Rural, Suburban and Inner-City Understanding of the Atonemnet

I was raised in dairy and farm country. I have seen animals killed individually - including "beloved" animals, those that might even have been considered pets to certain kids. I have seen the pain in the face of a father who had to "sacrifice a loved one" - and I have heard the discussion of why that sacrifice had to be made in order to sustain life.

I was educated at a liberal arts college in the East. I attended a few Divinity School classes and participated in very deep intellectual discussions about Jesus' suffering and death. I know that this is a serious over-generalization, but, in general, the Atonement was much more tangible to the uneducated kids on the dairy than to those who were studying to be ministers at the Divinity School. The Divinity School students could talk about it more impressively, but the dairy kids felt it in a completely different way. The students understood it in their minds; the dairy kids felt it in their eyes (the pain of watching something die) and their hands (the pain of sacrificing a loved one).

I have worked in the inner-cities for much of the past 12 years. Most of the kids I have worked to help have no concept of dairy and farm life, but many of them understand pain and suffering and death in ways I probably (hopefully) never will. When they accept the Gospel, many of them bring a depth of understanding that is amazing to see - far beyond my own. They couldn't last 30 seconds in a theology class, but I dare say they understand the Atonement better than my fellow students and I did. The students were divorced from death and suffering; the inner-city kids knew each to their core.

What the Golden Rule Does NOT Say

My resolution this month is taken from Matthew 7:9-12, a slight change in my original plan. (See here.) These verses state:

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a
stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then,
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall
your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask
him? Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

The wording of my resolution is:

"Treat others how I want to be treated."

I want to make one point in this first post about something I have heard over the years. It is something that has bothered me over time, and I want to state up front what I believe this verse does NOT say - what I believe is a classic case of "wresting" scriptures and creating meaning that never was intended.

I have heard it said of old (*grin*) that we should treat others in whatever way will help them best. After all, this reasoning goes, deep down we really want whatever is best - so if we know what is best for someone, we should do all we can to help them see, recognize, understand and accept that which is best for them. This argument asserts that it's better to treat someone how they "really" want to be treated (often subconsciously) than to treat them how they "think" they want to be treated - that I, as an enlightened individual, know what is best for them and, therefore, I, as an enlightened individual, should treat them as if they were in my shoes.

To try to say it differently, this approach to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is based on you placing yourself in their situation and transferring your own hopes and dreams and expectations on them. While this might sound reasonable and even praiseworthy at first glance, there are at least three problems with this approach that I can see immediately:

1) It is used often as a justification for aggressive action, pressure and even compulsion. At the most extreme, it allowed those in charge of the Inquisition to torture people into confessing non-existent sins - since those doing the torturing were convinced they only were doing what was best for the person being tortured by "cleansing" them of sin and freeing them for a more benevolent judgment in the afterlife. At a more common level, it is used to justify constant and inconsiderate preaching and attempts to convert others - unfortunately, even among our own membership. Again, the reasoning is, "If I didn't have the Gospel in my life, I would want someone to preach it to me even if I didn't want to hear it."

2) It totally ignores and discounts the actual desires of the other person - and illustrates an arrogance that is couched in terms of love but, literally, is judgmental and condescending. In essence, it says, "I know better than you what you need, and I'm never going to quit trying to make you see that, no matter what you want."

3) It simply isn't what is commanded in these verses - to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I want to finish with that last point, and I want to do so by focusing on the reaction of nearly every LDS member who has a friend, family member, acquaintance or stranger who disagrees with Mormonism, believes Mormons are not Christian and is saddened at the thought of Mormons ending up in Hell. If that person really is sincere in his concern, and if he really thought that constant badgering might convince you of the error of your ways, would you appreciate him preaching at you every time you were together? Would you appreciate her non-attendance at your wedding reception, since she believes your sealing in the temple is a sham and not recognized by God? Would you appreciate her constant, subtle (or blatant) warnings about your eternal condemnation? Deep down, on a very practical level, what would you really, truly want from her - how would you want her to "do unto you"?

