The Funniest Valentines Day Post in the History of the World

Highway Freaking Robbery - Sue (navel gazing at its finest)

Understanding the Past When You Don't "Agree" with It

I have heard many people complain about former situations with which they disagree (like polygamy or the Priesthood ban) and say something like the following:

They could have acted differently. What they did was wrong; I wouldn't have done that; they could have done something else.

I would posit that the chance for something to have happened differently than it did is 0% - since something would have to change about the situation in order for it to happen differently. It’s legitimate to try to learn from history in order to act differently now or in the future, but saying that someone should or could have acted differently than they actually did is imposing unrealistic expectations on them. They acted how they thought they needed to act; they would have to have been different to act differently - and they were who they were, doing the best they could, while dealing with what was in front of them at the time as they, like us, saw through their own glasses, darkly.

I am positive my own descendants will look at much of what I have written and said and wonder how I could have believed such silliness. I only hope they realize that I "shouldn't" have acted or believed any differently than I did, since I did the best I knew how.

The Dilemma That Is Human Suffering

When an Eternal Perspective Fails You - John C. (By Common Consent)

Most Unique Mormon Beliefs Are Found in the Bible

I find it fascinating that the preponderance of scriptural authority that is quoted or referenced in my conversations with most other Christians is from Paul or the "early Christian fathers" who wrote the creeds. I often point out that most of our interpretations and beliefs which differ from theirs are based on what we believe the Bible teaches (particularly in the Gospels, James and the epistles of John) - and I get countered with Pauline pronouncements with nary an acknowledgment of the irony.

For example, I have a hard time seeing how there would be an argument over the whole grace/faith/works discussion - or the individuality of the separate members of the Godhead - or, especially, the physical nature of the resurrection - if the Gospels were used as the doctrinal foundation, with the apostolic epistles interpreted through the lens of the Gospels. It seems foundational that the words attributed to Jesus would carry more import than the words of the apostles - or, phrased differently, that Jesus' words would be the key used to unlock the authentic meaning of the apostles' words. The fact that the opinions of the theologians who formulated the Catholic and Protestant creeds would be quoted as counters to the words of the Gospels and the first Christian leaders (Peter, James and John) baffles me, but I have seen and heard it happen too many times for it to be shocking anymore.

Charity Envieth Not

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up." (1 Corinthians 13:4)

Last month, my New Year's Resolution focus was on the first manifestation of charity - that of suffering long in kindness. This month, my focus is on charity's second characteristic - that of "envying not". As I tend to do, I want to look first at what this phrase ("envieth not") means - followed throughout the month by why it is important, how it is internalized and how it flows from suffering long in kindness.

Envy often is looked upon as covetousness - and, in fact, in some modern dictionary usages the verb "envy" is listed as a synonym of the verb "covet". However, in its original meaning "envy" carries a much more fundamental connotation. From dictionary.com:

c.1280, from O.Fr. envie, from L. invidia "envy, jealousy," from invidus "envious," from invidere "envy," earlier "look at (with malice), cast an evil eye upon"

Thus, charity does not look at others with malice or in an evil manner. "Malice" is defined as:

desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness

This aspect of charity (like long-suffering and kindness) is a foundational one, since it defines the very eyes with which someone sees others. In a very real way, someone is able to look upon others without malice and evil specifically because of one's long-suffering and kindness - recognizing that all the myriad types of pain and suffering experienced in this life come from living this life, not strictly from the people who surround us in this life. Thus, someone who possesses true charity is able to look past the instrument of suffering - kindly seeing the inevitability of suffering and not allowing herself to get caught up in a maliciously evil mindset that would eliminate kindness in her actions and reactions.

Notice that this phrase ("envieth not"), as defined in this manner, does not carry the connotations of possession that generally accompany its use in modern times. In other words, there is no delineation of wanting what another has in this phrasing. That is covetousness - and envying, in this usage, can rear its head no matter of socio-economic status. One can look upon another with malice and an evil eye even if that other person is almost exactly like one's self. Malice is the desire to hurt someone else, and envying not carries a connotation of being totally unconcerned about differences of any kind - of not being upset and angry in a way that causes someone to desire to cause another to suffer.

