Development of the Intellect IS a Part of the Gospel of Christ

The scientific spirit acknowledges without reserve the laws of God, but discriminates between such and the rules made by man. It abhors bigotry, denounces the extravagances of the blind zealot, religious or otherwise, and seeks to perfect the faith of its possessor as a purified, sanctified power, pleasing alike mind and heart, reason and soul. In the charges that have been preferred by the theologians against science, and the counter accusations by the scientists against theology, it is evident that in each case the accuser is not fully informed as to what he is attacking. Irrational zeal is not to be commended; and the substitution of theory for fact, though often declared to be the prevailing weakness of the scientist, is wholly unscientific.

But it is easy to denounce; so to do is a favorite pastime of ignorance. That scientific theories have been and are being discarded as unworthy because untrue is well known; but no one is more ready to so renounce than the scientist himself. To him a theory is but a scaffolding whereon he stands while placing the facts which are his building blocks; and from these he rears the tower from which a wider horizon of truth is opened to his eye. When the structure is made, the scaffold,- unsightly, shaky, and unsafe, as it is likely to be, is removed. Tis not always possible to judge of the building from the rough poles and planks which serve the temporary purpose of him who builds. Yet how often may we hear from our pulpits, usually however when they are occupied by the little-great men, scathing denunciations of science, which is represented as a bundle of vagaries, and of scientific men, who are but Will-o-the-wisps enticing the traveler into quagmires of spiritual ruin. Would it not be better for those who so inveigh to acquaint themselves with at least the first principles of the doctrines of science? So general has this practice become amongst us, that the most inexperienced speaker feels justified in thus indulging himself, and in the minds of many the conclusion is reached, none the less pernicious in its present effects because unfounded, that the higher development of the intellect is not a part of the Gospel of Christ.

James E. Talmage ("The Methods and Motives of Science") This address was delivered in the Logan Temple about 12 years before he became an apostle.  It also was published in The Improvement Era 1900, Volume 3.

Why Do We Need Prophets: A Different Answer

I believe one of the reasons "we" need prophets is because "we" need to believe in prophecy.

In other words, I believe deeply in the need to believe in prophecy - fundamentally, at the personal, individual level. I believe deeply in the need to believe in on-going revelation - fundamentally, at the personal, individual level. I believe deeply in the need to believe in inspiration - fundamentally, at the personal, individual level.

Historically, however, that need to believe in prophecy, revelation and inspiration tends to be recognized ONLY when there are individuals who claim to be prophets - who "model" prophecy, revelation and inspiration and "teach" it explicitly in those terms. It is maximized when those "models" also teach clearly that such things are available to all who are open to it - as was the case with Joseph Smith. (Don't get me wrong. I don't believe in an equality of magnitude with these things - just in the need to believe in them collectively and individually.)

Thus, I believe the collective "we" needs prophets, because the collective "we" needs prophecy - and the collective "we" doesn't seek for it on our own. Individuals do, but "we" don't.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: People Who Truly Value Family Don't Push Family Members Away, No Matter What

[Obviously, there are exceptions to the extreme wording of the title, but the concept still is incredibly important and, I believe, not understood deeply enough by many people - inside and outside the LDS Church.  The example my daughter shared below from her mission in Germany is an important illustration of what can happen if something is believed and lived deeply enough.]  

I took a unique approach today, after talking with my wife about what was going to happen in YW. (My wife is the Personal Progress Leader, and the entire presidency was gone today, so she arranged the lesson.) The topic for the month is "Marriage and Family", and since our daughter just returned from her mission in Germany, my wife asked her to talk with the girls during the third hour about how marriage and family is different in Germany and what she learned about those topics from her mission. I thought that would be an excellent lesson for the boys, as well, so the girls in my class joined the next younger class and left just the boys in my class (since the girls were going to hear from her the next hour, anyway).

Sarah started by mentioning that she had thought a lot about how to address the topic, since she had been bored stiff when she was their age by lessons about marriage and family. She said she always thought:

"I'm 14 (or 16). I don't care about this topic right now, especially since I've heard about a thousand lessons in my life about it."

