Grace as the Foundation of Repentance

True Christians and Grace - Clean Cut

Scriptural Translation Hypocrites: The Ultimate Irony

I have to laugh - and I mean really laugh - at those who complain about the wording of the Book of Mormon (that it's too much like the King James Version of the Bible and what Joseph and the people of his time spoke), while tripping all over themselves to use non-KJV translations of the Bible because that version is too hard to understand. It's totally fine to translate the Bible into words and phrases that adults and children and teenagers now will understand (resulting in hundreds of translation versions), but it's not OK for Jospeh to use words the readers of his time would understand?!?!

If people hundreds of years from now could access only the most modern versions of the Bible, they would reject it out-of-hand as being a "product of its time" - exactly as so many people reject the Book of Mormon for that reason.

Hypocrisy, thy name is . . . never mind.

Disgusting, Gross - and Side-Splitting Funny Mission Stories

Barfing for Jesus - Aaron B. (By Common Consent)

An epic thread of disgustingness, as well.  The ending of comment #34 is particularly . . . amazing. 

Some things shouldn't be funny but simply are.  This is one of those things. 

Learning Modalities and How They Affect Religious Communication

Most classroom teachers teach by using the same modality with which they learn best. Those who learn aurally (by hearing things articulated verbally) tend to lecture; those who are visual learners tend to do PowerPoint presentations or use lots of pictures; those who are kinesthetic learners (by movement and physical contact) tend to assign hands-on projects; etc. Generally, this holds true even if the majority of their students learn best through different modalities than the teachers do.

Those who are the best teachers (who can reach the most students in a way that those students will understand) are those who understand the dominant modality of each student and find a way to present the instructional material in ways that allow all the dominant modalities to be employed. That's a very difficult thing to do, so there are students who end up in most classrooms not understanding what the teacher is trying to teach.

I personally think this happens in religion just as much as in the academic classroom, if not more so - since people tend to imbue their religious learning modalities with divine approbation and assume all will experience God (or not experience God) in the same way they do. I see this all the time around the Bloggernacle - people talking past each other to a large degree, often because their own manners of experiencing the divine simply are different.

To Envy Less: The Vulnerability of Removing Our Masks

As I have contemplated being less envious this week, I realized that there is a direct connection to two of my favorite topics: Elder Wirthlin's talk "Concern for the One" (my wife and children won't be surprised at that) and the idea that Zion only can be established if we remove the masks we tend to wear and expose our warts to others. Wearing those masks to cover our warts (or, in other wards, hiding our faults) is  one of the most deeply ingrained aspects of the “natural (wo)man” - a self-protection mechanism that is as fundamental to humanity as any other natural inclination. Our particular challenge in church, I believe, is to recognize it as such and rise above it - to change it (repent) by an active exercise of will (to act and not to be acted upon).

The “fault” at church for wearing masks is two-edged: 1) those in the majority who actively reject the minority for being different and/or believing things differently; 2) those in the minority who hide themselves and passively reject the majority for being different and/or believing things differently. In the end, it really is the same action - and the justification on each side is also the same. Each type tends to blame the other, and neither type tends to take the initiative to change the natural situation.

In “Concern for the One”, Elder Wirthlin articulated clearly that some leave active participation and lose faith because they act, think or feel different than others - and he told the majority that it was their responsibility to love and accept the minority for who they are, NOT for who the majority might naturally want them to be. He said that every voice (every instrument) needs to be heard, NOT that every member should learn to play the piccolo.  That is critical to envying less, since part of envying (with regard to this analogy) is to compare one's instrument to that of another and latch onto anger or some other separating emotion as a result.  Learning truly to value other instruments and not wish you play a different one than you do eradicates envy - and once that feeling is eliminated, it is much easier to play your own instrument with confidence, even if you are the only one in the congregation playing that particular instrument. 

