocked at how my world changed and how there was no equality anymore.  I was shocked of how much of that burden fell on me.’

From a different perspective Reese Dixon both glories and laments being able to have only one ‘role’; that of being a mother.

I guess I have failed to see how our relationship is becoming more unequal.  It started out great, I think.  She worked while I was at School and I did the majority of the housework and the cooking.  Shortly after I was married I was called to a position that meant I was out a few evenings of the week; and then things began to change.  A short time later, my calling changed, and I was out more.  We moved, but I kept the same calling, had a baby and I graduated.  We managed that ok, I was home a lot and tried to make sure I would regularly share the different responsibilities.  I was home most of the time during the day and I could do that.  My wife returned to work and I looked after our baby and began my post-graduate study.

Just over a year ago, my calling changed again.  Now I was out nearly every evening and my studies required more time.  We got pregnant again and I began teaching.  Finally another baby arrived.

Recently, there are some weeks that I never cook and rarely clean.  Though I home, I work and so I see the kids but I don’t always get time with them and sometimes I rarely change nappies or help feed.

Now, some might be thinking that if this is how we balance the responsibilities then that is fine.  The issue here is that I am unhappy with this and so is my wife.  The issue is that it is easier for me to allow this pattern to continue and I don’t like that about myself.

It is apparent that the systemic sexism in both the Church and the UK has made it easy for me to live out a patriarchal (not in a good way) existence by drawing me into the public sphere while simultaneously requiring that my wife live her life in private sphere.  That requirement is disseminated through the subtle, pernicious and quiet expectation that my wife will support me in my responsibilities.

I have need to repent for choosing to be acted upon rather than to act against the tide of these social influences.

On the one hand, we teach that God is omniscient, all knowing, the smartest of the smart, prognosticator of prognosticators, etc.  OTOH, we teach the doctrine of eternal progression:  that as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.  We also teach that eternal progression is part of God’s plan for us, and that we are to learn and grow “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

Since “the glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36) and “intelligence or the light of truth was not created nor made nor indeed can be” (D&C 93:29) and when “there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all” (Abraham 3:19) – does that mean that there are hierarchies of Gods based on intelligence or the “light of truth”?  Is intelligence something that we can’t increase?  Does that mean that eternal progression is not increasing our intelligence?

  So, what does eternal progression mean?

• Does it mean that we continue to make mistakes and learn from them?  Are we allowed to make mistakes after we die?  Does God still make mistakes?  Does he have some discarded practice earths floating around out there?  (Maybe that’s what happened to Pluto)
• Does access to knowledge constitute eternal progression (e.g. celestial Wikipedia, when the earth becomes a Urim & Thummim)?
• Does God explore strange new worlds (presumably created by other Gods), seek out new civilizations and boldly go?
• How does God become like His Father?  Is that just getting old, but no additional skills are required, kind of like going from CEO to being on the board of directors?
• Is there a God threshold?  At which point do we say “Now THAT’s Godhood.  Yesterday, that was pre-Godhood, but today you’ve arrived”?  Is that when one has atoned?  If so, are there enough atonements to go around or are there lower level God positions for those who aren’t going to go that far?
• Can stupid people become Gods?  Wouldn’t stupid Gods have stupid spiritual kids?  Do different planets have different intelligences?  What if we ARE the stupid ones?
• Wouldn’t it be boring as all get out if you were a God and there was nothing new to learn or experience?  Is God in a constant state of ennui?  Isn’t that why the Greek gods were always chasing tail and creating havoc – boredom + power?
• Isn’t lack of progress the Mormon definition of hell?  If God doesn’t progress, doesn’t that = hell?  That can’t be right.

So, take a moment to consider what your opinion is and answer the following poll:

[poll ID = "141"]

Discuss.

I was invited to contribute a blogpost now and then, and hope I’ll be able to throw some meaningful questions into the hopper.

