Individual Adaptation within Collective Norms

 I have a friend who has struggled with body acceptance issues for a long time.  She is working on coping mechanisms to help her overcome this difficulty, but wearing garments exacerbates seriously her struggles.  I can't understand those struggles fully, since I have never experienced them personally, but they are real and, at times, can be damaging and even dangerous.

With reference to the garment, she said something to me once that I thought at the time was very powerful - and I have thought about it off and on since then.  She said:

It's difficult for me to see how a loving Heavenly Father could require something that makes us feel this way.

I had the chance to communicate with her again a while ago, and the topic arose one more time.  Having thought about it since she first shared her frustration, I answered her in the following way:

I don't believe he requires us to do things that make us feel that way - but, if you accept his existence and the foundation of communal rules in any way, he does require some people to do things that aren't "ideal" for those people. There's no way to have communal laws, rules, regulations, suggestions, cultural practices, etc. that are going to be "right" for everyone. They are approximations of what works generally for the good of the collective group.

That's an important, even critical, distinction - and I believe it's vital to understand. "We" don't get everything that would be "ideal" for "us" when we agree to be part of any group. An essential part of learning charity - true charity - is acceptance of that fact. The key is to step back a bit, see the benefit for the collective group, make whatever sacrifices are possible for the group, make individual adjustments and adaptations that are important to you personally and find peace in that balance between serving the collective good and honoring what is vital to yourself.

It's not easy - this embrace of paradox and complexity. Simple extremes are easier - but they also are more destructive. Worship according to the dictates of your own conscience, but find a way to do it within the community you choose as your own. It might take a while, but it's worth it in the end - since the faith you carve out will be your own, and it will allow you to continue being an active part of your own tribe, so to speak. 

In the specific case of the garment and her body issues, I have NO problem with her not wearing the garment in the same way most Mormons who wear it do so.  The Church Handbook of Instruction actually leaves how she does so in her hands, and I love that policy.  If adapting in healthy ways means wearing it only for specific things (like when she attends the temple) - or only for a short period of time each day and/or night - or only one day per week or month - or even not until she has a better handle on her body acceptance issues, so be it.  I would rather have her be working on getting to the point that she can wear it without real damage than be damaged in a very real way on a regular basis.  The key, I believe, is not to wear or not wear but rather to face the issue head-on and strive to find a way to do whatever is possible in the present while working on making the future better.

I think that is a good outline for most things in life. 

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Sacrament Covenant - Repentance; A Deeper, Fresh View

Yesterday, we focused on the lesson outline: "How can I make the sacrament more meaningful to me?" We had talked the first week about the sacrament and the covenants associated with it, but I really like the way the opening paragraph of the outline is worded, so I used that paragraph as the foundation of a deeper look at how to maximize the concept of the sacrament in practical terms in our lives.

The lesson outline starts with the following:

During the sacrament each week, we should examine our lives, ponder the Savior’s Atonement, and consider what we need to do to repent of our sins. We do not need to be perfect in order to partake of the sacrament, but we should have a spirit of humility and repentance in our hearts. The sacrament can become a source of strength and an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to living the gospel.

I started by reminding everyone of a lesson we had last year about repentance - particularly how we only understand half of the concept of repentance when we focus solely on remembering our sins / mistakes and vowing not to repeat them. (If anyone wants a fuller look at that concept before continuing with this lesson summary, read the following post from January 2008, since our discussion was based on that post: "A Fresh View of Repentance".)

I asked everyone what "repent" means, and they remembered that it simply means "change". I explained that we were going to talk about two ways to try to repent: 1) the traditional focus on recognizing past sins and committing to not repeat them; 2) changing our very nature by developing characteristics that will help us not feel and act in the same way we naturally would.

