My Friend Just Baptized Jesus: An Astounding, Beautiful Reflection on the Atonement

I wrote something once that addressed how much I love having paradoxes in life, which included the following statement: 

Living in and embracing a world of paradox is hard work. I believe, however, it is worth the effort - especially since our theology teaches such an embrace is a necessary, fundamental aspect of becoming like a Father-God who allows and values such paradox. It is the only way I know to walk one's one way within the Church and allow others the same privilege, let them walk however they may.

A friend responded with one of the most beautiful, touching treatise on grace and the Atonement I have ever read. I get tears in my eyes every time I read it. I hope it touches everyone who reads it the same way it touches me. 

He said: 

I agree with you.  A paradox can be a great opportunity for discovery.  

A few weeks ago, I was able to baptize my daughter.  I moved into a new ward in May, and I've been working with my new bishop with the goal of baptizing her.  He knows fully that I don't believe fully in the doctrines of temples, polygamy, "the one true church", the restoration, the Book of Mormon, etc.  He's a lawyer and knows how to ask questions! But, I've been grateful for the way that he probes in our discussions, because it has given him a very clear picture of where I stand with the church.  

I told him that I'd like to baptize my daughter, but I also would feel like a bit of a hypocrite baptizing her into a church that I don't fully support.  I do believe in the doctrine of baptism, so my goal was really to provide that baptism, but with the mindset that she's baptized as Christ was, to fulfill all righteousness, and not because it's a required ritual to join our church.  

The bishop has been very understanding and supportive.  He said that I probably wouldn't be able to give her the gift of the Holy Ghost (which I was okay with), but that I could stand in the circle when that was done, but he encouraged me to baptize my daughter.  Knowing where I stand, and that it's been a long time since I've taken the sacrament (my decision), worn garments, studied the Book of Moron, etc., he still encouraged me to baptize her.  

So, on the day of her baptism, I found myself in the font, with this sweet little innocent 8 year old stepping down into the font to join me, a flawed and imperfect scoundrel, who was now supposed to perform this baptism.  It made me think of how John the Baptist must have been feeling when Christ came to him to get baptized, and he felt like Christ should be the one baptizing him.  

That little paradox helped me get a little glimpse of the mercy that the real gospel offers. An imperfect person, like myself, is allowed to have flaws and faults.  But, as long as I'm trying to be the best person that I can be, I could still join my innocent little girl in that ordinance.  Pretty cool stuff.  

It's really easy to get weighed down with all of the policies and practices that have been implemented by the church.  But when we strip away 'the church,' and just focus on the gospel, the simplicity and beauty of it really is incredible.  Hey, there's another paradox...the church and the gospel.  They are supposed to go hand-in-hand, but it often feels like they're at odds with each other.

That's okay, too.

Baptizing the Developmentally Disabled

1) If someone is aware enough to want to be baptized without any pressure or coaching from others, and if there are no "worthiness" issues that would prohibit it, I have no problem whatsoever with that person being baptized.

2) We teach that up until baptism at the age of eight, the kids who are baptized haven't been accountable up to that point - at least not in the same sense as converts who are baptized. Thus, really, what's the difference between the standard eight-year-old baptism and baptism for someone who isn't accountable after being baptized?

3) We teach of the need to avoid being baptized "unworthily" - and it's hard to say someone who is not accountable is "unworthy", in the classic, traditional sense of how that word is used.

4) Baptism, the Priesthood, temple attendance and marriage are very different things, and I don't want to deny one simply out of concern about the others.

5) I understand, however, the concern that baptizing those who are not considered to be accountable could perpetuate the idea that they need to be baptized and, eventually, that they (and, by extension) all people actually are accountable from birth, no matter their capability to understand. I also understand that if one such person is baptized, others who have loved ones in similar situations might feel like those loved ones also should be baptized. Therefore, I understand the desire to maintain a bright line with those who are believed not to be accountable. It can be a can of worms that isn't worth opening.

Summary:

I would have no problem baptizing someone who wants to be baptized - and if someone understands enough to feel like he isn't a "real member", I think he understands enough to be baptized. However, I personally would do it as a clear exception to the general rule - and, if I were the Bishop, I probably would announce the baptism much like if it were a convert baptism and say something very direct, like:

Billy has come to me and asked to be baptized. After talking with and interviewing him, I believe he understands the purpose of baptism well enough and is fully worthy to be baptized. Therefore, his baptism will occur at such a time.

