The LDS Church Also Evolves in Its Understanding and Its Recognition of Past Mistakes

"Seventy years ago this Church was organized with six members. We commenced, so to speak, as an infant. We had our prejudices to combat. Our ignorance troubled us in regard to what the Lord intended to do and what He wanted us to do … We advanced to boyhood, and still we undoubtedly made some mistakes, which … generally arise from a …lack of experience. We understand very well, when we reflect back upon our own lives, that we did many foolish things when we were boys … Yet as we advanced, the experience of the past materially assisted us to avoid such mistakes as we had made in our boyhood. It has been so with the Church. Our errors have generally arisen from a lack of comprehending what the Lord required of us to do. But now we are pretty well along to manhood … When we examine ourselves, however, we discover that we are still not doing exactly as we ought to do, notwithstanding all our experience. We discern that there are things which we fail to do that the Lord expects us to perform, some of which He requires us to do in our boyhood. … While we congratulate ourselves in this direction, we certainly ought to feel that we have not yet arrived at perfection. There are many things for us to do yet.” 

- Lorenzo Snow, General Conference, April 1900

Our Leaders are Not Infallible, and We Don't Need to Believe They Are

I have heard too many members talk as if our prophets and apostles are infallible.  They admit imperfection when asked about it, but, in practical terms, they act as if everything our leaders say should be accepted and followed unquestioningly as if it was God's own voice - and some of them extend that down to the local level, as well.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, in our scriptures or any statement by any prophet or apostle ever recorded says that - even the ones that people often cite when making the claim.  

If people who don't believe in prophetic infallibility had to stop attending the temple, there would be relatively few people in the temples - and never any of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Presidency.  They know better than anyone else that they aren't infallible. 

Just saying.

After What Do I Hunger and Thirst - and Why?

I view the purpose of this life as becoming like Jesus was in His mortal life - and the purpose of the next life as becoming like Christ is now in His post-mortal life. Everything else (specific doctrine, intellectual understanding, nuanced discussions of exegesis, whatever) is secondary to that.

The core Josephism to which I cling is: "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." "Principles" is not equivalent to "doctrines" or "intellectual understandings". That's important to me.

When it comes down to it, I base my core principles on three main statements of Jesus:

"Be ye therefore perfect," (Matt. 5:48) - "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt. 7:20) - "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 7:21) -- (basically, the entire Sermon on the Mount, but especially those three verses)

When push comes to shove, I don't give a rat's hairy hindquarters exactly what someone says they believe - only what they do and what they are becoming. If they teach Buddhism or if they claim atheism - whatever their background - I don't care one bit. I really don't, as long as they are trying to do the will of the Father (the God in which they believe or their conscience) and become perfected (whole and complete) - and not doing so in a highly destructive way or exercising serious unrighteous dominion and compulsion.

Why do I share that in this context? I believe in the Restored Gospel deeply and passionately, and I enjoy the intellectual stimulation I find on various blogs. However, my intellectual efforts do not define my discipleship. That is defined by my realization that no matter how my brain constructs my doctrinal understanding, it's much more important what I do than what I say - what I am becoming than how convincing my arguments are. My understanding might be different than another's, but if we both are working to become the same thing (complete and whole and "right"eous), our journey can be one of mutual respect and camaraderie and joy.

I engage in internet conversations specifically to find ways to hone my discipleship - to plumb the depths of others' understanding to find new ways to bring me closer to my Father. That's what I long for in the discussions in which I engage - a place of refuge and rest, where I can drink deeply from the cup of perspective and insight - no matter the theological or denominational affiliation of those with whom I converse. I don't want to fight and argue over minute points of doctrinal interpretation, although I will challenge statements that I think are hyperbolic and mean-spirited. I want to share and sup. That is the sustenance for which I hunger and thirst - the soothing sips of insight that restore and reaffirm my resolve for righteousness. I don't hunger and thirst after insight for itself; I hunger and thirst after insight that leads me to greater *righteousness* - to be filled with the Holy Ghost - to do the will of my Father - to bring forth fruits meet for repentance - to become therefore perfected (whole and complete).

Everything else is meaningless if it isn't involved in getting there and helping others get there.

When Someone Says, "The Church is perfect, but the members aren't."

"Perfect" is defined in Matthew 5:48 as "complete, whole, fully developed".