That got a nod and laugh from everyone.

She then spent the time talking about how the German people, generally, and the German members view marriage and family - and she shared some specific examples of people and families with whom she had interacted on her mission. There is no way I can remember and record everything she said, and much of this summary has to be generalized more than when she said it, so I am going to focus on four things that were particularly striking to me: 

1) She said that Germans value family, but they tend to cut off family members entirely who do anything that is against the family wishes - even some things we would view as trivial, but especially "bigger"things, including joining the LDS Church. (One example she used is a woman in one ward whose aunt refuses to acknowledge the woman's presence when they are riding the same bus.) The fascinating result of that tendency is that members of the Church tend to go to the other extreme when they embrace the importance of family - meaning they try hard to not let ANYTHING separate them from their kids, even leaving the Church or not living standards the members view as extremely important.

She said it is very common in the wards where she served to have visiting family members who are not church members attend meetings on Sunday, even if those visitors have left the Church entirely and had their names removed from the records - that they aren't there to support the Church but rather to be with family. She said, essentially, that it's easy to see how strongly people REALLY believe in family by how they treat family members who disappoint them in some way - and there was an amazing spirit that was almost tangible when she was talking about that.

I wish everyone in the Church who badgers, hounds, judges, dismisses, rejects or in any other way mistreats family who struggle or leave could have been in the room to listen to that part, especially.

2) She said that Germans tend to be very loyal and are very committed to keeping their word - and that causes surprising issues with marriage. She said that the default in Germany is for boyfriends and girlfriends to live together, starting often as early as 16. She said they live together until they split up and simply move in with their new boy/girlfriend. Apparently, Germany has a VERY high divorce rate and a VERY low marriage rate - with the underlying assumption / belief that it's no big deal to be with whomever you "love" at the moment and then move on to the next person - and the next person - and the next person . . . She isn't sure which came first - the casual non-marriage attitude or cynicism caused by the high divorce rate, but she said the general attitude among the younger generations is:

"Why get married? It never lasts, anyway, so why bother with a ceremony and promises I'm not going to keep?"

They are devoted deeply to honesty and loyalty, but they are so jaded by such a long history of failed marriages being the norm that they have given up trying in order not to break what they see as impossible promises. This is such an assumed given by now that the people she met generally were okay with the Word of Wisdom (at least, that Mormons would accept it, even if they couldn't) and tithing (since all the churches collect money in some way from their members) - but the vast majority of people simply couldn't understand the concepts of the Law of Chastity, lifelong monogamy and eternal marriage. Again, however, when it did "click" for someone who then embraced it, it became an incredibly important, powerful part of their life - to such an extent that they would NEVER accept disowning or hounding their family members into adversarial relationships.

3) She talked about how that same attitude leaks into how the members interact with each other and those who are investigating the Church - their "extended family". Over half of the members in each unit where she served (often well over half) did not have the traditional family structure, so they saw the Church's teachings about the family as an ideal toward which they could strive in their own unique situations and which they could try to initiate for their own children - to break the cultural cycle of their own lives. They never beat themselves up over not being in the "ideal" situation; rather, they focused on having as close to an ideal "church family" as possible by accepting everyone who entered the church building as "family" and doing anything possible to make them feel loved, no matter their personal life situation.

This is the daughter who told me after her first temple trip that we work so hard to build the kingdom of God on Earth that we often forget to establish Zion, so it was especially touching to hear her describe a church experience that, while obviously not perfect, shows how it is possible to establish Zion if people are really committed to it.

4) She said that the missionaries who were the most successful working with investigators and inactive/less-active members were the ones who accepted each person and worked with them individually in whatever way honored their individual agency and showed real respect.

As an example, two Elders had taught a nine-year-old boy whose mom was active (having left the Church officially but being rebaptized about ten years ago) but whose father had requested his name be removed from the records and never rejoined. His mother wanted the boy to be baptized, but his father wouldn't give permission. The Elders taught the boy all of the lessons in about two weeks and then tried to convince the father to change his mind. To say it mildly, it didn't work.