However, having said that, I would support a Bishop completely and without hesitation who felt like he couldn't make an exception - even though I believe exceptions often are what give real meaning to the rules. 

What Aspects of Our Religion Are Included in "The Gospel"?

At the most fundamental level, I see "the Gospel" as nothing more than the Book of Mormon description: faith (in the Lord, Jesus Christ), repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end - with divine parental love as the underlying principle on which it all hangs.

I see the Gospel in its simplest definition as the "good news" Jesus preached - and that good news is centered on one concept:

I am a child of God.

I believe every truly unique doctrine within Mormonism, especially compared with Protestantism, derives from that concept, and I believe the zenith of that teaching of the good news is the Intercessory Prayer in John 17 - that all of us can become one with GOD, the Father (and Mother), and God, the Son, in the same way they are one. For me, everything else is variable detail - pieces of various puzzles that people use to attempt to fill the same framework or images on mosaics that we create in order to become a "true and living" replica of God.

I see the good news as the idea that such efforts to become godly replicas are not pointless or in vain - that these mortal caterpillar exteriors we inhabit really will be shed at some point, and we will emerge as the butterflies we were created to be. That requires faith, since, like caterpillars, we don't get to see the process of metamorphosis that makes us what we aren't currently (the cocoon process occurring for us after death - theologically phrased as "the spirit world" prior to becoming new, "resurrected" beings), but I believe it is that belief and hope in the unseen (that "faith") that is the foundation of the gospel Jesus preached - and it is the central "power of godliness" that is mentioned in JSH 1:19 that was denied within the Protestant creeds of Joseph's time (and still is now).

The Gospel Is Simple; Life in a Community Is Not

The Gospel really is simple - not easy, but simple: 

Jesus is the personification of the will of God to allow for the ultimate growth of His children (Atonement); hope for, believe in and act on the promises of the Lord, even if you can't see the results at the time (faith); try to change - both reactively to mistakes you make and proactively to become who you want to become (repent); symbolically participate in a spiritual cleansing ritual (be baptized); "receive" comfort and guidance from God (the gift of the Holy Ghost); rinse and repeat your entire life (endure to the end).

On the other hand, living life amid the necessary rules and regulations of communal living is neither simple nor easy, especially, in the imagery of Joseph B. Wirthlin, for those who play a different instrument than most others in the community and/or hear a counter-melody or harmony most others don't hear. 

Hilarious: Out of the Mouths of Babes, Indeed

An acquaintance once told the following story.  I thought at the time it was one of the funniest things I had ever heard, and I have not changed my mind since:

I remember when my youngest turned 8, and we began to talk about baptism. We asked him when he would like to be baptized (his birthday is in May), and he said: 

“I think . . . . . . November.”

We were a little curious as to what significance that had, but when asked he replied with a cheery smile:

“I want to live a little first.”

Sometimes, children really do understand much better than we realize.  

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Our New Framing of the Priesthood - Elder Oaks: Part 4

Last Sunday, we covered the last five paragraphs of Elder Oaks' talk - with paragraph defined loosely.

I close with some truths about the blessings of the priesthood. Unlike priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations, the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and to men on the same terms.

I mentioned that Elder Oaks said this, with different words, multiple times throughout the talk (including in the upcoming paragraphs) - but that he was about to use two specific examples that rarely have been discussed in those terms in the past.

The gift of the Holy Ghost and the blessings of the temple are familiar illustrations of this truth.

We defined "the priesthood" one more time (the power of God) and I asked the students if they could list times / events in life when we could say we represent God in some way. The obvious responses were ordination for the young men and baptism, so we talked about those and others.

1) We believe we all are children of God, so, in a very real way, if we believe that, we also believe we can represent him as his children. That is emphasized in our theology by our belief in the light of Christ, which we equate with our consciences. Everyone, with a few exceptions, represents God in this way.

2) When we are baptized, we covenant to take the name of Jesus upon us - to become "Christian". That is a direct commitment to do what Jesus would do and represent him.