I submit that all of us, at the most basic level, want little more than acceptance and respect and love for who we actually are - recognition that we are capable of making our own decisions - friendship that is genuine and not tied to certain conditions - etc. In other words, we want to be treated as equals - as important - as valuable - as legitimate deciders of our own fate, and we want that for who we ARE, not for who others want us to be.

So, the next time you start to say something to someone else, ask yourself, "How would I respond if someone said that, in that way, to me?" The next time you start to write a blog comment, ask yourself, "How would I respond if someone wrote that, in that way, to me?". The next time you start to react to someone in any way, ask yourself, "How would I respond if someone reacted that way to me?" In summary, ask yourself:

How would I feel if someone "did that unto me"?

If you would thank God for that person's words or actions, in the actual circumstances of your real life, "do so unto others". If you would not thank God (or if you would need to pray for forgiveness) for your reaction to that person's words or actions, don't "do so unto others". Finally, if you really would understand this principle, take one entire day and analyze everything according to this standard:

How would I feel if someone "did that unto me"?

If we really focused on that question, I have no doubt we would stop doing and saying much of what we do and say - and start doing and saying many things we currently do not say and do.

That is my resulotion this month - to change my actions in such a way that I answer that question positively more often and negatively less often when analyzing my own actions - to treat others more as I actually want them to treat me.

Malleable Faith and Shattered Knowledge

Often what gets called “faith” is not “faith”. “Faith” is not a certainty; it is “the substance of things hoped for” - and when we divorce “faith” from “hope”, I believe we get a bastardiszed version that can be very destructive.

Fwiw, one of the biggest theological mutations in the current Church that I think needs to be fixed is the over-emphasis on knowledge almost to the exclusion of faith. (I think that’s probably why the brethren seem to be emphasizing grace more and more recently - to return to faith in Him over confidence in self.) If you remove faith from the equation, you remove hope from your perspective - which means that when the black-and-white certainty of supposed knowledge shatters, there generally is no foundation of faith left on which to fall - since “hope” has been removed from the equation.

Malleable faith and hope can grow and be molded into ever-changing shapes as new perspectives are encountered and adapted; kiln-burned knowledge shatters when dropped.

Living for the Tiny Glimpses of Heaven

Peaks and long valleys - Margaret Blair Young (By Common Consent)

Rediscovering Passion in Our Worship

While I loath the tendency with some movements to equate the spirit only with emotionalism, I also am concerned that we have swung to the opposite extreme in our repudiation of the fiery nature of our baptism. Having been raised in rural Utah, this concern did not arise with me until I lived in Boston, Alabama and Ohio - where I saw first-hand people whose "emotionalism" actually was influenced by the Spirit.

Currently, in our ward, there is a man whose testimony is usually expressed in terms of "I just want to give thanks and praise to Jesus and my Heavenly Father" - and it is so cool to hear. I don't want the revivalistic stirring of emotions instead of the Spirit, but when we deny the emotional aspects of our interaction with the Spirit, I believe we risk killing the passion that should accompany our convictions.

I heard a talk recently in Sacrament Meeting that inspired a member of the ward to tell the speaker, "Thank you. I feel like I heard a sermon today." The only difference apparent to me was the obvious passion of the presenter and the pleas within the talk to change the way the members viewed and acted toward each other. Iow, there was real passion invested and expressed in the talk, not merely a dry and peaceful recitation of doctrine. That experience has made me think deeply about the way we teach each other as we express the Spirit we feel.

There is a real danger in playing with fire (allowing emotional manifestations of the Spirit), but there is just as real a danger of freezing from the lack of fire (not allowing them).

Why We Endure to the End

"sometimes we will get impressions and we just never really know why. Things happen that make no sense to us, but the Lord knows. While I've never seen lights and twinkles, I've definitely had times where I've had an impression that something is going to change, or a song or scripture will keep going through my mind. When events fall into place as they will, it all makes sense."

"That is the root reason for enduring to the end of trials and difficulties. If you don't endure to the end, you can't look back and understand your suffering."