I write under the name Ecumenigal because of my eclectic background and multi-faith points of view. I’m sort of a religious mutt.  I’m Mormon by heritage, birth, and culture, an atheist by upbringing, and now a sort of New Age Jesus Hindu with a great appreciation for Mormon theology as encompassing much of eastern and western thought.  In future posts, I hope to talk more about my vedic appreciation of Mormonism.

For this post, I want to talk about ecumenism and respect.

ECUMENISM

Ecumenism is controversial because some people are rightly concerned that in order to find the common denominator, you have to water down the teachings so much that they become meaningless. I have to admit that while I’d like to say, “We all believe basically the same things, so can’t we just get along?”… it doesn’t actually serve the truth very well to pretend there are no significant theological differences, or to re-define terms so that it sounds like we’re talking about the same things when we are not.  I see ecumenism as a meeting place for fellowship and bridge building, and talking respectfully and honestly about differences.

In my adult life, I actually joined the church for a short time, and was able to do so honestly by redefining the terms. Although I explained that openly to the Mission President and got his blessing, I just didn’t end up feeling that my membership had much integrity, so I took my name off the records but remained partially active.

I was really interested to notice during this experience how my Mormon friends dealt with this.  What I see going on is a church with a tradition of “One True Church” and “All other creeds an abomination”, clashing with the growing modern sensibility of religious pluralism:  “Celebrate Diversity”, “Respect Differences”, “Live and Let Live”, “I’m OK, You’re OK”, “Family of Faiths”, etc.  (It may be true that there are lots of early church teachings to support an ecumenical view, but the modern popularity of this view is bringing these teachings out more, I think.)

To be sure, when I took my name off the records, I had my share of visiting teachers pouncing, grilling and tearfully pleading with no real ability to hear what I was saying. However, the majority of my friends blinked away tears, smiled, and wished me well. I was told things like:

“God has a purpose for Buddhists being Buddhists, and it’s not for us to judge what that purpose is or where a person will end up in the end. It’s important to go where the Spirit leads you because God may have a purpose for you somewhere else.”

“You don’t have to be a Mormon, it’s just a question of what blessings you want to enjoy in this life.”

“To Thine Own Self Be True.  It’s important.”

Another example of a growing ecumenical culture in Mormonism:  Even in Relief Society I’ve heard discussions of ‘there are only two churches, that of the Devil and that of the Lord, and all followers of Christ are in the One True Church’. This included clarification by the RS teacher that ‘Yes, you can tell your Catholic and Methodist friends that they are part of the One True Church’.  What a surprise to hear that in RS!

RESPECT

In my family of Mormons and Atheists, respect is a big topic.  We can treat each other respectfully, but in the end, people still feel disrespected.  From my point of view, the Atheists almost by definition probably feel that the Mormons suffer from a delusion.  The Mormons almost by definition probably feel that the Atheists are blind to a whole dimension of reality.   Even if we refrain from speculation about the reasons for these delusions/blindnesses and speak with respectful words, I think that it is very difficult for either party to feel truly respected by the other because the worldviews themselves imply something about those who do not share it.

The only solution I can see to the Mormon/Atheist respect issue in my family would be if people were willing to say, “I might be wrong, and who knows, you might be right, and I trust your judgment, but the way reality shows up to me is…”   It seems rather hard to ask a Mormon to say “I might be wrong”, because culturally, “sure knowledge” is seen as superior to mere hope and faith.

I’ve noticed that I’m not particularly open to ANY absolute truth, because of what beliefs in absolutes would do to my relationships with people.  I try to hold my convictions while avoiding having opinions that involve other people.

The questions I want to throw out there are these:

Do you feel a conflict between “One True Church” and “Celebrate Diversity”?  If so, how do you work with or resolve that conflict?

What does it mean to be “respectful” toward others?  Does it mean just treating them with respect, and honoring their agency, or does it mean thinking in your heart they are really OK without your worldview?

Does truth loose its meaning and potency if you believe that others are OK without the “truth” that you are in possession of?

What would it mean to be a Mormon who believes “I might be wrong”?  Is there scriptural support for such a relationship to truth?