3) When we are confirmed, we are told to receive the Holy Ghost - which we equate to striving to understand and do the will of God.

4) We talk of the Priesthood in terms of service - which, phrased differently, is participating in the work and glory of God.

5) When members are endowed in the temple, every ordinance men experience, women also experience - and women perform almost all of them. We talked about each ordinance - what it is meant to convey, what blessings are promised, what covenants are made, what symbolism is used, etc. I told them that there are two primary wording differences for men and women in the endowment and the sealing - and that I personally see them as cultural remnants of our earlier history that don't match a lot of what has been taught in numerous talks over the last couple of decades and the last part of what we discussed last week from Elder Oaks' talk. (the description of marriage as a full partnership of equals)

All of these things are "exercising the authority and power of the Priesthood" - and all of them are available, according to Elder Oaks, to men and women alike. Currently, the only exceptions are, in his words, "priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations" - and those can change if the top leadership receives revelation that would change the historical "pattern" they see right now and not if they don't. 

In his insightful talk at BYU Education Week last summer, Elder M. Russell Ballard gave these teachings:

“Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other . . . When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power . . . Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.”

This is another reiteration of one of Elder Oaks' central themes - but it is one of the first times I have heard two apostles say unequivocally that women are endowed with priesthood power when they attend the temple. As was the case with his words earlier in the talk, Elder Oaks did NOT frame this as women having access to the priesthood power men are given; rather, once again, he framed it explicitly as women having / being given the same power men are given - that the priesthood power they exercise is their own power, endowed directly and personally to them.

We talked about the temple garment - the "garment of the holy priesthood". I explained that both men and women wear symbolic clothing ("robes") in the temple that represent the ceremonial clothing temple priests wore in the Old Testament time. Thus, in the temple, men dress as priests and women dress as priestesses. We talked about how men AND women leave the temple "clothed in the garment of the holy priesthood" - which means, in a tangible way, BOTH men and women "hold the priesthood" when they leave the temple. In other words, when women wear the garment, they are "putting on the priesthood" once again, symbolically - and that the garment is the tangible representation of their priestess robes outside the temple. Again, with that in mind, when women do the Lord's work outside the temple, they are doing it as priestesses through the priesthood power with which they were endowed when they first went through the temple.

I testify of the power and blessings of the priesthood of God, available for His sons and daughters alike. I testify of the authority of the priesthood, which functions throughout all of the offices and activities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I testify of the divinely directed function of the keys of the priesthood, held and exercised in their fulness by our prophet/president, Thomas S. Monson. Finally and most important, I testify of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose priesthood this is and whose servants we are, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I told the students that if they wanted an interesting experience they should go through the talk again, in its entirety, and count the number of times Elder Oaks said that men and women both have access to the power and authority of God and exercise it in everything they do in the Church. I asked why he would have to repeat it so many time, and, after we talked about that, I told them that I think it's because members who are close to my age and older need to have it repeated that many times to have it register and to understand and accept it. I asked them to be patient when they heard members repeat the former framing - to understand how hard it can be to let go of things that were learned when those people were teenagers and early adults - but to commit to make sure they helped change the Church into more of what Elder Oaks described than it currently is.

The Key to Internal Peace and Joy: A Short Thought

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the promptings / will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

Understanding and living by those simple principles, according to the dictates of our own individual consciences, really is the key to internal peace and joy. 

When that is coupled with a collective acceptance that ALL people have that same privilege to craft their own internal peace and joy (subject to minimal restrictions, based on the fundamental principle of love), again, even if they view many things differently - in those cases, "Zion" truly exists.

Baptisms are Not the Measure of a Successful Mission

I don't like fast baptisms, as a rule or a standard approach - but I know of quite a few individual cases where a baptism within 3-5 weeks was completely appropriate. I don't want a minimum wait time established, but I don't like trying to set a baptism date in the first or second lesson. I want investigators to know up-front and immediately that the missionaries are there to teach and baptize them, ideally, so I don't mind baptism being mentioned from the moment they sit down for the first time, but I want it to be "whenever you feel a confirmation from God that joining our church is what He wants you to do" and not "let's pick a date and pray you feel good about it by then." 

That is my own view, and I don't claim that it is the only right one. 