Comment #11 & #12 by Angie Gardner and Me - Come Let Us Anew (Mormon Momma)

Teaching the Ideal

As a Primary, Sunday School and Seminary teacher in three different decades, I have taught literally hundreds of children and adolescents in the Church, and there is one constant for almost all of them. Almost without exception, they want to be taught an ideal that will help them be happy - either as happy as their own family example or happier than that example. That applies to BIC kids from traditional families just as much as kids from any other situation. Of course, we need to be sensitive, but we can't teach the ideal to some and a compromise to others - ironically, simply because those others haven't experienced the ideal.

This same issue applies just as much to YSA & SA members. How do you discuss the ideal family, when there is a significant percentage of adults in the congregation who are divorced, separated or never married (be they gay or straight)? How do you teach adults to honor parents who were abusive - especially if they were sexually abusive? How do you teach respect for Priesthood authority to adults whose fathers (active, inactive or non-member) exercised unrighteous dominion - or whose mothers were critical of all men? What about the women married to active men who don't feel loved and respected and valued - or are abused in some way themselves? How do you teach respect for modern prophets to a Black investigator who risked her life for equal civil rights and has a testimony of the Gospel and the Book of Mormon but has a hard time accepting pre-1978 church history?

You do it by being open and empathetic and aware and sensitive - and direct and frank and bold and unyielding - and, most importantly, in tune with the Spirit. You teach the ideal but recognize and acknowledge and don't trivialize the less than ideal. There is no collective magic bullet for all; there only is a caring heart and open mind and spirit for each individual. At least, that's my experience.

A Rare Sunday Post: Announcing the (Belated) Niblet Awards for 2008

The opportunity to honor unique and talented Mormon bloggers was sorely missed this year. So your friends at MORMON MATTERS decided to give you a chance to look back on 2008 and remember the great things that happened in the Bloggernacle.

Mormon Matters will be hosting this event to highlight your favorite 2008 Mormon blogs and posts, and we'll be back again in 2009 to do the same. We are pleased to announce our collaboration with Ziff of Zelophehad's Daughters, the mighty numbers cruncher, who will handle results presentation at the end of this event.

We'd love to have your help in publicizing this event! Please announce it on your blog, facebook, message boards, or other sites!!

The following are the Niblets categories for 2008. You can make nominations by going to http://mormonmatters.org after Sunday, June 27.

Best big blog:
Best group blog:
Best solo blog:
Best new blog: (must have put up its first post in 2008)
Best blog layout/graphics:
Best commenter:
Most memorable comment: (please include link)
Best overall blogger:
Best humorous post: (please include link)
Best historical post: (please include link)
Best spiritual post: (please include link)
Best doctrinal post: (please include link)
Best current events post: (please include link)
Most blatant example of navel-gazing: (please include link)
Best contribution to the Bloggernacle in 2008:
Write-in category:

Thank you for your participation!

An Epiphany Regarding "Ask, Seek, Find" - A Truly Beautiful Message

As I mentioned at the beginning of the month ("Accepting What Is Given, Found and Opened to Us"), I have had a hard time in the past with Matthew 7:7-8 - especially the way that it has been interpreted to portray God as a vending machine who "gives out" according to what we "put in". I also have struggled to reconcile the interpretation that, because of this passage, wealth is an indication of righteousness. I believe in blessings for obedience, but I also couldn't reconcile the passage with so many people's lives and experiences where they have asked and NOT been given, sought and NOT found, knocked and NOT had it opened unto them.

As I contemplated this issue throughout the month, something hit me that is elementary - so basic that I couldn't believe I hadn't had that epiphany much, much earlier. It is something I have taught my children and students for years, and it is something I have preached as a core, foundational study technique for as long as I can remember. Somehow, with regard to this particular passage, I have failed totally to incorporate this simple mechanism - and that is embarrassing to me. Greater than the embarrassment, however, is a sense of gratitude that the Lord would gently whisper to me somthing that deserved a good roundhouse kick in the head.

The principle I have taught is nothing more profound than the following:

"Context matters."