Sarah and her companion started teaching the boy the lessons when they replaced the Elders in the ward and quickly were told about his father's opposition. Given the situation, they taught the boy about once a month and spent more time serving the family in whatever way they could - and praying every day that the father would change his mind and allow the baptism. After finishing all of the lessons, they told the father that they were done teaching the boy, that they believed he was ready to be baptized whenever the father decided it was the right time and thanked him for letting them teach his son. They continued to pray daily for the boy and his father, stopped teaching the boy and continued to serve the family as they had been.

Shortly after Sarah transferred from the area, the boy's aunt called her and told her that the father had been so impressed by the simple respect the sister missionaries had shown him as the boy's father that he had told his wife, completely out of the blue, that he would give his permission for the baptism. Less than two hours later, someone from the Area Presidency office called the mother to let her know that they wanted to schedule an interview to renew her temple covenants - not knowing her husband had just given his permission for their son to be baptized. Sarah said it was her favorite experience of her entire mission - that praying so intently for so long for the family had helped her love them (non-biological family) in a way she hadn't realized was possible previously. She said it helped her understand better how the German members felt about "extended church family" being real family - how powerful the concept of "sealing" can be when it is seen as communal and not just about biological families. 

Finally, she served about 2/3 of her mission (about a year) in what used to be East Germany. As a humorous but touching aside, she said that EVERY German member who had been in the Church for at least two generations knows Thomas Monson personally and absolutely adores him - personally but also for getting the temple built in Freiberg, which was a lifeline and indescribable strength during their decades of isolation. For example, there was a Bishop in one ward whose sister is the young girl President Monson has mentioned giving special candy to when he was visiting Berlin on one trip. They still call him "Elder Monson" in stead of "President Monson" and say:

"We know he is the Church President, but he is and always will be our Elder Monson."

It was a wonderful lesson, and I really wish more people could have heard it - but I am quite certain it made an impact on the youth who were there.

I Don't Care Much about the Exact Nature of Our Temple Ordinances

I don't think the exact actions performed in the temple are eternal actions that must occur for each and every person who has lived throughout history for those people to be saved / exalted in the kingdom / presence of God. If circumcision could be replaced by baptism as a sign of a people's covenant relationship with God, then I'm open to just about any sign of that sort of covenant relationship. (Seriously, cutting off a bit of someone's penis changed to immersing them in water?! There is absolutely no connection there, except the symbolism and faith behind the actions.) It's not the exact form of one's actions that I believe is important; it's the intent and symbolism of those actions and how they impact lives and "becoming" that I think is critical, important, vital, significant, empowering, etc.

So, I believe in LDS temple work passionately for what it represents and symbolizes - but I could feel the same way if the exact nature of the actions was something totally different. Thus, I don't think the actions themselves need to be taken literally (in the sense that we use to extrapolate baptism back to Adam, which I just don't believe at all) - but I do believe the purpose / symbolism behind them is literal and powerful.

At the risk of sounding heretical, and asking everyone to understand what I am trying to say by wording the following in an intentionally exaggerated manner:

I wrote once that if jumping around like a monkey while barking like a dog somehow carried deep, symbolic meaning and purpose for a people, and if they chose, therefore, to enact sacred rituals in which they jumped around like monkeys and barked like dogs, I would have no problem with that - none, at all. (In many ways, that's how others often react to our own temple ceremonies - with that degree of disbelief and scorn.)  If they were able to feel close to God in that manner, if they really were able to tap into the divine in that way, God bless them and keep them. I wouldn't try in any way to shatter that and substitute something that wouldn't resonate with them and create that same wonder and relationship, just because their format wouldn't work for me. Therefore, I can appreciate much of what I see in lots of religious / sacred traditions and sometimes gain much from borrowing elements that actually do resonate with me - symbolically.