Where you see yourself probably has a lot to do with whether you prefer being an insider or an outsider, and what the tolerance for deviation from the norms is from those with whom you most closely associate.

Personal Preference - which type are you?

• Affiliation.  Some people want to belong.  They are called affiliators.  They like to be a part of a group, they want to fit in, and they do not like to be seen as “different.”
• Differentiation.  Some people want to be seen as different or unique.  They can’t stand being like everyone else.  They will point out the ways they are not like the group’s norms.

The real solution here is that you have to own up to your preferences.  If you like being different or unique, don’t complain about being different and unique.  And if you want to fit in, own up to that and don’t blame others if your need to feel accepted outweighs the total amount of commonality you have with the group

Group Tolerance - which approach do you take?

• Inclusive. Some people want to broaden the tent of Mormonism, allowing for everyone who has any interest to be “in” and to feel welcome.  They tend to find the universalist bent to the plan of salvation comforting and appealing.  They want to assure themselves that no one will ultimately be left out. They like to reach out to anyone at church who may be an investigator, or just have different or unpopular views.  They want everyone to be accepted.
• Exclusive.  Some people want to police the standards and to “protect” the exclusivity of the community.  They quickly point out unacceptable deviations (sometimes directly or sometimes alerting lay leadership of the dangers posed by that person).  These individuals need to belong to an organization that is exclusive, free from infiltrators.  They might sniff with disdain when they smell cigarette smoke on someone’s clothes or whisper about that outrageous comment Sister Smith made in RS.  They might mention to the bishop the concern they felt when they saw Bro. Jones walking out of a store on a Sunday or that the YW president’s daughter was wearing a bikini to wash the family car in the driveway.

In reality, we are all insiders and outsiders throughout every conversation.  Things are said that we identify with (insider) and that we dislike (outsider), that we agree with (insider), and that we have no interest in (outsider).  These are probably the same categories whether you are at church or at work or hanging out at a family or high school reunion.  I have grouped these into a few categories:

• Things you don’t believe (outsider) vs. shared beliefs (insider)
• Things you haven’t experienced (outsider) vs. shared experiences (insider)
• Things you don’t value (outsider) vs. shared values (insider)
• Cultural differences (outsider) vs. shared culture (insider)

Christ would say we should strive to be more inclusive of others, while helping them to become the best they can be.  But first we must accept others on their own terms if they are at all interested in being part of the group.  To do that, we need to downplay the focus on shared experiences and shared cultural markers that are especially difficult for newcomers to share.  Focusing on shared values and beliefs seems the best way to be inclusive.

So, what do you think?  Are you more of an ousider or an insider?  Is that the way you like it?  How inclusive are you of others?  Are you sometimes surprised at how inside or outside you feel?  Time for a short poll based on the categories above.

[poll id="50"]

[poll id="48"] [poll id="49"]

Discuss.

• Men can’t really preach the patriarchy because they know how sexist it makes them sound, so they leave it to women. I admit it has gotten better, but how many times do women say “I don’t really want the priesthood” as a reason no woman should be able to make that choice. It is very rare for a man to even admit that women are excluded.

• There is also a huge culture war between the SAHM and working mother, and I think people who made that decision out of fear or authoritative institutional pressure are the first people who have something to lose when the church eliminates predefined gender roles. Those who made their decisions themselves are more confident in them and don’t receive their worth from a statement in the proclamation on the family.

• Women are great cultural enforcers. We keep the codes of society together. And one of the best faces patriarchy can have is a female face. A woman who says, “I would never want the responsibility of the Priesthood” appears meek and humble, making women who would like to be empowered, or see other women empowered, looking anything but holy. I see this on Mormon feminist blogs each time we post on a directly feminist topic.  From an article I read:  “Often, when women live under the weight of silence and fear speaking out, they have the least tolerance for other women who break the rules — they use them as targets to discharge their pain and rage.”

• I don’t think it matters who is perpetuating the situation, but women not only accept the situation, they compound the situation when they do not question the status-quo. If women rose up and spoke up or even just started asking questions, the men would address the issues at hand. At the very least, the more assertive women are making a difference in their individual wards by expecting respect and action.