I mentioned that the first approach (the traditional steps of repentance method) is necessary for "hardcore" sinners (similar to what addicts might have to do because they might struggle with a temptation all their lives but simply have to commit to a sheer force of will no matter how long it takes, along with other strategies), but that, for most people, just suppressing an inclination generally results in that inclination eventually erupting through built-up pressure - which, as one student said, leads to a vicious cycle of failed attempts and self-criticism. I call this reactive repentance, and I stressed that the ONLY focus of this sort of repentance is to remain as good as we are at any given point - to not let our "badness" overcome our goodness, so to speak. There is no real "growth" in that approach; rather, it is much more of a fight to remain stationary.

The second approach is to recognize a weakness and work to develop a characteristic that will eliminate the inclination / weakness / undesired action. This also is focused on "change", so it is "repentance" every bit as much as the other approach. I call this approach proactive repentance. 

I asked the students if any of them had ever lost their temper and acted toward someone in a way that they regretted. (I picked a fairly generic issue in order to make it personal for all of them but avoid embarrassing anyone.) They all grinned and raised their hands. I asked them how they could change that - how they could go about trying to not do it anymore - other than simply committing not to do it. I asked them to think about exactly what they could do to tackle that particular issue. Eventually, we came up with the following:

1) Develop more patience;

2) Learn to understand the other person better - both their view/perspective and what things in their life might lead them to say and/or do something that bothered the students enough to get upset and lose their temper.

We talked about patience being the "lower" standard and understanding being the "higher" goal. One of the students in the class has Asperger's Syndrome and occasionally says something inappropriate or off the wall. He said it was okay to use him as an example, so we talked about why everyone else didn't get mad at him and lose their tempers when he said or did something that might make them mad if someone else said or did it. They all said they understand and love him - and, beside being a wonderfully tender moment, it helped them see what I meant about repentance being more than just not doing things. It also can mean doing something to improve one's self and change actions as a result, in this case by understanding someone enough to love them no matter what they say or do.

One student said he would like to read the scriptures more, so we talked about how repentance also can apply to things that aren't seen as sin but are strictly things we want to do better - things we want to change. For this discussion, I focused on the idea of needing to examine one's life and make "repentance" a very practical exercise. We talked about needing to think about themselves and when they are most alert - to look at their real-life schedule and choose a time that will work to read the scriptures - to actually calendar the time so it becomes habitual - to perhaps let others know so they can remind us of the commitment - etc. There were seven people in the room, and we came up with at least four approaches that would be best for someone.

This highlighted that repentance is an individual thing - that there is no one-size-fits-all, universally right approach - that nobody ought to try to force someone else to repent in the same way that person does.

Finally, I returned to the sacrament and pointed out that the ideal is not just to "think about Jesus" but rather to have faith in the Atonement enough to examine our lives and use the sacrament as a way to recommit to a practical examination and plan to change - to move from a warm fuzzy spiritual contemplation to a difficult, reflective, practical exercise founded on a spiritual hope.

I left them with the request to pick something that they want to improve about themselves and start focusing on doing so, if only one thing at a time for a limited time and if only to make some limited improvement during that time (rather than trying to overcome it completely and be "perfect" [whole, complete, fully developed] at it in the short-term).

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Baptismal Covenants; or, Serving Only "Our Own" Is Not Following Jesus

Last Sunday, we talked about only one aspect of ordinances and covenants: the baptismal covenant to bear one another's burdens, mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need to comfort.

We spent the entire lesson talking about: 1) the fact that the Gospels detail a LOT more time spent serving people than time spent preaching; 2) exactly whom Jesus served during his mortal ministry (lepers, the sick and afflicted, the unclean, the despised, the poor, the powerless, etc. - his "kingdom of nobodies", as a friend of mine once wrote) and whom he did NOT serve (the religious leadership, the rich and famous and influential, etc.); 3) whom he might serve if he was born and ministered now; 4) how all of that relates to our own baptismal commitment to bear, mourn and comfort and, overall, to take Jesus' name upon us and become more Christ-like.

The list of whom he might serve now was created by the students and included: the sick, the poor, unwed teenage mothers, alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, the homeless (especially those who are mentally disabled). I pressed them to keep adding to the list, asking them to consider those who are marginalized specifically by our current Mormon culture and not already on the list, and they added homosexuals and the divorced. I personally added church members who see things differently than a locally dominant culture, struggle with aspects of faith and remain silent in order not to feel rejected in their congregations.