I do believe that some form of communal "ordinances / ritual" is important - that, literally, people have to create some form of worship that draws them to God. That, in my opinion, is literal - and I personally LOVE the way that it is structured in Mormonism in the temple. I love the concept and principle of turning our hearts to our ancestors and believing that they have turned their hearts to us. I wish badly that we as a people would look at temple ordinances as a chance to "re-call" our ancestors, as opposed to just "remembering" them. That, to me, is literal and vital - not the exact manner in which we do the recalling, even as I love the way we can do it in the temple.

Do Not Think Yourself More Righteous than Others

“Don’t be limited in your views with regard to your neighbors’ virtues, but be limited towards your own virtues; and do not think yourselves more righteous than others. You must enlarge your souls toward others if you would do like Jesus. … As you increase in innocence and virtue, as you increase in goodness, let your hearts expand—let them be enlarged towards others. You must be long-suffering and bear with the faults and errors of mankind. How precious are the souls of man!”

Joseph Smith
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?v ... &hideNav=1

One More Time: We Need to Stop Justifying the Priesthood Ban Using Former Justifications

I heard again recently the former Priesthood ban justified as being God's will because it was similar in nature to the restrictions established with the Levitical Priesthood in the Old Testament.  Once again, I cringed. 

We must stop trying to justify the ban by citing justifications that existed and were used prior to the ban being lifted in 1978.  There are too many statements by prophets and apostles since that date that have told us that all previous justifications were incorrect for us to continue to use them.  (If anyone who reads this wants to see some of those statements, search under the label "Race" near the bottom right of this blog.) 


As to the claim, the following is my response:

1) EVERY instance in our canonized scripture of such a restriction, if it existed, occurred prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ. Look it up: Every reference is from before he ministered among the Jews. I believe that simple fact is critical to understand as the foundation of the discussion. Thus, if someone posits that there were “bans” based on lineage or race prior to the modern one, they have to admit that those bans appear to have stopped with Jesus’ ministry – according to our scriptural canon.

2) There are NO recorded revelations justifying the modern Priesthood ban. ALL of them used the Old Testament time period justifications that were common within “apostate” Christianity at the time. Think about that aspect of the discussion – that the justifications were borrowed from denominations that we classified as “apostate” at the time. It’s instructive, I think.

2) Jesus’ statement in Matthew 15:24 about being sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel says absolutely nothing about the Priesthood. It refers only to his ministry – his preaching, healing and blessing. The woman in question wasn’t asking for the Priesthood; she was asking that He perform a miracle on behalf of her daughter. Thus, that passage is completely irrelevant to the modern Priesthood ban and any other similar ban.

3) The last message Jesus gave his disciples in Matthew before his ascension is recorded in Matthew 28:19-20, which reads (emphasis mine):

“Go ye therefore, and teach ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Notice, they were commanded to teach and baptize ALL nations (which doesn’t address a Priesthood ban, since even under the modern ban, all people could be taught and baptized), but notice that once ALL were baptized they, without exception, were to “observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you”. In other words, there is NO restriction of ANY kind on what ANYONE who was baptized was required to observe – and all members at that time couldn’t have followed that commandment without the Priesthood being given to them. Thus, by default (not reading into the passage what isn’t there), there was no Priesthood ban in the early Christian Church that was based on nationality or race.

4) Nephi (a prophet from the Old Testament time period) passed along the idea of a curse in his writings, but the Book of Mormon also has NO mention of it after the visitation of Jesus in 3rd Nephi. It ended, if there was one, with the ministry of Jesus among them. Furthermore, Nephi undercuts the idea that the curse he mentioned was skin- or lineage-related when he said in 2 Nephi 26:33 (again, emphasis mine):

“For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them ALL to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth NONE that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and ALL are ALIKE unto God, both Jew AND Gentile.”

Nephi says in that verse, explicitly, that black and white are “alike unto God” – and that God invites ALL to “come unto him and partake of his goodness”. People who are partaking of the same goodness and who are alike unto God eliminates, obviously and unequivocally, the idea that one group held the Priesthood and could attend the temple while the other group didn’t and couldn’t. The ban makes NO sense whatsoever when read according to that verse – and it was written before Christ’s ministry. If that verse is interpreted literally, and if there actually was a race-based Priesthood ban at some point in history, it had ended by around 600 BC – or, if read to coincide with the ministry of Jesus, it ended at that time, at the very latest.