Based on that definition, the Church isn't perfect, since it isn't "complete, whole, fully developed". At the most fundamental level, our Articles of Faith say as much ("He will yet reveal MANY great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.") - and the organizational development continues to evolve.

To me that's so basic and obvious that I just have to laugh inside when I hear someone say that the Church is perfect but the members aren't. I don't dispute it much publicly, but I do address it whenever the situation makes it possible to be productive and not seen as threatening.

My Sacrament Meeting Talk Today about "The Creation"

Since I had to take my oldest daughter to Utah yesterday and return to Carson City in time to speak in church tomorrow (a round trip of just over 1,100 miles in a total of 28 hours), I didn't write my normal weekend New Year's Resolution Post.  Instead, I am posting the outline of my talk tomorrow about "The Creation".  (I joked that I was going to guarantee never being asked to speak in my new ward again by talking exclusively about evolution and procreation [making babies], but I decided not to do that.  My wife was pleased with that decision.)

I almost always write my talks in concept outline form, think about the outline up until I give the talk, jot down any specific thoughts that hit me while I'm sitting on the stand and then speak about each item in the outline in the talk itself.  Therefore, what I am posting now is the outline I will be using.  I'm not sure if I will be able to come back and edit to add whatever detail ends up making it into my actual talk, but I would love to hear what any of you would add as detail with regard to any or all of the outline items. 


"The Purpose (the Why) of Creation"

1) Intro disclaimer about Science and the "How" of creation - simply to emphasize that I will be talking about the "Why" of creation (the purpose)

2) Define "create" and "creation" - focusing on synonyms in our scriptures that are used in the various accounts ("form", "make", "organize", etc.) -- Discuss concept of "ex nihilo" creation (creating something out of nothing) and how the Mormon view of creation is radically different, in that it is much more about "changing" an existing something and turning it into something else -- explain it as a "creative process" rather than a one-time action -- emphasize the organization of the chaotic into something that was changed in such a way that "it was good".

3) Discuss the order of creation in our scriptures (first spiritual, then physical) and the importance of that order when it comes to the purpose of "The Creation".

4) Quote Moses 1:39 and discuss how God's work and glory are fulfilled through "The Creation" - how the Plan of Salvation is actualized only through multiple creative processes.

5) Quote the verses in Malachi and D&C 2 regarding the spirit of Elijah and explain the meaning of the earth (The Creation) being "wasted" without the creation of a sealing bond across time and all eternity.

6) Discuss the principles and ordinances of the Gospel as the parameters of creation's purpose: faith in the purpose of the creation (an at-one-ment) and repentance (transformative change) as the fulfillment of the purpose - with baptism as an outward symbol of that faith and desired repentance, the Holy Ghost as the guiding light toward the process of repentance and enduring to the end as the patience to continue throughout the divine creative process.  Compare that process to the creation of the world - as organizing something good out of former disorganization and even chaos.

7) Discuss the concept of being temples - and how that relates to allowing god to build / create us in such a way that it can be said of us that the kingdom of God is within / among us.

8) Explain Matthew 5:48 in terms of being an progressive creation and becoming a finished, completed, wholly developed "new creature in Christ". 

9) Reiterate Moses 1:39 and the stated purpose of creation - NOT to build an assembly line of robots but rather to take caterpillars and turn them into a myriad of uniquely beautiful butterflies.

Finding Peace and Light Amid the Mists of Darkness

I have come to a foundational conclusion about the need for those who are struggling in the Church to strive to adopt a different perspective than that which often causes the struggle in the first place. I know this is not a universal panacea, but I have come to believe that there is a very common theme that contributes centrally to the stress many members feel about being "faithful" as LDS. I have tried here to keep everything as simple as possible, knowing that painting with a broad brush won't address all stress-inducers but hoping what follows will help someone who reads this somehow.

As I've outlined in other threads, I like the "be ye therefore perfect" injunction - but ONLY if it is understood as a gradual process of growth, enabled by grace, rather than a command to never make mistakes. Likewise, I like the focus on striving to understand the Gospel and keep the commandments - but ONLY if it is framed within the context of underpinning grace and mercy and love. My concern is that too many members adopt a perfectionist paradigm that creates an impossible standard by tying their acceptability to the Lord to how they do in comparison to others - that makes uncertainty and doubt and weakness and struggle bad things, rather than simply part and parcel of our mortal condition.