We talked about how natural it is to try to avoid becoming unclean or hurt (and how, in some cases, that is an unfortunate necessity) and how that translates inter-personally and socially into avoiding people who we see as unclean and/or dangerous - either physically or spiritually. We talked about how doing so is diametrically opposed to becoming Christ-like (except in the extreme cases when it is necessary), since he spent his entire ministry interacting with, serving and physically touching the people whom everyone else labeled as unclean and avoided in order to remain clean.

To end the lesson, I quoted my oldest daughter after she went through the temple for the first time. She said:

Dad, we spend so much time trying to build up the kingdom of God on earth that we forget to establish Zion.

I told them that we aren't really fulfilling our baptismal covenants if we aren't serving people who live outside our comfort zone - if we aren't helping people in a deeply personal, individual way who are rejected by other people, even people within our own church circles. I mentioned how much we construct our service projects around helping "our own" and too often ignore the people around us who are carrying the heaviest burdens, mourning alone and need comfort the most desperately. I asked them to think about the people on the list we created and look for ways to reach out to SOMEONE - actively and directly - who would be on that list. I told them that such an effort was vital to being a true disciple ("follower") of Christ - since, to do so, we have to be willing to go where he went and serve whom he served.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Power of Ordinances through Covenants - Part 1

I just realized I didn't post yesterday the summary of my lesson last Sunday. Here goes: 

The topic this month is Ordinances and Covenants. I really like the first verse cited in the first lesson outline - the "theme verse" (D&C 84:19-20), which says:

And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

I began by casting ordinances as symbolic actions within the administrative Priesthood (what is performed by others - currently only ordained men) and covenants as the responsibility of the "priesthood of believers" (things men and women both do through the authority and power of the priesthood we discussed last month when analyzing Elder Oaks'' talk). I told the students we would be talking for at least a couple of weeks about specific ordinances, what they mean (the symbolism of each one), the covenants associated with them and what "power of godliness" they manifest. To set the stage, we talked about the relationship between ordinances and covenants - focusing on the idea that the ordinances symbolize, in a tangible, physical manner, the covenants we make with God and ourselves and that living covenants is how divine power (the power of godliness) is manifest. To illustrate that relationship, we covered baptism, the sacrament and confirmation after baptism.

In the spirit of a summary, the following is the result of our discussions. Keep in mind that what follows was not presented in a lecture format but rather through discussion, as I try to do nearly every week.

Baptism means, literally, immersion. (The original meaning of "to baptize" means "to immerse".) The symbolism of baptism is the burial of one's old life and a birth as a "new creature in Christ". By being immersed in water, the person symbolically is immersed anew in Christ and emerges as a "Christian" - or, in Mormon terms, a god in embryo or a developing God, someone who is following Jesus in an evolutionary, progressive way. S/he is born into godhood, so to speak, and begins a journey toward perfection (completeness, wholeness, full development) in Christ.

The covenants we accept at baptism all deal with actualizing (making literal) the symbolic meaning of the ordinance. We promise to take Jesus' name upon us, always remember him, stand as a witness of him, keep his commandments, etc. (I skipped the comfort, mourn and bear burdens covenants, since we are going to devote as much of the lesson as possible later today on that concept.) The power of godliness that is manifest in baptism is NOT in the physical ordinance itself, and there is no magic / sudden / automatic power involved. Rather, the power is activated when a person acts on the covenants: becoming a real disciple of Christ, always remembering him (and acting on that remembrance), standing as a witness of him (not just in word but in deed, as well) by doing the things he did and asked us to do (loving, not judging, serving, teaching, supporting, embracing, etc.). The power is the metamorphosis that occurs when a "natural (wo)man" becomes unnatural or godly - literally becoming a new person, just like the ordinance symbolizes.