5) The issue with the Gentiles in the early Christian Church wasn’t about Priesthood or the temple in any way. At least, there is NO mention whatsoever of the Priesthood in any passage dealing with the issue. It was about baptism, and once the Genitles were baptized, there is no reference to any of them not receiving the Priesthood based on race.

6) To add something that I almost never hear discussed or even recognized, there's a HUGE conceptual difference between the following: 1) giving one group in a "multi-tribal" population the right to perform rituals; 2) giving everyone except one specific group in a "multi-racial" population that right. In very real, practical terms, the modern ban was the exact opposite of the ancient Levitical structure.

7) Joseph Smith ordained multiple black men to the Priesthood, so it’s patently absurd to argue that he believed a ban was necessary – regardless of how he felt about any other bans that might have existed in the past.

Conclusion:

Based on our actual scriptural canon, even if some bans actually did occur in the Old Testament times, there is NO evidence that any ban continued after the ministry of Jesus Christ – in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In fact, there are multiple sources that imply or state explicitly that a ban from that point onward was not the will of God – that ALL people everywhere now were considered “alike unto him”.

Finally, the LDS Church has published a statement entitled, "Race and the Priesthood" that can be found on lds.org in the Gospel Topics section that states more clearly than ever before how the ban originated and how the leadership views it now.  The link is:

"Race and the Priesthood"

So, if even our modern prophets and apostles say the former justifications were incorrect (“spectacularly wrong”, in one quote) – and if even they say they don’t know exactly why the ban was implemented (with which I can’t argue strongly, since I think it’s obvious but am willing to admit that I can’t see 100% into Pres. Young’s mind and know with total certainty why he did what he did) – and if they are saying forcefully that we should not perpetuate the former justifications – and if even they now have said that the Church condemns ALL racism of any kind, including that of our own LDS members, past and present – and if ALL the written evidence since the time of Jesus’ mortal ministry points to the incorrectness of a Priesthood ban (especially based on one drop of blood from a long-ago ancestor – who, by the way, is a common ancestor to ALL of us, if the “one drop” standard is used) — how can someone possibly argue that the modern Priesthood ban was justifiable based on the beliefs of those who lived and recorded their beliefs before Jesus was born, even if previous bans existed and were justifiable back then?

Such a position simply is not tenable, and, just as importantly, it is in direct opposition to our current leadership and their requests of us.  That, perhaps, is the ultimate irony in the justification being used  today by someone who believes in "following the prophet". 

Self-Understanding Is Not Easy, but It Is an Ultimate Goal

My mother emailed the following quote last year. I really like it, since it addresses not only one of my core beliefs but also the fact that self-awareness is not easy:

Make it thy business to know thyself, which is the most difficult lesson in the world.

Our belief that we are gods and children of the Most High God means, in a very practical way, that knowing and "sanctifying" ourselves is an important part of knowing God.

What or Whom Should We Follow?

1) I define "doctrine" as "whatever the leadership teaches and most people in a group believe at any given time". There is no such thing as "eternal doctrine"; there only is Eternal Truth; the first (doctrine) is the best collective approximation of the second (truth) - and sometimes that approximation is farther from Eternal Truth than a previous one. (That is a concise description of apostasy - when "doctrine" slides or falls further away from Truth. It happens all the time, everywhere.)

2) My answer to the title question of this post is:

"We should follow God - according to the dictates of our own conscience and understanding."

3) Of course, I "follow" leaders as a sign of respect for them and their burdens and responsibilities (and because I want that same consideration given to me whenever I am in a position of "leadership") - but I don't do so blindly, thoughtlessly or without exception. Within Mormon theology, that last description is Lucifer's plan - and it's important to remember that always and diligently. Blind obedience "just because" is wrong - and even is classified as the ultimate thwarting of God's purpose in creation. Period. End of discussion. So...