I understand not wanting to make someone wait longer than necessary when they want to join, and I understand youthful zeal and enthusiasm, and I understand leaders (especially Mission Presidents) wanting to do their best and be recognized as successful leaders - but, in principle, I don't like rushing things that shouldn't be rushed. I'd rather take a little longer than necessary, for example, than too little time when it comes to baptism.

For what it's worth, I know the two-year retention rates right now for new converts are higher than they've been, overall, in the past - but I don't attribute that to fast or slow baptisms. I attribute it to better, more personalized teaching than used to occur with the memorized lessons and, overall, less measurement of success as a function of total baptisms. "Preach My Gospel" says in crystal clear terms that the number of baptisms is not how a successful mission should be measured, and I've heard it said from the pulpit in multiple locations over the last five years or so. It's sad that some leaders still are preaching the old line of success being measured best by baptism numbers, but it is not the way it is supposed to be.

From the Mouths of Babes, Indeed: Hilarious Also Can Be Profound

In at thread at Real Intent, MS Keller shared the following story: 

I remember when my youngest turned 8, and we began to talk baptism. We asked him when he would like to be baptized. (His birthday is in May.)  

He said, “I think. . . . . . November.”

We were a little curious as to what significance that had, but when asked he replied with a cheery smile:

“I want to live a little first.” 

Sometimes, children sum up complex things in amazing and insightful ways.  We tend to laugh, but we also ought to pause and contemplate how profound their statements are.  

Learning from the Innocents: Or, the Beauty of Youth Baptisms for the Dead

I was performing baptisms in the temple a while ago for youth and new converts, and it hit me DEEPLY and profoundly how beautiful the concept of such work is to those who still are fully (or close to fully) "innocent" and "pure". In particular, as two new converts, one young man and one young woman, entered the font (each for the first time in their lives), there was almost a glow of anticipation that was awe-inspiring. (There also was an adult convert doctor who had been a member for a few years but never done temple baptisms, whose wife's face simply glowed as she stood on the steps and watched him be baptized.) One of the women had been baptized into the Church just the past weekend, and another woman was the still-recent convert who had introduced her to the Church. The young man's family recently had returned to activity, and the young woman's family still wasn't fully active (and, technically, neither was she).

It's moments like that when it hits me how much I really don't care, fundamentally, about nuance and intellectual distinction. Of course, I do care about the ability to understand nuance and to make intellectual distinctions, especially as a coping mechanism and as a way to understand and accept myself and others. However, at the most fundamental level, there is a beauty and grandeur and mind-blowing simplicity about "pure Mormonism" that still reaches up and grabs me by the throat and brings tears to my eyes in moments like that - when you see people whose lives have changed SO much or are so hard in very real ways dressed in white trying to do something for those they love in such an innocent, simple way.

The young woman I mentioned lost her father to cancer six years ago, and it literally tore apart her family in many ways. She was 12 years old when it happened (with siblings ranging from 4-18), and she hasn't been active in the church since then - due mostly to the extra pressure exerted on her mother to deal with the death of her husband and her children's father (including the need to work long hours to support the family) and being the only members in a town 25 miles from the church and in a different state. Work for the dead means something powerful and wonderful to this young woman, since her father was not a member of the Church but was a very good man who supported his wife in her attendance and beliefs. She doesn't care about fine detail; she just wants to show how much she loves other people and how much she wants to help them in some way - any way she feels she can. Temple work is truly cosmic for her. She was visibly excited and nervous and in awe the whole time we were traveling to the temple, and she said to us afterward that when she finally got dressed and went into the font room:

"A sense of peace hit me, and I knew God is aware of me and loves me".

I love baptisms for the dead. I love the symbolism and the over-arching theological meaning. I love how I feel like I've been standing in holy water when I leave the font. I love how clean and pure and simple the whole thing is - when I let go of my need to think and simply allow myself to experience and just BE - when all that matters is that I AM.

I can parse the wording of verses and statements and talks and try to understand concepts as well as possible on an intellectual level, but, for me, it all pales in comparison to seeing the faces of the innocents as they enter a baptismal font and as they leave.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Meaning and Purpose of the First Principles & Ordiances as Commandments

The lesson yesterday focused on the meaning and purpose of the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel when viewed as commandments: faith (in the Lord, Jesus Christ); repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end.

