Individual Exceptions Are between Each Person and the Lord

“There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.” 

- Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, June 2006, p. 16

Is Having a Church Calling a Divine Commandment?

I don't see having and magnifying a church calling as a divine commandment, in and of itself, but I do believe it is a commandment to be involved in helping others - and helping staff and run the Church can be a way to do that for lots and lots of people. Therefore, I believe serving in the Church can be a way to fulfill a divine command. 

I don't think anyone who doesn't serve in some way in a church organization is "breaking the commandments" - but I do think anyone who doesn't get involved in some organization dedicated to helping others (or doesn't do that personally, outside an organization) is ignoring the two great commandments in a real way.

The Word of Wisdom: Both Letter and Spirit of the Law

I think it is fascinating and instructive that the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) contains things that are accepted and enforced in our time as commandments, and that are included in the requirements of temple attendance, as well as things that are accepted generally in the same spirit in which the original revelation is worded - as "words of wisdom" but not clearly definable prohibitions.  

When this is discussed my members, the conversation often turns to meat consumption, but I see the question about meat as the same as a discussion about grains and fruits (and sleep, although that is not addressed in the Word of Wisdom). Healthy practices vary person to person and simply cannot be codified properly into one common standard that can be measured for temple attendance or even simple obedience. As a people, we can be Nazis about too many things already; the last thing I want is for a local leader to be able to start keeping charts on each member’s Body Mass Index, meat consumption, seasonal fruit decisions, etc.

In other words, I am fine with some portions of Section 89 being measured according to the letter of the law and others being left up to us as individuals to live according to the spirit of the law. After all, we aren’t supposed to be commanded in all things and, rather, are supposed to be agents unto ourselves – and I think the Word of Wisdom is perhaps the best practical example of how we can be commanded in some things and not in others, even in the same general area.

Leadership in Zion: Helping Create an Ideal Balance

I believe:

1) Communal sociality is a process of filtering back and forth what is best for the individual and what is best for the society.

2) Social leadership is, by definition, the position of determining where groups draw the line between the pursuit of those two ideals in very practical ways.

3) "Zion" is the idea that there is an ideal balance between the two - a condition of community (communal unity) that serves both ideals properly - where unity exists despite differences.

4) My role in creating Zion is to strive to find the type of individual balance between the two general ideals in my own, internal life and work to help others find that type of individual balance in their own, internal lives. If I am a "leader" of some sort, obviously I have more potential to help more people, but I don't see my role as "attacking" or "changing" anyone; rather, I see it as being a "helper" or "servant" of anyone and everyone.

5) Thus, all I can do is "offer" - consistently, humbly and without expectation. I can't "demand" or "command". I also must be willing to learn from everyone I'm trying to serve - and, in practical terms, sometimes that is the hardest aspect of Zion of all.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Commandments - Measurable or Subjective; and, Changing Our Discourse about Modesty

While putting the finishing touches on my Sunday School lesson prep tonight, I realized that it has been a few weeks since I've posted a summary here. We had Stake Conference; my wife taught the following week; we had General Conference last week; I forgot to post the summary from the last time I taught the class. Here is a VERY abbreviated summary of that last lesson:

With the topic being "commandments", we talked about the difference between commandments that are fairly objective and easily measured and those that are more subjective and impossible to measure consistently or universally. Since the students had mentioned the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity in the first week's lesson, we focused on those commandments again - and added modesty as another discussion point.

First, I asked the students to list the things that are part of the Word of Wisdom. All of the first answers they gave were the things from which we abstain, with the things that are encouraged coming after the forbidden things. We talked about how easy it is to define and quantify the prohibitions in the Word of Wisdom - how they are easily enforced - and how that contributes to them being the focal point of most discussions about it. We talked about how impossible it would be (or how bad it would be) if local leaders had to try to enforce the more ambiguous aspects of meat, fruit, vegetable and grain consumption, for example.

We then talked about the Law of Chastity and how there are some things that clearly are forbidden for everyone, while there are other aspects that are more open to individual interpretation - and how local leaders often view and enforce the more subjective aspects differently, especially with respect to teenagers.