• When Susan (name has been changed) was writing about how she thought she’d get dismissed as a feminist heretic by her bishop, I thought “Good!” At least he’ll know some of those cool sisters out there are feminist heretics.” I wonder how many men in leadership roles realize how important equality is to so many of the sisters. We need to own our equality in order see change in our individual lives. The community will follow.

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.

This post is actually a virtual RS/PH lesson, #23:  “How Good and How Pleasant It Is . . . to Dwell Togehter in Unity.”  See how I snuck that in there?  Here are some interesting points from the lesson:

The first part of the lesson emphasizes how temple building brought the Saints together in a common purpose.  It is interesting that the focus is on the work to build the temple, and there is no specific implication that the temple itself would create unity among the Saints, a point made more eloquently by joe spencer here.)

How Action Unites Us

The efforts of the Kirtland Saints were typical of the unity, sacrifice, and devotion that would make it possible for the Lord’s purposes to be fulfilled in the years to come. This was one of many times when the Saints would pull together, heeding the admonition of the Prophet Joseph Smith: “A long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together.” (JS quoted by BY in 1867)

Q:  Although we are no longer typically involved in the act of building temples, how does temple construction still bring church members together?  What other action-oriented events create unity of purpose?  Consider:  lay clergy, visiting/home teaching, humanitarian/service projects, etc.

Q:  How do church members sometimes pull in different directions vs. together?  What happens when church members pull in different directions rather than together?

Q:  Does a lack of action create disharmony (as the saying goes “idle hands are the devil’s playground”–or something like that)?

A Diverse Church

“We would wish the Saints to understand that, when they come here, they must not expect perfection, or that all will be harmony, peace, and love; if they indulge these ideas, they will undoubtedly be deceived, for here there are persons, not only from different states, but from different nations, who, although they feel a great attachment to the cause of truth, have their prejudices of education, and, consequently, it requires some time before these things can be overcome. “  (1841)

Q:  Do people still expect perfection of other church members?  How do these expectations create disunity in the church?

Q:  How do cultural divides cause disunity in the church?  How can we overcome that in a global church that includes members from all personalities, political persuasions, and socio-economic divides?

Q:  What “prejudices of education” still exist in the church today?  How do we overcome these prejudices?

A Social Church

“We, all of us, have our friends, our connections, our families and associations; and we find that the ties of friendship … and brotherhood have indissolubly united us together with a thousand endearing associations; we have embraced the one common faith.  A kindred sympathy runs through the whole body, even the body of Christ, which, according to Paul’s statement, is his church; and no one part of the body can be injured without the other parts feeling the pain, for says Paul, if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and if one member rejoice all the rest are honored with it.” (1842)

Q:  Who should be considered part of the Saints?  All who self-identify as Mormons or just those who practice their religion?  All who sympathize with Mormons?

Q:  How do our ties to others in the church increase the church’s strength despite the many flaws we and other members have?

Q:  How do we help those who may feel like a minority in the church feel fully welcome and valued as a part of the group?  How do we keep the majority from driving out the minority?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main difficulties with this lesson are:

1. Lack of context.  The letters (snippets) are presented without any context of the rocky relationship that existed between Joseph and Emma.  Although his polygamy was a sore topic with many ups and downs, none of that is mentioned to contextualize the relationship in the letters.  There were other points of discord between them that are also not mentioned.  It only references things like where they were and whether Emma was pregnant at the time or if a child had been sick.
2. No doctrine.  There is no doctrinal content whatsoever, just snippets of letters.
3. “Gag me with a spoon” factor.  Like all letters from this era, the language is flowery and exaggerated.  The style of writing is clichéd and designed to obfuscate meaning through emotionalism rather than to communicate directly and clearly.  What’s next?  A walk through “Cupid’s Grove” with Abigail and John Adams?  I know this kind of stuff is really appealing to some people; it’s just not my thing.  I’m sort of glad we quit signing letters “Your humble servant.”
4. Weak Application.  The letters are personal with no inherent universal application.  That, coupled with the ambiguous state of the Smith marriage (which is neatly avoided), and the nature of letters from this period (the sentimentality) greatly reduces their applicability.  Likening the scriptures unto ourselves is one thing; likening letters between Joseph and Emma to ourselves is much more difficult, especially with no meaningful context (although in this case, the context would probably make it even more meaningless to current lay members).