4) I follow God, to the best of my understanding, first and foremost. I follow God by following my conscience - which means (if I have the Gift of the Holy Ghost (a member of the Godhead) and if "the kingdom of God is within you") I follow my own "I am" in my attempt to follow the great "I AM" as a fundamental part of that first and foremost. I "follow" (at the side of) my wife, as 1/2 of my own "I am", as part of that first and foremost. I follow anyone else (and I mean anyone else) second. I respect, value, support and sustain those I follow second, but I still follow them second. 

Sunday School Lesson Recap: When Ordinances Become "Communal" and Their Real Power Is Manifest

Last Sunday was the final week to discuss "Ordinances and Covenants", so I borrowed a copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2 - intending to highlight some of the ordinances we hadn't discussed previously and the general policies surrounding performing ordinances. (Section 20) It didn't go fully according to my plan; it turned out to be a much better discussion than I could have imagined.

I started by revisiting the foundational concepts we had discussed in the first lesson this month:

1) Ordinances are actions we perform to convey a specific meaning or message. They are symbolic and have NO power whatsoever except what we give to them. For example, if baptism was about immersion in water only, we could have people jump into a pool and call it baptism - or we could eat some cake and drink some fruit punch in the cultural hall and call it the sacrament.

2) Covenants are the actual meaning of the ordinances - meaning the power and purpose of ordinances is wrapped up in what they motivate us to promise to do and then actually do. Again, without covenants, there is no power whatsoever in ordinances - since it's not performing them that is the key but rather what we choose to become as a result of participating in them.

I then explained what I had in mind, held up the handbook and asked how many of them knew that the handbook was available to all of them online. I shouldn't have been surprised due to their ages, but most of them (whose parents almost all have prominent callings in the ward) didn't know there was a handbook that contained the official church policies and general counsel. Due to that, I took a few minutes to read through the section titles and go through how to access the handbooks online - step-by-step, so they could do so anytime the wanted.

From 20.1 (General Instructions), I showed them the part about saving ordinances needing authorization from the person who holds the keys to the performance of that ordinance (the person who is authorized to control, direct and oversee it), then we read the general format of all ordinances:

1. It should be performed in the name of Jesus Christ.
2. It should be performed by the authority of the priesthood.
3. It should be performed with any necessary procedures, such as using specified words or using consecrated oil.
4. It should be authorized by the presiding authority who holds the proper keys (normally the bishop or stake president), if necessary according to the instructions in this chapter.

I modeled what something like a baby blessing would sound like if only the minimum requirements were included ("Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the priesthood, I give his child the name of Jane Doe" - perhaps with an additional, "and bless her with everything you desire to give her. Amen.") - and stressed that such a blessing would be every bit as meaningful as one that lasted for 15 minutes. We discussed the danger of allowing blessings to become about us and our oratory skills. I told them about my varying experiences with blessings - how I have participated in hundreds of blessings throughout my life, with only a handful where I can say, without doubt, that I spoke revelation directly from God. I explained that even though I couldn't say that about the other hundreds, I was glad I had participated in them in order to experience the overpowering ones.

We talked about what kind of ordinances require exact wording (e.g., baptism, the sacrament, temple ordinances, etc.) and which ones don't (e.g., all blessings, confirmation after baptism, etc.). We talked about what is necessary for someone in one ward or branch to perform an ordinance in a different location (approval from the leader in that other location) and how that decision might be made (a letter from the other Bishop, a phone call, an active temple recommend - although that last one might not be accurate, if someone had sinned egregiously after receiving it, etc.). We then read 20.1.3 about that situation, and I pointed out the use of "should" - as opposed to "must". I told them we would revisit that issue at the end of the lesson.