Here are the principles that I believe are the foundation of mortal peace:

1) "We see through a glass, darkly." (I Corinthians 13:12)

It helps me to remember that even Paul (the Elder McConkie of his time, in a way) admitted that "WE see in part, and WE prophesy in part" and "WE see through a glass, darkly" (1 Corinthians 13) - and even Nephi felt inadequate and prone to failure (2 Nephi 4). If that's true even of Paul and Nephi, it's fine to feel a bit lost and "clinging to the iron rod amid the mists of darkness".

Given that we all are feeling our way through the darkness,

2) "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." (John 8:12)

Everything else is a human attempt to build on that foundation and bring meaning to life. All the rest, therefore, is secondary and supplemental. I'm not saying the rest is unimportant; I'm saying "The Church" is meant to enhance our individual AND communal pursuit of Christ-like development (not vice-versa), and that "the light of life" that will illuminate our way comes not through "The Church" (or any other external connection) but rather through an internal connection to Him.

In saying that, I am not downplaying the very real and powerful illuminating principles I find in Mormonism - and I am not saying that I believe all religions and denominations are equal in their ability to bring people to Christ (especially since I see Christ as the intermediary to bring us to the Father). I am emphasizing, however, what I believe to be the foundation of mortal peace - an internalization of the principle of grace, or Atonement, as it is called within Mormonism.

Therefore, the invitation I see is best stated in the passage:

3) "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28)

I can't say what that means as a practical process for each and every individual, but I can say that I find peace in my effort to come unto him - and that my Church life has changed almost entirely into a way to serve others within my religious family. That has been an ennobling and enabling paradigm shift for me.

Receiving God's Image Doesn't Destroy Individuality

I saw a very profound, short statement on the wall of a high school I was visiting yesterday, and I thought how it applies to my New Year's Resolution for this month.  It said:

You were (created) as an original.  Don't become a copy.

 

First, I absolutely LOVE this quote in and of itself, regardless of its application to my New Year's Resolution.  I understand and accept the need for communal conformity to certain, minimal standards; I really do.  However, at the most fundamental level, I am a unique child of God - and that uniqueness is important to me. 

What struck me about this quote and my resolution is that too many people see Zion as total uniformity / unanimity / homogeneity.  They see "being united" as being indistinguishable from each other in any important way.  They see becoming "perfect" as becoming exactly alike in every way.  At least, that is how they appear to believe, based on how they act toward those who are different than they are.

I disagree. 

My favorite General Conference talk of all time (as my children will attest, while rolling their eyes and exclaiming, "I told you so!") is Elder Joseph Wirthlin's "Concern for the One" - and the part that resonates the most within me is the analogy of the multiple instruments and harmonies that are necessary to create a beautiful orshestral sound.  Everyone playing the same instrument all the time - or even different instruments but the exact same notes at the exact same time all the time - even when technically mistake-free and precisely is NOT beautiful music; at best, it is a beautiful melody.  (At worst, it is soul-less.)  All kinds of very different instruments playing intricate harmonies, counter-melodies and even varying rhythms in synch with each other and with passion and expression . . . now THAT is beautiful music. 

I am reminded of the description of the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12 - where each and every part is said to be as important and critical as any other. 

Truly, there is a need for some kind of uniformity and communal standardization, but we were created as originals.  We can't allow ourselves to become copies.

Charity Beareth All Things: "Bearing" as "Possessing"

In my introductory post for this month's resolution to "bear more things", I focused on the idea that "to bear all things" must be different than "to endure all things" - since bearing and enduring are listed as separate aspects of charity in 1 Corinthians 13:7. Therefore, I looked up the verb "to bear" and listed the possibilities that might reflect what Paul meant in his statement that charity beareth all things. I am going to look at a number of those possibilities this month in these Saturday posts, and I want to start with the one that was a part of more than one definition that stood out to me.

The actual definitions that each include a similar element - that together seem to present a common theme - are:

to be fit for or worthy of: It doesn't bear repeating. - to have and be entitled to: to bear title. - to exhibit; show; to possess, as a quality or characteristic; have in or on: to bear a resemblance; to bear traces; to bear an inscription.

Each of these definitions has an element of possession that, taken together, is striking to me. Interpreting "charity" through the prism of these definitions gives the following re-translations:

Charity is fit for or worthy of all things.

Charity has or is entitled to all things.

Charity exhibits or shows all things.

Charity possesses all things as qualities or characteristics.