There are a few hints at the on-and-off strain in the relationship:

• “And as to yourself, if you want to know how much I want to see you, examine your feelings, how much you want to see me, and judge for yourself.”  (1839)
• “O Emma, … do not forsake me nor the truth, but remember me.”  (1838)

My favorite snippet, that seems much very folksy and personable.  He had a real fondness for that dog:

• “I want you to try to gain time and write to me a long letter and tell me all you can and even if old Major is alive yet and what those little prattlers say that cling around your neck.”  (1839)

Difficulties are naturally presented in highly emotional ways with a religious persecution spin.  There is a desire for the stories to be recast in a way that motivates further religious and familial devotion; for example:

• “Tell them I am in prison that their lives might be saved.”  (1839)

I’ve read a lot of things written in this time period, and I have to wonder.  The following frankly sounds like an oblique reference to a conjugal visit:

• “I take the liberty to tender you my sincere thanks for the two interesting and consoling visits that you have made me during my almost exiled situation. Tongue cannot express the gratitude of my heart, for the warm and true-hearted friendship you have manifested in these things towards me.”  (1842)

The questions provided in the lesson are not tremendously helpful either, but here is the direction I would take it to maximize personal applicability (sticking to the questions in bold).  The below is straight from the manual, except where indicated:

• Briefly review this chapter, noting Joseph Smith’s feelings toward Emma and their children.  What does his example teach about how we should speak and act in our families?  (Don’t write down anything negative?  Don’t express your true feelings in letters?  Accentuate the positive?) What can we learn from Joseph and Emma Smith’s efforts to write to one another and to see one another?  (Very little since there is no context and only one side to the conversation). What are some things you have done to show family members that you love them?
• The Prophet Joseph told Emma that he was “a true and faithful friend to [her] and the children forever,” and he thanked her for her “warm and true-hearted friendship” (pages 242, 246). What can husbands and wives do to nurture their friendship? (Well, if I’m right about the conjugal visit . . .  But seriously, folks.  I think this is a helpful question, and I would just let the sisters discuss.)
• In his letters, Joseph Smith showed trust in Emma, expressing confidence that she would make good decisions and do all she could to take care of the family (page 245). How might such expressions of trust influence the relationship between a husband and a wife?  (You could say he was expressing confidence in her ability to take care of the family in his absence, or you could say he was reminding her of her duties.  Given that he was largely absent, his instructions seem custodial to me and would probably tick me off.  Still, you could just throw out this question to the group about how you can build trust in a marriage, regardless of whether his letters are a good example of that.) How can we build trust in our marriages?
• Read the Prophet Joseph’s message to his children in the second paragraph on page 246. How might it have helped his children to receive this news?  (It made it clear to them that the thing that stood between them and their loving father was the mob.) During times of trial, what can parents do to show their children that they have faith in God?
• Review Joseph Smith’s expressions of trust in God found on pages 243–46. Identify several of these expressions that are particularly touching to you.  How can you apply these truths in your life? (Since this is not presenting “truth,” so much as faith, I would repurpose the question to “How can trials strengthen your faith in God?” which I realize is too broad and a lot like the last question.)

Since there is not a lot of meat here (which could be the upside of this lesson–it’s different from the other lessons), I will mention a few other lesson ideas I’ve seen bandied about (all of which sound pretty good to me at filling the allotted time):

• Have a man come in to read the letter snippets so people can hear them in a “Joseph” voice.  He could even tie his tie in a bow and put his shirt collars up in true 1830s fashion, if you are daring.
  