We spent most of our time talking about the principle of modesty and what it means in its fullest, purest sense - moderation, in all things. We talked about how we focus almost completely on how we dress when we talk about modesty- and how we focus inordinately on how women dress. Every student, male and female, understood that distinction and thought it was wrong without any need for convincing from me - and their conservative / liberal orientation didn't make any difference in that regard. We talked about how there is almost no way to "measure" modesty of dress universally and have a definition that everyone will accept and upon which they will agree. (As a simple example, I had the shortest and the tallest students stand and asked how long a modest skirt would be that both of them could wear. That caused some serious laughs, but we talked about how even anatomy-focused measurements [like covering the knee] are arbitrary standards that are culturally-based.) We talked about modesty in language - and in house size - and in car purchase - and in cost of clothing - and in any other way that deals with moderation as a principle.

I finished the lesson with a direct statement to all of them. I told them flat-out that we need to quit blaming women (of any age) for the thoughts of men (of any age). I told them that I believe in the principle of modesty, but that I do NOT believe in it as a way for one group to control the thoughts of another group. I told them that if a man lusts after a woman he is not justified in blaming the woman for it, no matter what she wears or how she acts. I told them the way we often talk in the Church seems to blame the women and/or put the responsibility on them to keep the men's thoughts in line - and that such statements are wrong, and the students need to help put a stop to it in their own spheres of influence.

Two of the young women in the group thanked me specifically after the class for that part of the lesson.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: The "What" and "Why" of Commandments; or, Often, We Emphasize the Wrong Thing

Last Sunday was the first lesson about commandments, the topic for this month.  To lay the groundwork for the rest of the month, we focused on two important questions:

What are commandments?

Why do we keep the commandments?  

I told the students that these questions sound like simple, Primary questions but that we were going to go a lot deeper and try to see them in their broadest, most powerful terms.  I then asked everyone to tell me what the word "command" means.  The responses included the following:

direction; order; advice; counsel; guideline; requirement 

I divided the list into two groups and asked them to tell me the difference between the groups:

order; requirement 

direction; advice; counsel; guideline 

They saw immediately that the first group described things that must be done (things that were harsher or might even include an element of force or strong expectation), while the second group described things that were more like suggestions (things that were softer and carried no hint of absolute necessity - things that were much more up to personal choice to accept or ignore).  Given that fundamental difference, the first group ("order; requirement") is the only group that fits "command". 

To emphasize the difference, I explained how "Let there be light" is translated in English and in Japanese (which is translated from German).  In English, as worded above, there is a feeling of almost benevolence and gentleness (of direction; advice; counsel; guideline) - as if God had said, "I will allow there to be light."  In Japanese, the wording is, "Hikare ga are" - which translates as an unyielding command that light exist, as if God had said, "There is going to be light, because I am God and command it to exist."  The follow-up statement that God "saw the light, that it was good" also carries an element of supervision - that God oversaw the process to ensure that the result was what he had commanded. 

I then asked the students who they should follow completely - in whom should they invest the ability to command them and their actions.  They immediately focused on God and understood when asked that obeying anyone else completely as a "commander" is "relying on the arm of flesh" and giving up individual agency.  We talked again, as we have in the past, about Lucifer's plan - about how the ONLY difference in the plan's was the focus on forced obedience vs. individual agency free of coercion (and the consequences of that difference).  That difference is encapsulated in our 11th Article of Faith, which says:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.  

I simply pointed out that "all men" means "all people" - and that includes members of the LDS Church, as well.  Yes, we sustain and support our leaders and give deference to them and what they ask of us - but we do NOT obey any mortal leader as if s/he was God.  We always have to rely on our own consciences and ask ourselves, whenever any mortal asks or tells us to do something, whether or not what is being asked of us is in line with or opposed to our own conscience and what we believe God would command.  What mortals ask of us is "direction; advice; counsel; guideline", not "order; requirement; command".  Without that distinction, we risk putting mortals in the place of Lucifer and obeying for no other reason than we are told to obey.  That makes us no different than animals - or, in Mormon-speak, confined to our "natural (wo)man". 

We then focused on the "why" of keeping commandments.   The students gave the following answers to that question:

to be protected; to gain help and strength; to be happy 

I asked the students to name some commandments that protect us, and they mentioned the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity.  Given the complexity of the discussion I wanted to have about why we keep the commandments, I stopped them there, and we focused on those two commandments.  

I took them through a discussion of how those two commandments could be taught: either through a focus on being protected or through a focus on gaining help and strength - and how each approach influences how we talk about being happy. 