The word "sacrament" means "a visible sign of an inward grace; something regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance." The "inward grace" symbolized by the sacrament is being cleansed by Jesus' blood and body - and we normally talk about it in terms of remembering Gethsemane and Golgotha and what occurred there. However, it is more than just remembering Jesus during the ordinance; it is supposed to be remembering his sacrifice for us and being cleansed anew (renewing our baptismal covenants). Thus, the power of the sacrament is the exact same as being baptized - the continuation of the metamorphosis to which we commit initially, contingent on us actually living the covenants on a continual basis. The exact composition of the sacramental elements can change (wine to water, for example, or military rations, when bread and water are unavailable), as long as the meaning and power remain unchanged.

"Confirm" means "establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify". Confirmation, at its most basic level, simply validates publicly what is performed privately (or in front of a limited number of observers). Part of that is for the person who was baptized, so s/he can claim a cleansed state without disputation from others, but the primary focus is on the rest of the community - an official stamp of approval by the leadership certifying acceptance into the group. The added Mormon element is the second part of the ordinance - the charge to receive the Holy Ghost. That symbolizes the beginning of divine assistance in the new journey of discipleship - and the power of the ordinance occurs, just like with baptism and the sacrament, when we act in such a way that we really do "receive the Holy Ghost" (or, more generically, listen for and follow what we believe to be God's will in our lives).

I made a point to talk about why it is wrong to say that we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost when we are confirmed. That wording makes the primary "actor" (the one who is active as the primary subject) the person who performs the ordinance, while the wording ("receive the Holy Ghost") clearly puts the responsibility for the actualization of the power squarely on the person who has been baptized.

We also talked about how baptism does NOT bring anyone into the Church, since a person who died immediately following being baptized would never have been, officially, a member of the Church.

Finally, we talked about how the blessing that commonly is pronounced along with the confirmation is NOT part of the ordinance itself but rather a cultural practice to provide guidance and revelation to the person. If the person performing the ordinance ended it right after the admonition to receive the Holy Ghost, it would be considered a full and proper confirmation.

To wrap up the lesson, I simply pointed out that the power of each of these ordinances is manifest ONLY if the person on the receiving end takes the covenants seriously and uses the ordinances as a symbolic launching pad toward developing the characteristics of godliness that allow God to make us what we would not become on our own - that the power of godliness is a transformative process of continually lived and internalized action, not symbolic actions performed once or even periodically.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Family Proclamation; Part 2

Last Sunday, we talked about the rest of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". This is going to be long, since we went through the all but the first three paragraphs (covered last week) sentence-by-sentence and talked about what each sentence means.

I began the lesson by reminding them that I had skipped the sentence last week dealing with gender, identity and purpose, and I told them that I had thought a lot about how to address that sentence openly and honestly with them. I told them that my own view on those topics is outside the norm for most members - that it is not orthodox - and that I didn't feel comfortable sharing that view with them as their Sunday School teacher. I told them that I would be wiling to discuss it with any of them on an individual basis, as long as their parent(s) approved, but that we simply would skip it in the setting of a Sunday School lesson.

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."

We talked about that first commandment - to multiply and replenish the earth. I mentioned that some people can't have kids and others never marry, so this isn't a universal commandment that must be followed, but rather a commandment for those who can multiply within marriage. For example, I told them explicitly that I would rather have someone die single than marry just to marry and end up being miserable and/or abused their entire lives. We also talked about the fact that the LDS Church has NO mandate relative to how many children any couple should have and that there are top leaders who don't have large families - and, in some cases, have no children or are not married.


We talked about how in the temple Adam and Eve report their partaking of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden to the Lord - and how, in a very real way, Adam chose to suffer with his wife rather than remain in paradise with God.

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

We put it in direct, simple terms: No sex outside of marriage - and I pointed out that there is no prohibition in this wording on intimacy that is not procreative. I mentioned our previous lesson about the actual wording of the Law of Chastity in the temple and how the Church does not take any official stance on what can and cannot be done within marriage.

"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed."

We put it in direct, simple terms, which started as, "Sex is good." I told them the sentence goes further than that by calling it divinely appointed. I told them that I hate it when I hear any member of the LDS church echo the old Catholic original sin concept and call sex bad, dirty, or in any other way that implies negative connotations.