• Print the snippets out on old-style parchment paper with a seal and have sisters read them aloud.  A little crafty for my taste, but you could do it.
• Take time at the end of class to write a letter to loved one(s) sharing your faith, love, and trust.  Perhaps a little “precious,” but again, there’s time here to be filled.

That is the best I’ve got, gang.  Let me know your thoughts on what you think works best for this lesson.

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

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

Joseph had just read John 5:29:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telestial – Back of the Bus!

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

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

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

The True Nature of Hell

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

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

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

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

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

On June 7, 1831, right after the Saints had finished gathering in Ohio, Joseph announced that he had received a revelation about Zion, the gathering place for the Saints (now found in D&C 52: 2):

“The next conference … shall be held in Missouri, upon the land which I will consecrate unto my people”

To which the stunned congregation probably replied something like, “What the . . . ?!”

Then, by late 1833, they were driven out of their homes in Jackson County, Missouri (picture at right is a park in Jackson County–er, Wisconsin!  Psych!  Good catch, Raoul) and told that the establishment of Zion must “wait for a little season.”  (D&C 105: 9)  Joseph explained some reasons why this wait was necessary:

I cannot learn from any communication by the Spirit to me, that Zion has forfeited her claim to a celestial crown, notwithstanding the Lord has caused her to be thus afflicted, except it may be some individuals, who have walked in disobedience, and forsaken the new covenant; all such will be made manifest by their works in due time.  I know that Zion, in the due time of the Lord, will be redeemed; but how many will be the days of her purification, tribulation, and affliction, the Lord has kept hid from my eyes; and when I inquire concerning this subject, the voice of the Lord is: Be still, and know that I am God!  (Dec 1833)

What is Zion?

Zion is referred to 154 times in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible).  In referring repeated to Zion, JS was clearly linking the restored church with the Israelites, which gave them a sense of purpose, community and destiny.

Q:  So, what is Zion?  Is it a place?  A community?  A state of mind?

Zion as a Literal Gathering Place

Article of Faith 10, written in 1842, was still focused on a literal gathering:

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent.

Q:  Are there any good restaurants in Missouri?  (Just seeing if you’re paying attention.  I googled it and got just a DQ and a Subway in Jackson County.  Seriously.)

Zion as a State of Mind

Joseph also made statements indicating that Zion was more conceptual than just a literal gathering-place.  Stakes of the church are also referred to as Zion.

Anyplace where the Saints gather is Zion, which every righteous man will build up for a place of safety for his children.  (1840)

There will be here and there a Stake [of Zion] for the gathering of the Saints. … There your children shall be blessed, and you in the midst of friends where you may be blessed. The Gospel net gathers of every kind. “… We ought to have the building up of Zion as our greatest object. … The time is soon coming, when no man will have any peace but in Zion and her stakes.  (1839)

Q:  How does gathering with the Saints bless us?  Do you think it’s possible to get equally close to God independently as we do within the community of the church?  If so, isn’t that a little bit like home schooling (limited in the number of teachers & perspectives)?

Q:  How should the counsel about Zion apply to our homes, our wards, our stakes, and the church at large?  How do we make the stakes of the church and our homes places of safety & peace?

Looking Forward to Christ’s Return

One purpose of Zion was to anticipate Christ’s return as the ruler of His people:

[R]ighteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine own elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, a holy city, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming, for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem’ [Moses 7:62].  from Enoch’s prophecy

Q:  Are you looking forward to Christ’s return or not thinking much about it?  Does it kind of freak you out?

Purifying the Saints

When the Saints were kicked out of Missouri, the focus was on purifying the Saints so they would become worthy to inherit Zion:

“If Zion will not purify herself, so as to be approved of in all things, in His sight, He will seek another people; for His work will go on until Israel is gathered, and they who will not hear His voice, must expect to feel His wrath. Let me say unto you, seek to purify yourselves, and also all the inhabitants of Zion, lest the Lord’s anger be kindled to fierceness. Repent, repent, is the voice of God to Zion; and strange as it may appear, yet it is true, mankind will persist in self-justification until all their iniquity is exposed, and their character past being redeemed, and that which is treasured up in their hearts be exposed to the gaze of mankind.  (1833)