These re-translations each are fascinating in their own right, but, in order to analyze this a little further, I want to go back to what I have discussed already this year in each month's resolution post and see precisely what charity is worthy of, entitled to, exhibits and possesses as qualities and characteristics - according to Paul in this chapter.

Based on 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, charity is worthy of, entitled to, exhibits and possesses:

long-suffering - kindness - lack of envy - lack of externally and internally separating pride - propriety - selflessness - forbearance in provocation - purity of thought - repulsion toward iniquity - rejoicing for truth

Thus, when Paul says that charity beareth all things, he might be saying nothing more than that charity is the perfect (whole, complete, fully developed) manifestation of a Christlike character - that a fully and truly charitable person thinks, sees and acts like God - that he "possesses" Godhood.

I really like this perspective, particularly since I believe it fits beautifully into the verses that follow 4-7 in Chapter 13 - that this interpretation leads naturally into verses 8-12 especially, which end with the statement that "then shall I know even as also I am known".

What do you think of this possibility - that "bearing all things" might mean possessing all good qualities and characteristics and knowing even as God knows?

Why I Don't Like to Say that God Is "Embodied"

"Embodied" is a word we use sometimes when talking of God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ. I personally don't like to use it - specifically because of the baggage that surrounds defining the term as people struggle to explain exactly what it means. Let me try to explain.

1) The most concise statement is the one in D&C 130:22, which states:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit."

2) That appears to be a straightforward statement of "embodiment" - until you consider that we believe Spirits are "embodied" in a very real and "tangible" way.

D&C 131:7-8 says:

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

3) We speak generally of "flesh" as the outward surface of our bodies (the flexible structure "within" which we are organized) and "bones" as the inward, skeletal structure of our bodies (the "calcified" structure "around" which we are organized). Each of these aspects of our physical bodies is corruptible and subject to decay. The question then becomes, what does it mean to have a resurrected "body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's"?

By the way, we use the term "body of flesh and bones" because that was the way Jesus described His resurrected body to the disciples to whom He appeared, with whom he spoke and for whom He ate in Luke 24:37-39:

" But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not "flesh and bones", as ye see me have."

So, the D&C makes it clear that spirits are "tangible" and "embodied" just as our physical bodies are - only to a different degree and "discernibility". Given these statements, it becomes very difficult to say with certainty exactly what it means for God to be "tangible" with a body of "flesh and bones" and to be "embodied".

That is a long-winded way of saying that I hesitate to use the term "embodied" specifically I believe it does not describe the condition of the Father (and the Son) in any meaningful way - given our belief that spirits also are "embodied" in a very real way. I prefer to use a description that focuses more on our relation, and I think it is accurate to say that literally "becoming perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" - literally becoming god-like in the fullest sense by reaching a state of godhood similar to that of the Father - literally "growing up to be like Father" - is something that is not found in the orthodox Christian theology of our day. In fact, if there is one thing that gets us labeled as a heretical, damnable cult, that probably is it - even though it is taught MUCH more clearly in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon.

Given all of that, rather than saying that God is "embodied", I generally say something like, "God is our actual Father" - meaning a creator whose offspring can grow to become like Him - whose children can grow up and approximate Him - who is actually a Father in every sense of the word, not just the "spiritual" (or allegorical or symbolic or figurative) ones.

Honoring the Cross as Mormons

I read a wonderful post yesterday at By Common Consent by one of my favorite writers, Russell Arben Fox. It is entitled “Friday Reflections on Mormonism and the Cross” - and I recommend the entire post.

The following is not my typical Saturday resolutions post, but since my New Year's resolution for the past three years has been focused on various aspects of becoming more Christ-like, and since this is Easter weekend, I want to copy here my response on BCC to Russell's post - then add a bit more about Easter:

When I talk about the Atonement, I also reference the Sermon on the Mount – and I emphasize the command to be perfect. The wording in verse 48 says, “Be ye therefore perfect.” In the overall context of Chapter 5, I agree that this conclusion means that we become “perfect” by becoming the type of “blessed” person described in the previous verses. Finally, our footnotes for verse 48 define being perfect as being “complete, whole, fully developed” – and I re-word that as “finished”.

It only was at the end of his time on the cross that Jesus declared, “It is finished” – just before he “gave up the ghost”. Iow, it only was after the cross that the Atonement was complete – that Jesus fulfilled his own command to “be ye therefore perfect.”