I believe we will become Zion only as we let go of the need to wear masks - and I believe the primary responsibility for this lies not with those who feel different but with those from whom they feel different. (It's important for the oboe players to play their oboes, but it's more important for the piccolo players to allow those oboes to be heard - even if there are 85 piccolos and only one oboe.)  Yes, the "one" needs to be engaged actively, but the "ninety and nine" need to love and accept the "one" for that to happen.

The biggest problem in this regard within the Church is not the gay member, or the illegal immigrant member, or the politically different member, or the bearded member, or the tatooed member, or the colored-shirt and no tie member, or the smoker, ad infinitum. The biggest problem is the fact that those distinctions are drawn in a way that excludes those members from the fellowship of oneness with the saints. Although those who are excluded might share a portion of responsibility for being excluded, as often as not the primary responsibility lies with those who do the excluding.

I believe ALL of us wear a mask of some kind that covers varying degrees of our true selves from others.  This leads to envy and contention and a loss of charity and true acceptance.  Before we condemn or even judge others in any way, we need to remove our own masks, become vulnerable and experience the fear others feel on a regular basis. I think if we do that the tendency to judge and condemn and drive others away will disappear - and we will have a chance at truly building Zion.

Why Church Activity Sometimes Is a Facade - and the Solution

The following was my initial response to a post on Mormon Matters a couple of years ago entitled, The Facade of Activity, written by Jeff Spector:

It is interesting to me that "the Church" keeps saying, over and over and over, that it can only be a supplement to what happens at the individual level and in the individual home. I think a lot of members just don't get that idea - that they equate "the Church" to the entity that is responsible for their spirituality and righteousness.

Thus, the "facade" (imo) is the gap between what they want "the Church" to be and what it actually is.

I don't think that will change EVER for ANYONE until leaders at the local level and individual members focus on preaching Jesus and His life more than Christ crucified and programs implemented. Christ crucified (and resurrected, of course) saves us, but Jesus of Nazareth showed and taught us how to live and become. That's what truly converts, imo (repenting [changing] and becoming more like Jesus) - and truly converted people use activity in church (and all kinds, really) to bless and love and serve others, not for themselves.

I get tired of people trying to come up with "how to reach people". If it were a matter of creating some program, it would have been created by now. Programs and activities are important for what they do (bring people together for a chance at mutual edification), but that's about all they can do - they can't provide the actual edification.

For example, one of my former Stake Presidents talked once to the Bishops about serving in the community simply to bless and help others - NOT as a "missionary tool". He talked about not seeing people (inside and outside the Church) as potential converts or projects, but instead simply as brothers and sisters in need. He talked about not accepting others for who we want them to be (conditionally), but simply loving them for who they are (unconditionally) - hoping they will grow with us to be "new creatures in Christ" but loving them completely even if we never see any change.

To me, that is the heart of the difference between activity as a "facade" and activity as a sign of conversion.

Why do we suffer in mortality?

A good friend of mine wrote the following in a discussion about suffering that we had last year.  I thought it was profound then, and I decided to post it here when I came across it again yesterday.  
----------------------------------
The scriptures contain three main explanations for suffering: 

1. God punishes those who disobey him. 

In this case, God causes the suffering. 

Example: Israel is defeated militarily and taken into captivity by foreign invaders because they did not worship YHWH correctly (or some other god).

2. God allows suffering to happen because of the sin of others.

In this case, people cause suffering, and God allows it but does not directly cause it.

Example: A king of Israel is wicked, and Israel is defeated militarily and suffers because the king is not faithful (even though people individually might not have sinned and deserved to be killed/enslaved) 

3. Suffering exists to foster a greater good.

The cause is a combination of the above two, but is directed in both cases by the will of God to enlighten people or to bring about a greater good.

Examples: Christ did no wrong, but he suffered to bring about the atonement for others. The apostle Paul suffered in order to prove that he was a true disciple of Jesus Christ (his own viewpoint in his letters). And in Mormon theology, we suffer in our life so that we will learn lessons (a process of enlightenment). 