"We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan."

I asked them what that means and what issues are addressed in it. One of the students said, "No abortion" - so we talked about the Church's official statement about abortion. We talked about how it emphasizes that life is sacred, but it also mentions explicit cases where abortion is not forbidden - like rape, incest, the health of the mother (and I mentioned that the wording includes emotional health, not just physical health). It also says, ultimately, that the decision is up to the parent(s) involved. We talked about how the Church no longer encourages teenage mothers to marry the father in all cases or have the grandparents raise the child - that the counsel is to give birth to the child and allow it to be adopted. We talked about why that is the current counsel - all of the issues related to teenage parenthood and marriage and the effects on the parents and the baby. I told them that we do not see abortion automatically as murder, like many other people do. I told them that the best description I have heard of the statement is that it is BOTH pro-life AND pro-choice - but that, ultimately, it is based on agency and individual accountability.

The next paragraph deals with caring for children and how God will hold people accountable for how they do that. There was a very good talk in Sacrament Meeting about that basic topic given by one of the students in the class, so I endorsed what was said in that talk and we moved on to the next paragraph.

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."

I simply reiterated what I said last week about being aware of and sensitive to how we teach that within a group that includes many people who are not part of traditional families.

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

I told them I believe deeply in the "general ideal" being taught in this sentence, but that I am bothered by how badly it is misused by some people. We talked about what "entitled" means (possessing a right), so this sentence is focused on what would be ideal for children - to be raised by a couple who are faithful to each other. I asked them if they would support taking children away from single parents - or putting children into abusive situations simply because the parents were married and monogamous. They all agreed they wouldn't do that, so I emphasized again, like when we talk about interpreting scriptures, that we can't pull something out of context and use it in selective, damaging, uncharitable ways.

The rest of the paragraph deals with happiness in family life and parental responsibilities, and since we have talked about that paragraph in at least two former lessons, we simply emphasized that it is up to each couple to decide how to balance the things they have to do to care for their families. As an example, I mentioned that I know some Mormon couples where the husband stays home and takes care of the kids while the wife works - and that such an arrangement is not forbidden in the actual wording of the proclamation. I told them that they have to make those decisions on their own when they get married and that they shouldn't do anything just because most other people do it. They have to take responsibility for how they structure their marriage and family life.

We also talked about what it means to have a marriage and family "founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ" - that it does NOT say successful marriages and families have to be Mormon or Christian or anything else. As long as the teachings of Jesus are the foundation, even if Jesus is not known to the people, successful, "ideal" marriages exist - and Mormon or Christian marriages are worse than other marriages if they are not founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the others are.

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity (adultery, particularly, since the word "covenant" is used), who abuse spouse or offspring (in any way, not just physical or sexual), or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God."

I told them about the temple recommend question about obligations for children and how someone is not supposed to receive a temple recommend if they are not taking care of their children - like failing to pay child support, for example.

"Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

I emphasized that this is focused on "disintegration" - NOT general issues all marriages and families face and not occasional divorce or death. I told them how much I am bothered whenever I hear this sentence used to preach against divorce in a broad, general way - again, because it hurts good people doing their best to cope with divorces that are necessary and, in many cases, better than really bad marriages. I also told them about working for years in places where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is over 90% - and how "calamity" is a good description of what life is like for those communities and many of the children, especially, who are raised in them.

"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I told them that there are controversial things we could discuss relative to this sentence, but I stressed instead practical things like parental leave policy differences between Europe and America - how much longer the leave is for parents in Europe and how fathers can take paternity leave as part of that extended leave, if the mother returns to work before it ends. I told them that there are so may "simple things" like that we need to address that it would be a shame to spend all of our effort fighting people and ignoring the things that actually can improve our own marriages and family lives.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Temple Ordinances (Laws) and Covenants

In our previous lesson we talked about the ordinances and covenants outside the temple, so last Sunday we talked about the ordinances and covenants in the temple. Given their relative inexperience with the temple, this lesson was much more a traditional lesson (I talked most of the time.) than our normal lessons.