I honor Gethsemane, but when we ignore Golgotha we worship an incomplete, paritally developed, imperfect Savior and Redeemer.

There have been any number of pronouncements in the history of this world that carried special significance for those beyond the people to whom they were addressed. Among them, within just our Christian heritage, are the following:

"Multiply and replenish the earth."

"Moses, my son."

"For unto us a child is born."

"Thou art blessed among women."

"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear him."

"It is finished."

All of these have grave import, but the greatest pronouncement in the history of the world might be simply:

"He is not here, for he is risen."

I simply add my voice here and state, with my own conviction, that, in a very real and powerful and important way:

He can be here, for he is risen.

What Wouldn't Jesus Do?

Often people ask, "What would Jesus do?" I like to consider, "What Wouldn't Jesus Do?"

What if “what Jesus wouldn’t do” is way different than most of us imagine? What if contemplating this question forces us to re-examine our assumptions (many that have descended through a cultural prism that we classify as corrupted and apostate over time) about what His “mortal perfection” means? I agree that emulating our Savior still is very hard and unattainable all at once, but even the Bible says Jesus grew "from grace to grace" and "in favor with God and man".

To recap, the scriptural meaning of "perfect" is "complete, finished, fully developed". Just before He died on the cross, Jesus exclaimed, “It is finished.” According to Matthew 5:48, He might have said, instead, "I am now perfect." He grew from grace to grace until he FINALLY could claim, right before he died, "It is finished." Why do we suppose we need to short-circuit the process of growth He experienced and be now what He was only at the end?

I think we buy into the incorrect traditions of our fathers too much with regard to many topics, and how we view “what Jesus wouldn’t do” is one of them. There is something profoundly disturbing about the idea that “little Lord Jesus no crying he makes” - and it is related directly to our too common acceptance of totally unrealistic expectations, especially for far too many women I know.

Have you ever wondered why He wasn't accepted in His own home town as the Messiah? Maybe they looked forward to "their Messiah" through the same type of lens we use to look backward at "our Savior and Redeemer" - with totally unrealistic expectations. Maybe there's a reason we have essentially no record of His life until after the beginning of His ministry. Maybe we need more answers; maybe we need more questions. Certainly, I believe, we need fewer unrealistic expectations - of Him, of our friends and family and neighbors, of ourselves.

An Interesting Epiphany: Thank You to Everyone Who Has Commented on My Blog

As I reflected on the comments about my last post (Spiritual Growth Is Not Automatic, Natural or Painless), something registered that I want to share - but it is something that I have struggled to find a way to say correctly. I want to start by quoting from the comments on that post - with a sincere, heartfelt thanks to each of you who helped me understand this month's resolution and the epiphany I want to share. I hope it will be phrased in such a way that it will be of benefit to those who read it.

In order of comment, Anonymous wrote:

I've had times in my life when to my surprise I find myself dealing with circumstances better than I may have anticipated, given my track record. Then I realize that on reflection, I have been working on it for a long time - often, such a long time that the stages in the growth process have crept up on me.

Ryan wrote:

Of course, there are those days where the kid had a growth spurt in the night and really is measurably taller in the morning than when she went to bed... but most of the accumulated height comes imperceptibly.

Tatiana wrote:

Looking at it that way, it might be that we make more progress than we realize.

Finally, my sweetheart said:

I love the scriptures that say, "Be still and know that I am God."

Now the epiphany:

I have been working on this one resolution for nearly two years - and the monthly resolutions for the rest of this year are about "refocusing" on things from the past 21 months. I have had months when the things I have learned have been more dramatic than other months, but I have had 20 months of wonderful experiences - wonderful insights as a result of my focus, but also wonderful insights as a result of those who have read these posts and taken the time to comment on them.

This resolution has extended to the point that I now am working on a sort of summary resolution this month - and my epiphany is that my specific resolution for this month ("seeking for and doing the will of the Father") is, at the meta-level, precisely what my focus has been throughout the entire time I have been pursuing the New Year's Resolution I laid out at the beginning of January 2008. If the Father's and Son's work and glory is to nurture us to become "at-one" with them ("Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."), then seeking to become more like Jesus is precisely "the will of the Father" - and, in seeking to become like Them, step-by-step, line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept, I have been seeking to do their will.