As we have done each week this month, we defined each commandment, talked more in-depth about what each commandment means beyond just a simple definition, and ended with a discussion of the purpose of each one - the "why" of each commandment.

1) Faith

Definition: From Hebrews 11:1 - "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

Meaning: "Substance" means "the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality" - or, in the footnote to Hebrews 11:1 from the Greek, "assurance, basis, foundation". "Evidence" means "indication; manifestation; proof". Thus, "faith" means the details of that for which someone hopes but can't see and the indications or proof they see that supports those hopes.

Purpose: We talked about scientific experiments and how they are built on the pattern recorded in Alma 32 and described in Hebrews 11 - how faith is hoping something enough to conduct some kind of experiment in order to gain evidence of some kind that supports the hope. We talked about how diverse such hopes can be, as well as how diverse such evidence can be, but I emphasized that faith disappears when knowledge is found - and how that is much easier in the realm of scientific experiment than spiritual experiment, since spiritual "evidence" can be so subjective and non-reliable in terms of replicability. That's why spiritual faith must be gained individually - and why individual faith differences need to be accepted, respected and honored.

We talked about Alma 32 and the statement that there are two groups of blessed people: those who are compelled to be humble and those who humble themselves without being compelled. We talked about how that applies to faith, as well. I used Mother Teresa as an example, especially since she said shortly before her death that she had prayed fervently for a special witness from God that he existed and approved of her life and never received it. She said she saw God's love all around her (seeing evidence for her hope) had not seen the actual object of her hope. I told the students that I don't know of a better example of faith than Mother Teresa, including those within our own Mormon heritage who I see as equal to her in that regard.

We then discussed how lack of faith (in any area, scientific, spiritual, emotional, inter-personal, etc.) closes minds and stops progress - because such lack stops us from seeking understanding we don't possess currently or naturally. We talked about faith in the context of statements like, "Study it out in your mind and in your heart," and, "Seek ye out of the best books . . ." and Joseph Smith's statement that Mormonism embraces all truth, no matter the source. The purpose of faith isn't to believe any particular thing; it is to keep our minds and hearts open to learn every true thing. We need to be open to changing understanding / further light and knowledge by always hoping to continue to see evidence for things we can't see currently.

2) Repentance

Definition: "change"

Meaning: openness to change, in any way that leads us closer to being more Christ-like / godly - We talked about (my own terms) "reactive repentance" - making mistakes and trying to stop doing them - and "proactive repentance" - seeking to develop godly characteristics to become more Christ-like / godly. We talked about the difference between extremely serious and/or habitual sins that require a "steps of repentance" process and, in some cases ("thorns of the flesh"), suppression and regular, run-of-the-mill sins that can be eliminated best by becoming someone who simply doesn't commit them anymore. I told them that God isn't God because of His ability to suppress bad or inappropriate "natural" inclinations; he is God because he is someone who doesn't have those inclinations. We talked about the danger of attempts to suppress and equating Godhood with nothing more than extreme self-control - that becoming like God is less of a "battle" or "victory" and more of a process of change - a "repenting", in the purest sense of the word.

Purpose: to move from an animalistic nature to a divine nature - One of the students said something that I thought was profound. She said that repentance is an attempt to "find and become my best self". (It's moments like that when I have faith that what I'm teaching is making a difference.)

I asked the students why faith is a pre-condition to repentance, and they got it - that we won't try to change unless we have hope that our efforts will allow us to change. We can't see future changes in ourselves for which we hope, but we can see others who have changed - or feel assurance that we can change.

3) Baptism

Definition: originally, "immersion".

Meaning: symbolic cleansing - a statement of intent to be purified

Purpose: I asked why we teach the need for baptism in this life when people can be exalted without having been baptized in this life. In other words, if it's not necessary for anyone who has died without it, what is its purpose? We talked about that for a while, and we settled eventually on the need to have a communal expression of our commitment to repent - to change. In other words, baptism is our way of testifying openly to each other and to God that we have faith and are willing to repent. I told them that I believe in the power of such expressions when they involved the whole soul in some real, tangible way.