With the Word of Wisdom, focusing on protection emphasizes the "don't" statements (strong drinks, tobacco, hot drinks, meat, etc.), while focusing on gaining help and strength emphasizes the "do" statements (wholesome herbs, grains, fruits, meat, etc.).  The "consequences" of obedience are "receiv(ing) health in their navel and marrow to their bones," "find(ing) wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures," "run(ning) and not be(ing) weary," "walk(ing) and not faint(ing)" and, ultimately, being passed over by the destroying angel.  I simply pointed out that there is NO distinction in the revelation between the "don't" and the "do" statements (nothing to indicate one is more important than the other) - and that when we focus solely on what we should not do and skip what we should do we are not keeping this commandment fully.  We focus on the "don't" verses primarily in an attempt to gain protection, but ignoring the "do" verses robs us of an important element of gaining help and strength and being happy. 

With the Law of Chastity, this difference is even more stark.  

We talked about the ways obeying the Law of Chastity protects us (avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, emotional harm, betrayal, etc.), and then I asked them why that just isn't enough in our modern world.  They didn't get it at first, so I asked them how our world now is different than it was in the past relative to the consequences of sex.  One of them said, simply, "protection" - so we talked about how birth control, contraception, abortion, etc. are so readily available now that many people might blow off the idea of keeping the Law of Chastity as a means of protection.  To avoid the obvious, natural consequences, they can say they are being protected even if they have sex.  (Obviously, that isn't 100% accurate, but people can and do make that claim - especially teenagers and young adults.)  Given that reality, I asked them how keeping the Law of Chastity provides help, strength and happiness.  

We were almost out of time, so we focused the discussion on self-control, trust, emotional stability and, ultimately, how all of those benefits and more help us become like God and become less animalistic or "natural".  We talked about how the Law of Chastity is "unnatural" and, therefore, must include blessings and benefits beyond just physical protection.  

To end the discussion, I pointed out how both the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity can be taught positively (focused on benefits, now and in the future) or negatively (focused on fear and/or punishment, now and in the future).  I told them that people respond to different motivations, so I understand why both a negative and positive approach are used - but, personally, I am motivated much more by the idea of actively gaining strength and help to protect myself than I am by being protected by inaction while living in a cocoon of fear.  I don't like to obey commandments passively (meaning simply not doing things because I'm told not to do things); I prefer to obey commandments actively (meaning doing things for reasons that are important to me).

Why Did Nephi Kill Laban - and What Lesson Should We Take from It?

I see the story of Nephi killing Laban as Nephi's justification for his action. By that, I don't mean at all that I see the action as wrong, and I don't mean at all that I see it as uninspired.  I just see it as a man far removed from the actual event trying to explain to others who weren't there why he did something so out of the ordinary and, to most people, including himself, repugnant. 

Frankly, if Nephi was committed to getting the plates and not getting his family killed in the process, chopping off Laban's head as he lay defenseless in the street might have been his only option. He'd tried everything else, and he'd been robbed and threatened with death or imprisonment. Now, here he was, following his instincts and promptings, and there was Laban - so drunk he was passed out.

Nephi had two choices if he felt he had to get the plates of brass:

1) Do what he did without killing Laban.

That might have been possible, but it would have been very risky. When Laban woke up naked, returned to his home and discovered the plates gone, he would know exactly what had happened - no doubts whatsoever. He would have raised a force to pursue Nephi and his family, almost surely found them, and wiped them out. With Nephi's family having only a day or less lead time, that is the only logical outcome.

I think that is vital to understand, especially when trying to understand why he killed Laban.

2) Kill Laban - and do it by chopping off his head.

Laban was a drunk. This probably wasn't a rare occurrence, meaning when his body was discovered and identified most people would probably say, "It finally happened. I told him he'd be sorry at some point." There is a good chance nobody would associate this death with Nephi and his family, since a man like that had to have had enemies - and taking Zoram with them easily could have shifted the focus of the investigation onto him. Even if Nephi and his brothers were considered, it wouldn't be the immediate assumption - and I really think it probably didn't cross anyone's minds, given all the other possibilities.

Also, by chopping off Laban's head (and, presumably, by hiding it away from the body), the identification process would take longer - perhaps much longer. That would give Nephi's family more time to make their escape, thus greatly increasing the likelihood that they actually would escape - even if they were pursued eventually.

3) In other words, I see Nephi's actions as the result of his logical conclusions in the moment - his intellectual rationalization for doing something he would never have considered doing previously. 