I posit a fourth explanation from my current view of existence: 

4. We suffer collectively, as a people because we want suffering more than not suffering.

We will suffer and cause suffering until we decide (collectively) to stop. This is very similar to #3, except that it doesn't require a central authority (God) directing and orchestrating the suffering. In my own view, we can decide to no longer suffer. We can still experience physical pain, but spiritual suffering is a choice we make. We experience and cause suffering by wanting something else (anger, violence, revenge, theft, etc.) more than peace. 

---------------------------------
I recognize that there is suffering that falls outside this fourth explanation (particularly that suffering which occurs strictly as a result of the physiology of The Fall, like depression and numerous disabilities of varying kinds, which we did not choose and over which we often have limited control), but I really like the overall idea that we do have a degree of control over our "suffering" - especially through an Atonement theology that posits a God who has suffered all we suffer in order to know how to succor His people in the midst of their suffering.   This allows us to turn our suffering over to Him who has suffered already and not let our natural, unavoidable suffering define who we are and can become. 

I also love the implication that it is fine to look for ways to alleviate sufering - like medications for depression, for example.

Wrap It Up Already! I'm Dead.

When it comes to the structure and "program" for a funeral, I want the wishes of the deceased and family to be honored. Period.

I mentioned in a post a couple of years ago, about the serving Bishop who died in our stake at that time, that I attended his funeral. It was exactly the standard Mormon funeral - with a eulogy, lots of beautiful music and a couple of talks about him and the Gospel he loved so dearly. It was exactly what he and his wife wanted, and it was intensely moving and beautiful - to a large degree because even the “gospel” talks were focused on Bishop Hazleton. Even they were personal in nature.

On the other hand, I have attended funerals that had the same format and that weren’t nearly as moving or beautiful. The talks were more like regular church talks - having little or nothing to do with the person - and sometimes not what the deceased would have wanted.

I have told my wife and children that I want to have a tape recorder placed in my coffin for the funeral. I want it set at the highest volume level possible and set to play my voice after one hour saying,

“STOP IT ALREADY!! IF THIS KEEPS GOING, ROLL ME OUT OF HERE AND THEN KEEP TALKING. I DON’T WANT TO HEAR IT! THAT’S ENOUGH TALKING ABOUT ME AND CRYING. I MADE YOU LAUGH WHEN I WAS LIVING, SO GET INTO THE CULTURAL HALL AND PARTY!! TELL JOKES, ‘CAUSE YOU KNOW DARN WELL I’D BE TELLING THEM IF I WAS SITTING THERE WITH YOU (WITH MY WIFE PUNCHING ME IN THE ARM TO TRY TO GET ME TO STOP AND BE PROPERLY SOMBER). — I MEAN IT. WRAP IT UP ALREADY AND GO EAT, DRINK AND BE MERRY!!”

I have NO expectation that my wife and/or children will follow those wishes, but that would be my ideal funeral - a heartfelt eulogy by a friend or family member and lots and lots of great music and dancing and eating - a real party. I want to be celebrated, not mourned . . . but that’s not my call, ultimately.

In the end, I want my wife and/or children to construct whatever arrangement will be best for them - that will bring them the greatest degree of peace.

Bright Days of Dazzling Light and Cold Winter Nights of Uncertainty and Self-Doubt

Reflections on an Anniversary - Sam MB (By Common Consent)

This Perspective Works Best for Me Right Now

There are lots of topics and discussions where, ultimately, my answer is, "I don't know (am not certain), but this perspective works best for me right now." There are many things where I believe my understanding will change over time, as I am exposed to more outlooks, have various experiences, contemplate more deeply and receive greater light and knowledge.

For that reason, the last thing I want to do is shatter someone else's "working perspective" by insisting they see things my way, because:

1) they actually might be right (as much as I might doubt it at the moment);

2) they might be seeing things exactly as they need to see them in order to cope best;

3) they might not be able to see things my way at the moment, even if I am correct.

I see my responsibility as modeling acceptance of different perspectives - simply because I believe it is the right thing to do and because I want them to accept my different perspective. I can't hold them to a standard I myself can't live.