If the meaning of somthing is not clear immediately, or if there is something that simply seems "off" or wrong about a common niterpretation, I stress two things:

1) Parse the words themselves totally devoid of context, simply to understand the possible meanings.

2) Look at the context in order to narrow down the possible meanings to the most logical or plausible one(s) - often reaching the conclusion that there really is only one reasonable interpretation or meaning.

Frankly, when Matthew 7:7-8 is parsed without context, the beliefs I can't accept are the most apparent interpretations. They are worded in a very straightforward, unambiguous manner and appear to leave little room for interpretation. However, when the overall context (The Sermon on the Mount) is considered - and especially when the immediately surrounding verses are scrutinized - the straightforward conclusion is shattered totally, and a new understanding emerges.

To illustrate this, I am going to summarize and excerpt from the entire sermon, quoting only those verses or statements that influence directly Matthew 7:7-8 - then I will re-interpret those two verses in light of the overall message Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5 = Blessed are those who possess (obtain) certain godly characteristics; there used to be a standard (from which some specific examples are given), but now another standard is in place (from which the counterpoints to the examples are given); through acquiring these characteristics and acting in this manner, become perfected (whole, complete, fully developed).

Matthew 6 = Don't be hypocritical; tackle the process outlined in Matthew 5 as a personal quest, not as a public endeavor; you can't serve two masters - heaven and the world; therefore, choose to serve heaven.

Matthew 6:33 = "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

Matthew 7:1-5 = Don't judge others' journeys along the process outlined in Matthew 5; you will be judged in the same manner you judge others.

Matthew 7:6 = Treat sacred things with great respect and care.

Matthew 7:7-8 = Those who dedicate themselves to this process (acquiring godly characteristics, living the new standards of interpersonal relationships, avoiding hypocrisy, choosing to serve God, seeking first His kingdom and His righteousness, not judging others in their journeys and treating sacred things as sacred) will receive those things for which they ask (since they will ask only for God's will to be done - or for that which is proper), find what they seek (since they will be seeking internal godliness and interpersonal peace and fulfillment) and have heaven's doors opened unto them.

Matthew 7:9-12 = Those who reach this state will treat others as God treats them - as they want to be treated - in a godly manner.

Matthew 7:13-27 = This way to godliness is strict and there are many imitations. Follow the proper path and beware of false paths and guides.

Notice that the promise of Matthew 7:7-8 is at the tail end of the "path to perfection" - the ultimate result of that effort - a re-statement of the conclusion of Matthew 5 ("Be ye therefore perfect.") as a practical statement of what happens in that state of completion, wholeness and full development. In a way, the message really is that you get out of life what you put into it - but it is not a picture of a vending machine that emerges; rather, it is an image of a guide - a shepherd - a mentor - a teacher - someone who has laid out a clear path that leads to exaltation (real, practical, understandable, attainable "perfection").

In essence, in context, these verses say:

"As you journey on the path I have laid out for you, I will give you that for which you ask, allow you to find that for which you seek, open the door unto you as you knock."

What a powerful passage! What a beautiful message of inspiration and hope and empowerment - and ultimate, parental love!!

The Definitive Answer about Book of Mormon Geography

In the Book of Mormon, "this land" is not defined, but there are clear statements that many peoples were led to it - apparently, given the inclusion of the Jaredite record, over the course of thousands of years. The only obvious description is that it is separated by the great waters from the other lands from which the travelers were led.

My main question for those who want to limit "the promised land" to our current United States or to Central and North America always has been, "Are we really applying territorial boundaries that didn't exist at the time of the prophecies?" Without such arbitrary lines, every elementary school student looking at a map of the hemisphere would identify "the land" as the entire hemisphere, I think.

So, the authoritative answer about Book of Mormon Geography is . . . "We don't know." Personally, I see no problem applying the "promised land" designation to the entire hemisphere (even though I personally believe in the Limited Geography Model for the land of the Nephites) - and only philosophical, provincial problems with including the Mounties and our neighbors up north. (*grin*)