4) The Gift of the Holy Ghost

Definition: a bestowal or present of the Holy Ghost

Meaning: ideally, being in tune with God in such a way that communication is possible, in whatever form that takes

Purpose: We talked extensively about this, and the conclusion was that completely open communication channels with God are intended to allow us to get to know God well enough to be helped in our efforts to become like God. In the context of faith, repentance and baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost is what allows us to see the evidence we desire to validate our hope, make the changes necessary to become whom we hope to become and make our baptismal covenant active and powerful in a real way. It's God's part of the contract, if you will - God's baptismal gift to us to help us succeed and become whom we want to become.

5) Enduring to the End

Definition: never stopping until the end; finishing

Meaning: Becoming perfect ("complete, whole, fully developed") - We talked about "the end" not being death, given the nature of our belief in eternal progression, but rather the point at which we are complete, whole and fully developed - whenever that occurs. It means becoming gods - the ultimate goal of faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ.

I told them about the temple wording of "one eternal round" - and I told them that I personally see enduring to the end as the eternal round that happens when faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost work together as one process - when something previously unseen finally is seen and moved from faith to knowledge only to be replaced by new faith in something yet unseen - repeated ad infinitum until, throughout all eternity, everything is seen.

I ended by telling them about my father's death the previous day and how grateful I am that I was raised to be able to say:

"Forever's in my heart and in my blood."

Not All Temple Experiences Are Wonderful, but It's Wonderful When They Are

One of my daughters went to the temple a couple of years ago, and there were a couple of really neat experiences during the baptisms. The following is what I wrote about it at the time:

1) One of the men in our ward had some family file names, and he really choked up when he baptized his daughter for the first person. I asked his daughter who that person was while she was waiting to be confirmed (while her father was performing some baptisms with his son), and she said it was her grandmother - her father's mother. I didn't have time to ask for clarification, but she said they had found the necessary information while they were in Cincinnati recently - which made me wonder if this is a "biological mother" of an adopted son, or some other unique situation.

I understand fully that it might have been nothing more than emotion, but it still was deeply touching to see a man who obviously cared so deeply about doing something for his mother - especially if it was a mother he never knew. (It also reminded me of how little we really know about many of the people in our congregations.) It also might have been a deeply spiritual experience, and it's important to keep that open as a distinct possibility. 

2) I was baptizing one of the other young women in the ward, and things were going normally. I have a decent short-term memory for names I read, and I know the prayer by heart, so I try whenever possible to take a moment and read the name, memorize it and then close my eyes and say the prayer in the same way we normally think of a prayer being said. I don't like the old rushed way of saying the prayer at a breakneck pace, so I slow it down just enough to articulate each word clearly - and I lower my arm and pause while reading the next name in order to make it a clear break between people being baptized. I then raise my arm and start again.

I baptized this particular girl for ten people, and it was a little difficult at first. She is 12, and she was going down into the water in such a way that she barely was getting immersed, so I whispered some simple directions on how to make it easier - but in trying to do what I had suggested, she ended up complicating it and making it even harder. After about the third baptism, she whispered something about contradictory instructions - and I realized I had complicated it for her with my attempt to help and started to make her frustrated. (There's a valuable lesson there for lots of things in the Church and life, I believe.)

I apologized to her and took a second while I looked at the next name to say a really quick, simple, silent prayer that she would have a good experience during the rest of the baptisms - then I started again. The next one went very well, as did the one after that. The next person had only a first name listed, and as soon as I said the words, "for and in behalf of Eva" - I got all choked up myself and literally had to pause for probably ten seconds just to get my own emotions under control. My voice cracked a little as I ended with, "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen." That feeling disappeared completely as soon as that particular ordinance was over, and there was nothing out of the ordinary for the rest of the time I was there.

I believe that experience was more than just emotional - and I have no idea if it was to help that young woman and/or me. I just know it was a really neat experience - the strongest I've ever had in that situation, and one of only a handful for me like it over the decades in the setting of the temple.

Two things leaped to mind at the time, and another one came to mind as I typed this post:

1) It's important to experience the "normal" (the hundreds of times in the temple where I have not felt such an amazing spirit but, instead, merely was there physically or gained personal insight and revelation) in order to be there to experience the sublime.  Without the numerous normal, I wouldn't have been there that day to experience the singular sublime. 