Truly, it's not the little steps along the way that are most important (as vitally important as they are along the way), but rather it's the vistas that unfold at moments like this - when I can pause ("be still"), look back on the last 21 months and realize how wonderful the journey has been and how much I am looking forward to the continuation of the slow, steady change that occurs inside when I try consciously and intentionally to become what I was created to become - to fill the measure of my own personal creation. However, those vistas never will be possible without the steps that are taken to arrive at them.

Spiritual growth truly can be realized fully only in hindsight, which is why we believe so passionately in enduring to the end - with "the end" meaning nothing more than completion, wholeness and full development. In other words, we must continue to strive until we have become "therefore" (in that manner) perfect (complete, whole, fully developed), even as our Father who art in heaven and His son are perfect.

My resolutions for the rest of this year will remain the same, and I will re-evaluate at the end of the year how to organize my focus for next year. There are more vistas to experience, and I look forward to the help I will receive along the way.

Again, thank you to everyone who has contributed to this moment for me. I appreciate it deeply.

The Danger of "Should"

I have heard it said that perfection is the enemy of good, since the pursuit of perfection can lead one to be dissatisfied with being good. In my opinion, however, it is not “perfection” that is the enemy of good, but rather the mis-perception of perfection. If we define “perfect” as an absolute requirement of our daily existence and as doing absolutely everything that anyone possibly could do without ever making a mistake (as is the standard outlook in “the world” and many religions), then it really is the enemy of good. If, on the other hand, we define it as “complete” or “whole” (in accordance with the Biblical footnotes), then it becomes the ultimate, eventual result of our striving for good - not an enemy at all.

This perspective allows us to move away from the tendency to evaluate our actions and progress in comparison to what we see others do (and the natural, works-based, Law of Moses competitiveness that accompanies trying to keep up with Bro. and Sis. Jones) and, instead, to move toward a more “grace-based” evaluation of whether or not we are doing all that *we* can do - regardless of whatever anyone else is doing. It also allows us to accept those things we simply can’t change yet and continue to work on those we think we can. After all, we teach that the Atonement of Christ covers what we are unable to do even “after all we can do.”

I think the enemy of good is “should” - when it is applied to what we see others doing around us. We “should” do whatever we are capable of doing - nothing more. We “should” try to find ways to do more than we currently are capable of doing - without guilt or shame if that is not as much as we might want to do. We "should" allow everyone that same effort, without judging them for their incompleteness and imperfection.

So, what should each person do? “Pray for guidance” might sound trite, but it is the only thing that ultimately can determine what we individually “should” do. I can’t do that for anyone else, and neither can anyone else do that for me. All we can do is what works for us - what we feel we are being asked to do. Of course, we follow the general counsel of the prophets and apostles, but how we live our own lives individually is up to us to feel and follow.

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!!

Speculation on Marriage: Creating a Complete Whole

My wife and I are so perfect for each other partly because we are so naturally different in so many ways. I really don't know if "Godhood" is the joining of an actual "male" being with an actual "female" being creating a complete "godly" being, but it certainly rings true to me that "Godhood" is the state of becoming "complete, whole, fully developed" as "perfect" is defined in Matthew 5:48. I personally think that means we only can become perfect by developing all good characteristics generally associated as "natural" to either man or woman. I know in my own marriage I have been able to learn how to "become" more complete, whole and fully developed because I interact regularly with someone who is very different than I.

Maybe gender is an essential characteristic specifically because it is "naturally" limited and requires growth and combination and adaptation - the very process we preach as the development of Godhood. Perhaps we need a spouse to reach Godhood specifically because it might be impossible for some (or all) to fully escape our natural characteristics and become complete, whole and fully developed on our own.

Protecting Ourselves from Our Past

A friend once wrote the following on her blog:

"I need to be willing to protect myself from my past to prevent its influence on my future."

That is one of the most profound comments I have read on any blog. It captures perfectly my view of the heart of repentance - and it is SO difficult without constant attention, which, in turn, makes it difficult to keep it at bay and in the past. Talk about a paradox.

In order to leave the past behind and pursue perfection, we need to actively consider, construct and pursue a new present - one that will build a more sure future. It's not just about avoiding degrading things, as important as that is; it's about developing a Christ-like heart and life.