Assuming he was the type of visionary person he describes in his record, I also see him justifying his actions in religious terms - and attributing his thought process to inspiration. (I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm sticking purely to a logical analysis right now.) I have a bit of a problem justifying murder to get the plates, but so did Nephi, based on his own words. Therefore, in order to follow through with his plan to obtain the plates, he had to construct an argument that was legal (verse 11 says it really wasn't murder), philosophical (verse 13 makes it a "humane" decision to sacrifice one person for the good of a larger group) and religious (verses 14-17 solidify it as keeping the commandment of God). It's also important, I think, to remember that the account probably was written LONG after the fact, after Nephi had decades to hone his reasoning. I'm not saying it would have been intentional, but we all know that such memories get shaped over time.

I can't reject the legal argument, if I remove myself from our modern outlook and put myself in his shoes in that culture; the philosophical argument was solidly part of his culture, and we even use it now in times of warfare (or, for example, in the case of an abortion to save the life of the mother, who, by living, can "save" her family in very practical terms - or when we excommunicate someone who truly is stirring up active and virulent apostasy within the Church, like someone who is trying to recruit for a polygamous sect among a congregation); the command aspect is the most "iffy", in my opinion - especially since he personally didn't receive the command but was trusting that his father had received it from God. That final aspect is what I think fits the Abraham and Isaac situation the most closely - a son trusting his father to the extreme.

When I read 1 Nephi 4, I see someone who had an objective in mind and had to figure out how to justify accomplishing that objective in a way that he had never considered previously. In other words, he didn't go into the excursion to get the plates thinking he might have to kill someone. The thought probably never crossed his mind. Faced suddenly with the realization that, if he REALLY was serious about getting the plates, the best course of action was going to be killing Laban, he took the time to construct a legal, philosophical and religious argument for doing so.

In that sense, if God really did want them to have the plates, Nephi did what he thought he had to do to get them - and he only had a minute or two to decide. I might not like what he did in theory, but I can't condemn or even judge him for a quick decision in a time of great stress - especially from the luxury of almost forty years of reading his account.

Finally, in reading the rest of his account, I think that decision haunted him all his life, despite his justification for it - and I think that might be the greatest lesson we can take from it.  

[Postcript]: A good friend whom I admire greatly (kevinf) made a comment in a thread on By Common Consent discussing this story that I think is profound - and something I had not considered in all my years of exposure to the story.  I am adding it to this post, since it hit me so hard when I read it.

One interesting point is that ultimately, Nephi’s descendants did ” dwindle in unbelief.” In Nephi’s psalm, while not specifically identifying the sins that have caused him such anguish, I do believe that Nephi can see the direction his divided family is headed, and the role he played, both for good and bad. Perhaps, in his role as prophet, Nephi has seen the ultimate end of his people,and is questioning why he had to kill Laban, if in the end it results in what he was trying to prevent? How many more violent deaths are to occur, and sins be committed, he seems to be saying, despite his efforts to prevent them? 

Modesty: Extremism Is Not a Good Thing

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with modesty as a standard.

 None. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

 I really like the general definition of modesty as, "Moderation in all things" - although there are times when extreme measures are warranted on either side of the continuum. It's when modesty becomes an obsessive focus on one aspect (in this case, how people dress), as well as a hedge about the law (moving the lines to avoid coming anywhere near the edge of the law), and the hedge obscures the path itself (so people lose sight of what modesty in dress really means), and the ideal disappears from sight (when extremity in dress is seen as modesty) that I am concerned - and we have too many members who have lost sight of the ideal, in my opinion.

For example, more clothing that covers more of one's body is not modesty when it moves past moderation; rather, it becomes extremism (like a full-scale burkha), which is the opposite of modesty.  Complete, shapeless coverage when in public is simply the opposite extreme of full nudity in public - and both are equally "immodest". 

The BYU-Idaho example that occurred a few years ago is a classic one.

The Church and BYU-Idaho didn't ban anything the young woman was wearing, but an administrator and an employee stretched the definition of modesty so badly that it made both organizations look stupid - and necessitated a general statement reaffirming that, in deed, nothing she was wearing was forbidden. Furthermore, the young woman in question was the RELIEF SOCIETY PRESIDENT in her ward and had gone straight from a meeting with her Bishop to the testing center. She was covered from neck to toe in clothes that weren't even tight (not skinny jeans, but standard boot-cut jeans), but one guy apparently was distracted by her curves and exercised "a little authority, as (he) suppose(d)," to define modesty in a ridiculous way.  *sigh*

Sometimes, we really are our own worst enemies - and sometimes it's because we restrict meaning and build such high hedges about the law.