2) It's important to pray for special experiences in the temple - of some sort, either specific or general. 

3) It's important that we not over-complicate the temple (and other ordinances / programs / activities / interaction / teaching) with a focus on "procedure" - even as it's important to try to prepare ourselves and others to participate and learn.

I Wish the Word of Wisdom Was Not a Requirement of Baptism

I'm on record in multiple places saying I wish the Word of Wisdom was not a requirement of baptism and membership, especially since it's such a huge cultural issue in many places and because I believe everyone ought to have the same "grace period" the early saints had when it was given initially - and also because we (correctly, in my opinion) don't excommunicate members for not living the Word of Wisdom. If we allow members to remain members as they struggle with the Word of Wisdom, we shouldn't deny others membership for the exact same struggles.

Addictions are brutally hard for many to reject, and I think that is lost for some people who are from ancestry where church membership has not forced them to confront the addictions addressed in the Word of Wisdom. They get it intellectually, but they don't really understand.

I feel strongly about that, even as I have no problem with Word of Wisdom compliance being part of the temple recommend interview.

The First Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel: What Do They Mean to You?

My focus this month for my New Year's Resolution posts is principles and ordinances.  I am late writing this first weekend post because of Easter last week, but I want to focus initially on a very simple explanation of what the "first principles and ordinances of the Gospel" mean to me. Next week, I will address why they are the fundamental principles and ordinances, but first I want to write a very simple post about what they actually are - at only the most basic level. 

Our Fourth Article of Faith says:

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In order, the most basic explanation of each of these principles and ordinances for me is:

1) "faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ"

I see this principle, again at the most basic level, as nothing more complicated than actually believing what our scriptures say about Jesus of Nazareth deeply and profoundly enough that it actually motivates us to do what he asked us to do / said we need to do to qualify as disciples.  James describes true, living faith as a combination of belief and action, and Joseph Smith said that faith is an animating and motivating power.  Belief alone is not enough, since even the devils believe; the differentiating and distinguishing factor between those who profess to believe and those who truly believe is NOT the detail of their belief but rather how they live according to their professed beliefs - how their lives reflect their beliefs - what they become as a result of their beliefs. 

Thus, at the most fundamental level, this principle is not simply the content of my beliefs about the Lord, Jesus Christ; it includes the expression and manifestation of those beliefs in my actual, real, interpersonal life in the actual, real world in which I live among actual, real people. 

2) "repentance"

At the core, repentance means nothing more than "change" - and that is a wonderfully concise description of the central reason for our existence.  We all recognize, hopefully, that we are weak and ungodly in our human nature.  Repentance is more than just a recogniton of that simple fact; it is the active component of real faith.  It is how true faith is manifested in our lives. 

Jesus taught us to be and become different than we are and have been.  Repentance, again at the most fundamental level, is our acceptance of personal responsibility to strive to follow that admonition - to be and become more like him and his Father - to be "partakers of the divine nature" - to "be ye therefore perfect, as your father which is in heaven is perfect" - to "put off the natural man and become a saint" - etc. 

(For more of what I've written about repentance, including about how we have narrowed repentance too much in our delineation of the "steps of repentance" and how we need to have a fresh view of repentance, click on the tab for "Repentance" in the list at the bottom of this blog.) 

3) "baptism by immersion, for the remission of sins"

Focusing on the most fundamental definition possible, I see baptism as nothing more or less than a symbolic, public, physical representation of our firm commitment to have real faith and to repent - and I believe each of those asepcts is critically important. 

a) Baptism is symbolic.  There is nothing magical or special about the water in which we are immersed - and there is nothing magical or exclusive about the actual form of the ordinance.  As I've said in other threads here, ancient Israel used circumcision to represent their commitment to follow their God, and circumcision and baptism couldn't be more different.  If God can use such radically different ceremonial forms to convey commitment, I am fine with just about anything that resonates with societies and cultures - although I also am fine with limiting our own fundamental expression of commitment within the LDS Church to baptism.  It's not the literal form of the ordinance that is important; it's the symbolic meaning that is central for me. 