“So long as unrighteous acts are suffered in the Church, it cannot be sanctified, neither can Zion be redeemed.”  (1834)

“Let every one labor to prepare himself for the vineyard, sparing a little time to comfort the mourners; to bind up the broken-hearted; to reclaim the backslider; to bring back the wanderer; to re-invite into the kingdom such as have been cut off, by encouraging them to lay to while the day lasts, and work righteousness, and, with one heart and one mind, prepare to help redeem Zion, that goodly land of promise, where the willing and the obedient shall be blessed. … [We] pray our heavenly Father that you may be very prayerful, very humble, and very charitable; working diligently, spiritually and temporally, for the redemption of Zion, that the pure in heart may return with songs of everlasting joy to build up her waste places, and meet the Lord when He comes in His glory.  (1835)

Q:  Why do individuals need to be pure before Zion will be redeemed?  By show of hands, which of you slackers are holding us back?  (Just kidding!)

Q:  How do we reconcile reclaiming the backslider, bringing back the wanderer, and re-inviting those who have been cut off with the statement that Zion can’t be redeemed so long as there are unrighteous acts suffered in the church?

This last question is the one I find the most interesting.  To elaborate, how can we establish a united people when the church is full of individuals at various levels of understanding, righteousness and self- and social awareness?  Is Zion a pipe dream or is it to be found in the striving for it only, and more at an individual level than an aggregate level?  What’s the closest you’ve ever gotten to a Zion experience?

Discuss.

• Virtual – you can participate whether or not you actually attended church
• Co-Ed – you can hear perspectives from both men & women
• Spiritual + Intellectual – some would like more intellectual content at church; others would like more spiritual content at MM.  It’s like chocolate & peanut butter.
• Non-LDS Perspective – we may hear non-LDS commenter viewpoints (welcome to all!)
• Advance Lesson Prep – those who are teaching RS/PH may find some insights for their lessons.

The materials are taken from the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church:  Joseph Smith manual and my own head (no link provided).  Today is Lesson 12:  Proclaim Glad Tidings to All the World.  In keeping with the spirit of the site, I will select passages and questions (and add stuff) that aim to be a little more thought-provoking.

Introduction:  Much has been said on this site by commenters about the effectiveness of the missionary program.  So, if you were the boss of us all, what would you do to increase the effectiveness of our missionaries and the missionary program?

Then & Now: How does contemporary missionary work contrast with NT and early LDS missionary work?

“By this we learn that it behoved Christ to suffer, and to be crucified, and rise again on the third day, for the express purpose that repentance and remission of sins should be preached to all nations.  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call’ [Acts 2:38–39].

“By this we learn that the promise of the Holy Ghost is made unto as many as those to whom the doctrine of repentance was to be preached, which was unto all nations. … Therefore we believe in preaching the doctrine of repentance in all the world, both to old and young, rich and poor, bond and free.”  Joseph Smith, 1835.

Here are some of the features of missionary efforts described in NT & the early restored church with a contrast to our current program:

• No purse or scrip (NT & early LDS).  Today:  missionaries pay a monthly sum that is equal across all regions of the world.  Local members are asked to provide support in the form of meals vs. relying upon the kindness of strangers.
• No time limits, well until you get martyred anyway (NT, some early LDS – was very flexible in terms of length of time).  Today:  24 months for men, 18 months for women.
• All males must go (NT not specified, early LDS for a time), regardless of age, marital or economic status.  Today:  Single males strongly encouraged to go; single females optional.
• Teach by the spirit with little or no formal instruction or central leadership/no message control (NT initially – hey, they didn’t even have the NT!, and early LDS – although some missions were with the express purpose to refute anti-Mormon claims).  Today:  has recently been made much more flexible (down from 6 consecutive discussions, which was down from 52 consecutive weekly discussions).
• No language instruction (NT - some gift of tongues & early LDS - occasional gift of tongues; studied some languages in School of the Prophets).  Today:  crash course in language; localized MTCs in regions.
• Companionships (NT – mostly for training? & early LDS – often went out in companionships, but didn’t have to be together always).  Today:  you are never to be separate from your mission companion.  Or you burst into flames or one of you goes off after harlots or something.
• No dress code (NT & early LDS – dressed like everyday people).  Today:  1950s business dress for men (lava-lavas in Polynesian cultures); women in skirts.  Shoes universally worn to a nub, regardless of time period.
• Worthiness standards (NT not specified, early LDS pretty much sent everyone newly baptized male, with obviously mixed results).  Today:  recently raised the bar on worthiness/preparation standards.
• Conflicts (NT – Paul was chased out of Ephesus for preaching against the silversmiths’ livelihood, early LDS - Parley P. Pratt started his sermon to the Shakers by decrying celibacy and got kicked out).  Today – some issues due to tactlessness, lack of cultural awareness, and some due to success and competing preaching.