We started by writing the definitions from last week on the board again:

ordinance: "a physical action that represents / symbolizes a covenant"

covenant: "a spiritual promise between God and humanity in which God sets the terms and we accept those terms, with a reward or benefit associated with faithful adherence to the terms of the covenant"

I explained the difference between "high church" worship (elaborate and ceremonial, like Catholic mass and our own Sacrament ordinance) and "low church" worship (common and horizontal, like many Protestant services, but especially like our open involvement model). I explained how hard it can be for Catholic investigators and converts to accept the low-church aspects of our regular worship but how easy it is for many of them to accept the temple, since it is very much a high church model - and how the opposite is true for many Protestant investigators and converts.

We listed the regular ordinances that are performed in the temple: baptisms for only the dead, the initiatory (washing and anointing) for the living and dead, the endowment, marriage sealing. We talked briefly about each of them and what happens, skipping the endowment to discuss in more detail as the last part of the lesson.

Since we talked about the initiatory last week, we didn't spend much time on it this week. We only talked about the introduction of the garment - and I told them the covenants we make in the temple regarding the garment: "to wear it throughout our lives and not to defile it." I told them that lots of members want to told what to do in too many situations, so the handbook has examples of things that generally should or shouldn't be done, but then the handbook says the specific decisions are up to the members to make with the actual covenants in mind.

We talked about the differences between being married/sealed in the temple and a civil wedding. They knew about the "til death do you part" difference, but they didn't know about the actual nature of the ordinance - the promise-based wording that is very different than the traditional wording. We talked about the difference in the US and other places where the government recognizes a temple sealing as a legal wedding and where the government does not but requires a civil ceremony. One of the students asked about someone who is sealed in another country without being married civilly first and then moves to the US - if that sealing is recognized as a valid marriage in the US. I explained that governments only recognize marriages authorized by other governments, so it would not be valid in the US - which is why people who get sealed in those countries get married civilly first - and why they don't require a waiting period for the sealing that follows.

We then moved to the endowment. We defined "endowment" as "gift". I talked about how some people miss a lot of the beauty and meaning of the endowment because they take everything in it literally - and I mentioned the quote about walking past the angels who stand as guardians to the Celestial Kingdom (modified to remove any reference to the signs and tokens). I mentioned that understanding it as symbolic (going back to the definition of ordinance above) and/or literal allows me to see much more meaning and "learn something new" when I go, since seeing it as literal would limit my understanding and end up being nothing more than sitting through something I have memorized by this point in my life.

I drew a linear representation of the endowment: l---Pre-Mortal Life---l---Telestial---l---Terrestrial---l---Celestial---l

I explained that the endowment is an interactive play (in movie form in most temples now, but still with live actors in SLC and Manti, at least) which depicts out eternal journey from the Pre-Mortal life back into the presence of God in the Celestial Kingdom. I explained that it uses Adam and Eve to represent us - and we talked about the meanings of those names (Adam being "man" and Eve being "mother / initiator / introducer"). Interestingly, one of the students is named Adam, and the meaning associated with the name in baby books is "earthly" - which fits really well. I explained the physical set-up of the rooms and how we move from room to room as we move through the eternal stages. I also mentioned that most of the smaller, most recent temples don't have extensive murals in the rooms but how the earlier and bigger ones depict each stage visually - and how there are more rooms and moving around in the older and larger temples.

I listed the "Laws" that are associated with each stage and room, and I pointed out again that "ordinance" can be translated as "law" - and that making that connection is important in the temple. I told them that I see the endowment as being structured around a series of ordinances - termed "laws" in the actual endowment wording - and the covenants associated with those ordinances or laws. I told them that there is almost nothing that we are commanded not to discuss outside the temple, as long as we are respectful and reverent in the way we do so - but that there are a few things I would not be discussing, particularly the exact form of the ordinances themselves (the way we perform the ordinances associated with the specific covenants). I think seeing the endowment in this manner makes more sense when dealing with the ritualistic aspects that were adapted from Masonry - seeing those aspects as ways that promises are made in the performance of individual ordinances.