b) Baptism is public.  I think this is important, to the extent possible in individual situations, since baptism also is an entry way into a comunity of believers - a way for the person entering to assure the community that she truly is committed AND a way for the community to express support for that commitment.  There are no hermits in the kingdom of God; godhood is not a solitary existence; commitment to Jesus of Nazareth and the gospel he taught is communal in a very real and powerful way. 

c) Baptism is physical.  Just like cirumcision was a physical expression of faith and communal identity that carried spiritually symbolic meaning, baptism also is performed by immersion for a very simple but profound reason - that the "whole soul" must be committed and involved.  We must love God with all of our heart, might, mind and strength - not just with our spirit.  Thus, immersion is central to the proper symbolism of our commitment - just as circumsision necessitated a real, physical commitment for the men of ancient Israel.  Importantly, at least for me, baptism is a new testiment that allows women to participate in the full process of expressed commitment in a way that circumcision did not in the past. 

4) "laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost"

In the ordinance of confirmation, we are told to "receive the Holy Ghost".  There is a sermon in that phrase alone, but I want to focus on the most basic meaning of the ordinance itself - which, for me, is nothing more than a commitment to seek and follow input from God.  By accepting the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, we acknowledge our willingness to seek and follow input from God in two distinct and vital ways: through the ministering of others (the laying on of hands) and through direct revelation / inspiration from God (the gift of the Holy Ghost).  Both are vital, and I believe we overlook the first too often in our exclusive focus on the second. 

The above is how I see the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel, at the most basic level.  I would love to hear from anyone who reads this about how they see these principles and ordinances.

Acting in the Name of God Is Not Exclusively for Men Who Are Ordained - or for Mormons

I often wonder if very many members truly understand the nature of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost as a bestowal of access to the power of godliness - which is one definition we use to describe the Priesthood. After all, the commands are to "take upon us the name of Christ" and “receive the Holy Ghost” - with the understanding that such a reception can provide access to the Holy Ghost (a member of the Godhead) continually. Thus, although we often say that holding the Priesthood means being able to act in the name of God, in reality all who are baptized, at the very least, are authorized to be called Christ's own and act in his behalf and name - and all who are given the Gift of the Holy Ghost are challenged to live in such a way that they act according to the promptings of a member of the Godhead.

I am NOT saying that all members who receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost “hold the Priesthood” in the classic sense of being able to perform Priesthood ordinances. I’m just saying most of us don’t realize how expansive “the power to act in the name of God” really is. Priesthood administration of ordinances is important, but it’s only one aspect of acting in the name of God - and it's the only aspect that currently is exclusive to men who have been ordained to offices in the Priesthood. In fact, even that isn't totally correct, since women perform Priesthood ordinances in the temple; the exclusivity only exists in the "lone and dreary world".

I also believe it is important to reiterate that, according to Mormon theology, ALL who ever have been born into this world are spirit children of Heavenly Parents - and, as such, have the same right to receive personal revelation as a result of that heritage as any member of the LDS Church. If they receive personal revelation from God and act on it, they are acting in the name of God every bit as much as I am when I do so - and, although different in function, every bit as much as I do when performing Priesthood ordinances. We are acting in different spheres, if you will, with different responsibilities, but we are acting equally as individual sons and daughters of God within our respective spheres.

Our Children Need the Holy Ghost Desperately

I have a friend who questioned whether or not his daughter possibly could understand baptism well enough at age eight to make an informed choice. The following was my response to him:

"In this day and age, young girls need the gift of the Holy Ghost desperately, and they need it at an earlier age every decade I've lived. That doesn't address an exact age, but if you postpone it too long out of your own insecurities or concerns, you will be handicapping her in a very real way."

"Teach her why baptism is important symbolically; teach her the covenants she will be making at baptism; teach her the reality of the gift of the Holy Ghost; teach her that you will respect her agency and intelligence and desire; don't project your own concerns on her if she doesn't share them. Whatever she decides, even if you feel it is not entirely her choice, honor her by honoring her decision. Be her father."

"I have no right to tell you what you should do with your daughter. That's between you, your wife and your daughter. I simply repeat:

One of the truest gifts anyone in the church can have is the gift of the Holy Ghost and an upbringing that will help her or him understand its reality."