The Reason for My Resolution

The following is the genesis for my New Year's Resolution this past year - and the New Year's Resolution that will post tomorrow for 2009. In order to re-introduce the rationale behind my effort to those who were not here last December to read it, I am re-posting it today:
-----------------------------------------------------
OK, the title (The Problem with the Popular Perception of Perfection) is intentionally over-the-top alliteration, but it accurately reflects one of the biggest problems of the apostasy - and, I believe, one of the greatest obstacles in understanding the heart of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The great commandment "in the law" is, in summary, "Love God and everyone else." However, the great culmination of Christ's penultimate sermon (The Sermon on the Mount) is a powerful commandment outside the law - and, in a very real way, is the practical application of the command to love. This foundational command is contained in Matthew 5:48: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which art in Heaven is perfect."

Apostate Christianity has addressed this commandment in two ways: 1) by applying a legalistic meaning ("never make a mistake/commit a sin") and, based on the impossibility of that definition, 2) turning it into a suggestion - something one cannot hope to achieve but a nice platitude regardless. ("Try not to make mistakes/sin, but realize it doesn't really matter in the long run.") While this sounds fine - and even laudable - to most people, it totally destroys the power and beauty of the command itself. It is my conviction that someone simply cannot understand the atonement (and the full grace that makes "atonement" possible) if they accept and internalize this apostate definition of perfection.

The footnotes to Matthew 5:48 make a critical definition distinction - one that changes the entire meaning and empowers the command in an amazing way. Footnote (b), which is attached to the word "perfect", defines it from the Greek thus: "complete, finished, fully developed." This means that the verse can be read as follows:

"Be ye therefore complete, finished, fully developed, even as your Father which art in heaven is complete, finished, fully developed." What an amazing difference!

I am planning on delving further into the practical application of this principle in future posts, since I don't want this one to be a novella all by itself, but suffice it to say here that this definition changes fundamentally how our quest for perfection should be understood and approached - and, at the most basic level, lies at the heart of nearly every aspect of the atonement (grace, repentance, faith, works/fruits and, perhaps most importantly for many - especially women - guilt, shame and spiritual/emotional freedom).

If you take nothing from this post but one message, take the fact that you do NOT need to feel ashamed and guilty and overwhelmed by your "incomplete, unfinished, partially developed" state. The world teaches that such a state is irreconcilable with God; Matthew 5:48 says otherwise - saying it can be done - and the practical way to do so is provided, as well.

That practical process is what I will address in upcoming posts about my New Year's Resolution for the upcoming year.

God is Good

Knowing good beats looking good. Always.

Doing good trumps knowing good. Period.

Being good encompasses knowing and doing good - but is so much more.

Becoming better is the object of mortality.

Ultimately, becoming fully good is the object of eternal existence.

Truly, God is good.

"Perfect" Unity

My mother used to be one of Pres. McKay’s secretary’s, and she can tell some fascinating stories of how the First Presdency at the time interacted. My wife and I are close to opposite personalities in many ways - which makes us perfect for each other as we try to become whole and complete as one. I also have commented actively on various group blogs in the Bloggernacle (the umbrella term for Mormon-themed blogs) and been intrigued by the group dynamics that keep such groups generally more civil than most other sites I've visited.

I view unity based on these experiences, but also based on the Sermon on the Mount - where “perfect” is defined as “complete” or “whole” - not as mistake free. In all seriousness, I believe there is an inherent conflict in the way that too many members view unity as an ideal. I prefer to think of it in terms that I think are taught in the Gospels and that formed the foundation of Joseph Smith’s efforts - by talking of communal unity [“community”] (a societal completeness and wholeness of unique but united individuals) as opposed to the “sameness” of most worldly definitions.

He Will Make Our Weak Things Strong - and Our Strong Things Stronger

This post will be much shorter than my normal weekend posts - much more like one of the shorter weekday posts. What hit me this week is very simple - and similar to something I posted near the beginning of my New Year's Resolution focus.

I have done SO much better this week as I have dealt with our little twinkie and her siblings. This month's resolution has been on my mind all week (really all month), and it is making a difference. It hit me again how much the Lord can, wants to and will help us when we focus on becoming like Him - that the simple act of focusing our will and our very thoughts on what He has asked of us opens a link to power and perspective that doesn't come in any other way.

I knew that prior to this week; I have felt it many times in my life in many ways; it is sweet, however, to rediscover things that have been discovered previously - to have reinforced what has been strengthened in other ways in the past. What struck me this week particularly is that He will help us not ONLY with our weak things but also with our strengths. That is a cool thing to know.

He really does see and understand our hearts, and He really does stand with arms outstretched still. All we need to do is place our faith and hope and trust in Him and what He was commanded.