This ties directly to my point in one of the resolutions posts last month that someone who truly has learned to suffer long in kindness will not attempt to transfer his own suffering needlessly onto another. Developing that type of kindness for those with whom we are close is relatively easy compared to what "envying not" entails - extending that type of kindness to others, even those who cause the suffering we feel.

My final point this weekend is that "envying not" deals most purely with our outlook - our perspective - our vision - our thoughts concerning others. Our actions are secondary to this aspect of charity; they merely are the manifestation of whether or not we envy (look at other with malice and and evil eye). Certainly, the most obvious proof that we "envy not" is found in how we TREAT others - but it is found most fundamentally in the subtleties of how we SEE others (which is exhibited outwardly, I believe, most purely in how we SPEAK of others). Many people would never dream of harming others and causing them to suffer in direct, tangible ways - but many of these same people do not hesitate to speak maliciously of others and wish evil upon them.

Thus, if I am to "envy less" this month, I must decrease not only my actions that cause direct and obvious harm to others, but I also must decrease my words that wish harm on others - and decrease the "evil" thoughts that cause those words. "Envying not" fundamentally is about changing the way I SEE and FEEL ABOUT people.

Faith and the Resurrection

The reason the disciples had such a hard time understanding and accepting the resurrection was because they had no frame of reference to envision a physical, spatially-limited God. When Luke 24 describes their reaction to the appearance of the resurrected Jesus, it is explicit that they thought they were viewing a spirit. After all, they had a long history of recorded angelic/spirit visitations. Mary herself had been visited by an angel, and Moses and Elias had appeared at the Mount of Transfiguration in front of Peter, James and John. A spirit God they could understand.

Jesus went out of his way to demonstrate that the resurrection did not result in a spiritual condition. In Luke 24:39, he said explicitly, "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." He then ate in front of them to drive the point home completely. THEN, and only then, "opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (v.45)

Personally, I don't think it takes much faith at all to accept and believe in the limitless, formless, passionless, vast, spirit God of the Westminster Confession. That's pretty easy, frankly, since ALL religious traditions include that type of belief. It's much harder to understand and accept a physically resurrected, tangible, spatially-limited Being - but that's the message of the unique God of the New Testament. That takes real "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" - since no other religion teaches it. It's easy to quote other verses to make the counter-argument, but to do so one has to ignore the words that are attributed to Jesus, himself. I'd rather work from the opposite assumption - that Jesus' words represent the best picture and the other verses need to be interpreted based on those words, even if it takes more faith to do so.

He Always Draws Aliens: Thank God for Our Little Ones

The Sweet and Funny Sides of Sacrament Meeting - Patty (I Believe in Christ)

With Sharpness vs. Sharply

Too many people misunderstand "reproving betimes with sharpness". "Sharpness"- as used in this context - does NOT mean "with raised voice" or "harshly" or anything like unto it. It means "with precision" or "directly on point" - like the difference between operating with a scalpel or with a steak knife. If means getting right to the heart of the issue and not letting other things or issues get in the way. When you add "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" qualifier, I believe that very little of our mutual conversation actually fits this verse.

Too much internet conversation - devoid of direct and visual observation and feedback - includes reproving not with sharpness but merely reproving sharply when not moved upon by the Holy Ghost. That is what we need to fight - the natural (wo)man tendency to let our emotions influence how we speak with each other and allow those emotions to puch things past the line where civility resides.

A Beautiful Tribute to an Amazing Woman

Bernice Taylor Parshall: A Teacher in Zion - Ardis Parshall (Keepapitchinin)

The Only Religious Constant in Scripture is Change

Although God is the same yesterday, today and forever, the structural and social and symbolic has changed multiple times throughout scripture. Baptism replaced circumcision; the Jewish dietary system was modified in the early Christian Church; women in one society were told to remain silent, but almost no Christian denomination still follows that prior constraint; Paul dictated comparative hair length (again, at least in one society), and that has been abandoned in our day; polygamy was practiced by many Old Testament prophets but not by later societies. Eternal principles might not change, but the practical lives believers have led throughout time have changed in nearly innumerable ways.

I understand the difficulty of many in accepting the changes that mark the history of Mormonism, but I am struck by the double standard this imposes on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every other Christian denomination that has been around for as long as our church has some aspect of its current practice and belief that is different than when it was founded - and different than what is described in the Bible. The fact that change occurred (even major change) is not the issue; whether or not that change was inspired is.