Can you think of other ways in which the missionary program of today contrasts and compares to the missionary efforts of previous eras in the NT, early restored church, or even BOM?

How are missionaries today tied to missionaries of the past?  Has the missionary program improved or deteriorated from these earlier efforts?

Joseph Smith quotes on missionary work:

“We don’t ask any people to throw away any good they have got; we only ask them to come and get more. What if all the world should embrace this Gospel? They would then see eye to eye, and the blessings of God would be poured out upon the people, which is the desire of my whole soul.” (1843)

Is this approach emphasized today?  How or how not?

“The servants of God will not have gone over the nations of the Gentiles, with a warning voice, until the destroying angel will commence to waste the inhabitants of the earth, and as the prophet hath said, ‘It shall be a vexation to hear the report.’ [See Isaiah 28:19.] I speak thus because I feel for my fellow men; I do it in the name of the Lord, being moved upon by the Holy Spirit. Oh, that I could snatch them from the vortex of misery, into which I behold them plunging themselves, by their sins; that I might be enabled by the warning voice, to be an instrument of bringing them to unfeigned repentance, that they might have faith to stand in the evil day!” (1835)

Early LDS missionaries focused on the imminent second coming.  If this approach has changed, how and why?  Are missionaries called to warn or to invite or both?  How should missionaries manage this seeming dichotomy?

“Prejudice, with its attendant train of evil, is giving way before the force of truth, whose benign rays are penetrating the nations afar off. … The time was, when we were looked upon as deceivers, and that ‘Mormonism’ would soon pass away, come to naught, and be forgotten. But the time has gone by when it is looked upon as a transient matter, or a bubble on the wave, and it is now taking a deep hold in the hearts and affections of all those who are noble-minded enough to lay aside the prejudice of education, and investigate the subject with candor and honesty.” (1841)

The above statement was made in 1841 when there were only a few thousand members.  Today there are millions.  Do people still feel the church will fade away into obscurity?  Why or why not?

What is meant by the “prejudice of education”?  Does reason prejudice us against God’s way of learning?  If so, how?  Does that mean reason must be abandoned in man’s search for God?  Why or why not?

“May God enable us to perform our vows and covenants with each other, in all fidelity and righteousness before Him, that our influence may be felt among the nations of the earth, in mighty power, even to rend the kingdoms of darkness asunder, and triumph over priestcraft and spiritual wickedness in high places, and break in pieces all kingdoms that are opposed to the kingdom of Christ, and spread the light and truth of the everlasting Gospel from the rivers to the ends of the earth.” (1836, from meeting of FP and 12)

How can the mission program be made more effective and have more influence for good in the world while fulfilling the goal of spreading the gospel to the world?  In what ways is it flawed today?  What reforms would improve its effectiveness?  Suggested improvements (heard on this very site):

• change the whole church (well, we have been called ”DAMU-friendly”)
• teach more history & culture to improve knowledge & respect
• put knowledgeable people in church sites (especially older couples), not just “testifying” missionaries

What are the benefits to the missionary program as it runs today?  What are the drawbacks?  What other ideas do you have to increase the effectiveness of the missionay program?