We discussed the telestial laws / ordinances: the Law of the Lord, the Law of Sacrifice and the Law of the Gospel.

I mentioned that the Law of the Lord doesn't provide specifics but is focused on hearkening to the voice and commandments of God - and that the woman's covenant includes the promise to hearken unto the "counsel" of her husband as he hearkens unto the Lord. I told them that there is nothing in the wording that requires a woman to "obey" her husband or even accept his counsel if he isn't righteous or simply because he is her husband - that the promise is to listen to him and consider / follow his "counsel" as (to the extent and in the same way that) he is listening to and following the Lord. Importantly, the wording places the right and responsibility to make that judgment with her, not with her husband.

They all understood the basic concept of the Law of Sacrifice, so we didn't spend much time on it - but I did point out that it is a type of preparatory law / ordinance prior to the terrestrial Law of Consecration. I asked them for examples of sacrifice that might apply to this law, and they mentioned tithing and serving in callings.

The Law of the Gospel isn't defined clearly in the temple, so we talked briefly about what "the Gospel" is - faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, love / charity, service, enduring to the end, etc. We talked about why those things are necessary to move from a telestial state to a terrestrial state.

We then discussed the terrestrial laws / ordinances: the Law of Chastity and the Law of Consecration.

I gave them the exact wording of the Law of Chastity in the temple: "no sexual relations except with a husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded". We talked about how non-specific that wording is and how that is intentional. I mentioned the lists of standards in the For Strength of Youth pamphlet and how they represent a kind of Law of Moses approach to chastity - and how the temple wording moves away from that approach and represents our covenant to understand the law more fully and make informed decisions on our own without being commanded in all things.

I also pointed out that the Law of Chastity is accepted in the terrestrial state - and how I believe we devalue it too often when we assume it should be easy for people to live. It actually is the second highest law in the endowment, followed only by consecration, and is accepted as preparation to enter the presence of God. It's not required of people to be considered terrestrial beings, which means people can be committing fornication and still be considered good people who are terrestrial in nature. (I think that's important to understand, and I think it is not understood very well among the church membership, including leaders at all levels.)

We talked about the Law of Consecration and how it is a step up, if you will, from the Law of Sacrifice. I gave the the exact wording of being willing to give our time, talents and everything with which the Lord has blessed us and everything with which he may bless us to the building up of the kingdom of God on earth and to the establishment of Zion.

I ended by sharing with them something my oldest daughter said after her first time going through the temple and experiencing the endowment. She said:

"Dad, we focus so much on building the kingdom of God that we sometimes forget to establish Zion."

We talked about how those two things ought to be synonymous, but how we sometimes separate them. I asked them for ideas about how that might happen, and they mentioned focusing so much on baptism that we forget to fellowship, love and retain new members - that we focus so much on tithing that we forget about fast offerings - that we focus so much on church stuff that we forget about family stuff - etc. I asked them to think about that and talk with their parents about it, since I believe that might be our biggest failure as a people when it comes to truly understanding the temple ordinances and living according to the covenants we make in the temple.

God Is Bound - but I Don't Bind Him

When I teach about covenants, I generally set the stage by talking about the ultimate objective of convenants - becoming godly. I discuss the idea that we "bind" God by our promises - and that I disagree with the way that idea gets interpreted too often. I mention that I have NO problem with the idea that God has promised to bless us and help us become like Him, but the actual "binding" passage in the D&C makes it clear that God binds himself - that he promises absolutely to keep his word. We aren't binding him in any way.

That might be seen as hair-splitting by some, but it's an important distinction to me. I don't control God. Period. Full stop. My covenanting (promising to accept what he has asked of me) simply opens the doors for him to help me - or, to phrase it differently, simply is an acknowledgment that I have committed to do everything I am capable of doing to tackle "becoming" as the ultimate object of my existence and "endure to the end" in that commitment.