From 20.1.1 (Participation in Ordinances and Blessings) and 20.1.2 (Worthiness to Participate in an Ordinance or Blessing), we talked about ordinances that require a current temple recommend and the Melchizedek Priesthood (primarily the "saving ordinances") and the difference between being the voice in an ordinance (representing the church leadership) and simply participating (less strict standards, with more discretion given to the local leader). We also discussed how baptism does NOT require either the Melchizedek Priesthood or a current temple recommend, even though it is considered a saving ordinance - which means there are a LOT of fathers who may perform that ordinance for their children who might assume they can't. I told them that I hope when they are leaders of any kind that they are mindful of such situations and allow fathers to do so as much as possible.

I mentioned that, as I read the handbook, I am struck by how many policies and how much counsel HAD to have been the result of members doing really stupid things. I mentioned how much smaller the current version is than in the past, but, even now, I envision the leadership sitting down to discuss the handbook and saying:

You're kidding me! They did WHAT?! Ah, crap, now we're going to have to write a policy and give counsel about that.

At this point, the lesson took a different turn than I had expected. We read the following:

Those who participate are usually limited to a few, including priesthood leaders, close family members, and close associates such as home teachers. Inviting large numbers of family, friends, and leaders to assist in an ordinance or blessing is discouraged. When too many participate, it can become cumbersome and detract from the spirit of the ordinance. Those who perform an ordinance and those who preside are the only ones required. Others provide support and sustain the spokesman.

I asked the students why the policy is usually to limit those who participate in ordinances to "a few" people. They were a bit stumped by that, so I asked them what would happen if a large family, with lots of adult relatives (like mine), wanted to have all of those people (say 35) help bless a baby. (I used an extreme to make the point obvious.) I gave them a visual illustration of how each person would have to stand in order for all of them to reach the baby - and we spent a few minutes laughing at the possibilities. When we had stopped laughing, I pointed out that what had just happened in our classroom (laughing at the visual image) is precisely why the policy is in place - along with the desire to not have ordinances become a contest to see who has "the most righteous" posterity / family or create concern about overlooking anyone and having people be upset that they weren't asked to participate.

Somehow, that discussion led to a different discussion about what happens when an entire congregation becomes invested in an ordinance and it becomes more than an individual experience and more of a true community (group unity) event. I shared the gist of one of my favorite blog posts ever, "Ninety One Words" - about a young man with a severe stutter being asked to say the sacrament prayer. I described how, by the end of the prayer, the entire congregation was mouthing the words silently - praying for the young man to have or receive the strength he needed to get through it. I explained how the sacrament had never meant more to that congregation, since they were united in support of someone else and were inspired to consider the words themselves more carefully and deeply than had happened previously in their lives. (Please read the post. It is stunning.)

The story really touched the students, and one of them shared an experience he had witnessed in his previous ward, prior to moving to our ward. He said the missionaries had been referred to and started teaching a man who was in the hospital being treated for the effects of being severely overweight - somewhere over 500 pounds. He accepted the message and asked to be baptized, but he couldn't fit in the church's font - so the Bishop arranged to perform the ordinance at a pool in the community. About a dozen or so people got into the pool, and someone said the baptismal prayer at the edge of the pool next to the man. After the prayer, people outside the pool used a fireman's tarp (the kind that is used to catch people who jump from burning buildings) to lower the man into the pool, where the people in the pool took the tarp and allowed it to sink to the bottom so the man could be immersed - then lifted the man back out of the pool and set him and the tarp back on the edge of the pool.

We talked about how it is moments like those experiences when what too often becomes little more than rote, autopilot actions suddenly take on real, deep meaning - when necessary exceptions almost force us to see the ordinances as they are intended to be - when we become truly invested in them and realize how much they mean to those who see and feel the power of the symbolism and are determined to participate no matter the difficulty.

We were almost out of time at that point, so I simply mentioned how important it is to read the handbook carefully and notice the choice of words, especially those like "should", "must", "can", "might", "encouraged", "discouraged", "forbidden", etc. I told them that I personally read everything with an eye to the most charitable, inclusive application possible - that I would rather err on the side of inclusion and charity than on the side of exclusion and judgment. I shared the story told here (without sharing the name of the site, obviously) about someone being denied the opportunity to have his baby blessed during sacrament meeting because he wasn't a member at the time - and I pointed out that there is nothing in the handbook that says a non-member can have a baby blessed, but there also is nothing in it that says it can't be done. I told them that I believe it our Christian duty to make our decisions based on what we feel would be the best for the people involved - what we would want if it was us making the request, as long as such a request was not explicitly forbidden in the handbook. I told them that they all probably will be leaders of some sort in the Church at some point in their lives and that I hope they will read and apply the handbook policies and counsel as expansively as they can - to make as many ordinances as "communal" as possible.

There was a spirit during the last part of the lesson that I couldn't have anticipated, and I am grateful it went differently than I had planned.

We Shouldn't Stop Baptisms for Our Own Dead Ancestors, No Matter What They Believed

Baptism for the dead of other people's ancestors is a highly emotional issue, especially when those ancestors were part of a group that died rather than deny their religion.  This is true of Jews, and particularly Holocaust victims, but it also is true of other groups throughout history.

I have heard the following analogy more than once from those opposed to our vicarious temple ordinances:

Imagine if a Rabbi said that Joseph Smith Jr. had been initiated in the Jewish religion now that he was on the other side of death. And because of that his whole life, all the work he stood for and his death are now worthless from the viewpoint of Mormonism. How would the LDS membership feel about that?  

I agree that this concept and principle is highly offensive to people, just like the example of the Holocaust victims. I really do. At heart, it can't be seen as anything but arrogant by those who aren't part of the group performing the ordinances. I get that.

Now, the inevitable "however" . . .

1) I think most of it is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between baptism in the LDS Church and baptism in other Christian denominations. In other churches, a baptism is a choice made prior to the baptism happening and a binding, saving ordinance all by itself - and, since there is no concept of a "preliminary baptism, subject to acceptance later", baptizing someone else is seen as a violation of choice. Thus, people see baptizing others who have died as a violation of choice when, in principle within Mormonism, it isn't such a violation.

2) If I were a non-member, and if something like this happened with someone I know and/or revere, and if I understood Mormon doctrine better than most people do, I would be FAR more upset about the confirmation than about the baptism. I could understand the general concept of baptism for the dead, but I would have a hard time understanding the idea that a church continues past death and that my ancestor had been confirmed as a member of a particular church in the next life. I'm a firmly believing member, and even I don't see it that way. I'm OK with the practice of temple confirmations (since I can view it all symbolically), but I absolutely can understand why others would be upset about it who have no viewpoint other than the literal.

3) Finally, if we exclude some people, where do we draw the line? Do we stop baptizing everyone whose kin or nationality might get upset about it? That would include just about everyone. If so, we might as well shut down the temples completely - and I absolutely don't want that happening. The concept and principle of universal opportunity for salvation and exaltation is one of my favorite aspects of Mormonism - and I really do love the embodiment of that in the vicarious ordinances for the dead. Do we only stop baptizing celebrities and famous people - those whose names are easily recognizable? That just doesn't sit well at all with me. I'd rather shut down the temples than say, "We'll baptize all individuals whose work won't cause a scene, but we'll skip all those famous people whose work might do so."

Honestly, I really am torn on this one a bit - since I don't want to gut one of my favorite aspects of Mormonism. In many ways, my choice would be to have the Church issue a press release laying out exactly why we perform temple ordinances (with a Biblical justification), that there is no aspect of coercion or lack of choice in the practice, that the ordinances are not seen as binding in any way for those involved and that we won't stop doing something we believe has been commanded by Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. I'd rather have a strong statement saying, essentially:

"This is a core element of our theology, and we won't back down from it." 

I also would reiterate to the membership that their first concern should be finding and doing the work for their own ancestors, not submitting names of people to whom they are not descended directly unless they can show that they have exhausted all possibility of furthering their own genealogical research.

I know that would not help our missionary work with some people, but I think it actually would with others - and I just see it as the right things to do, if we really do believe in the concept and principle of the work done in the temple (even if we see it as purely symbolic).