Is Tithing Necessary to Inherit the Celestial Kingdom?

Someone once asked me the question in the title of this post, and my answer was what would have been the other half of the title: "Only if You Are An Active Mormon."  Let me explain what I meant, realizing my wording was a bit tongue-in-cheek but also meant to be a bit of a "Zen slap" - something that smacks you upside the head and makes you think a little harder about something than you had previously.  

1) The LDS Church teaches that tithing is required to enter the temple, which, in a very real and practical way, can mean that tithing is required for exaltation.

2) The LDS Church teaches that any-freaking-body who ever has lived in the entire history of the planet earth may end up in the Celestial Kingdom and, therefore, be exalted - regardless of whether or not they have paid tithing (or even one penny in religious or charitable donations) in their entire lives.

3) Thus, tithing is taught as necessary ONLY if someone is a member of the LDS Church in this lifetime - and not for those who weren't (and there even is the underlying teaching that each of us will be judged according to how well we live what we understand individually, which provides a HUGE disclaimer even for those who have been baptized into the LDS Church).

There is an inherent conflict / opposition in that construct, if you really think about it. It is a paradoxical teaching - and, therefore, it would be easy to dismiss tithing completely as unnecessary in any cosmic way. I don't do that - for multiple reasons, one of which is that I have received adequate benefit from my own payment of tithes over the years (including the acknowledgment of the covenant relationship in providing for my needs more than once while I was unemployed and needed assistance) - and one more, which is that I have an adequate (for me, personally) intellectual understanding of the need for tithing.

So, what do I make of the conflict between the two polar opposite stances - neither of which I reject / both of which I understand and accept?

I take it to mean that God doesn't require tithing to be exalted - unless someone understands tithing and has committed to pay tithing, in whatever form that person understands. Likewise, God doesn't require chastity to be exalted - unless someone understands chastity and has committed to live a chaste life, in whatever form that person understands. God doesn't require abstinence from theft to be exalted - unless someone understands abstinence from theft and has committed not to steal, in whatever form that person understands. etc, etc, etc.

The LDS Church, however, as an organization, believes in tithing (and chastity and no stealing) and requires those things in order to state that it believes its members will be exalted - even as it does NOT require those things of those who are not members and do not understand them well enough to be accountable to live them.  Likewise, and importantly, it does not require those things of young children or the obviously mentally handicapped - again, since they may not understand them well enough to be accountable to live them.  The key is living up to what I understand. 

Hence, my Reader's Digest answer - which I believe is the fullest, most comprehensive yet concise definition:

No, tithing is not required for exaltation - unless you're an active member of the Church (but even then with theological disclaimers) who understands the reasons for tithing.

The Parable of the Oasis: Faith, Works, Grace, Love, Atonement, etc. Are Not Distinctly Separate Principles

The Parable of the Oasis

There was once a man dying of thirst in the desert. He had sought for water but had not found any. Just as he was about to give up, lie down and perish, someone found him.

“See here,” said his discoverer. “On the other side of this hill is an oasis, where you may revive and refresh yourself!”

“I fear I am too weak,” replied the man. “I have been out in the desert too long. I no longer have enough strength to climb the hill, even to save my life.”

“Then lean on me,” said the other, “and I will bring you over the hill to the fountains of water on the other side.”

Then man pulled himself to his feet, and leaning upon his guide, struggled over the hill to the oasis on the other side. There, he revived himself from the springs of clear water, and his life was saved.

What saved the man?

.
.
.

The words of his benefactor?

Following the counsel to cross to the other side of the hill?

His own effort in struggling to his feet and persevering in crossing the hill?

His continued reliance on the strength of his guide, moment by moment, leaning on him as they crossed the hill?
.
.
.

Or was it actually drinking the water?

Addendum:

Or was it all of the above, rolled into one great, eternal whole?  

We are inclined to separate principles into small pieces, dissecting things that should not be ripped into pieces.  "Grace" / "Atonement" is such a transcendent concept that fracturing it in order to analyze it and describe its component pieces literally can do great damage to the perfection (wholeness, completion, full development) it is.

I believe that if we collectively could grasp that grand principle, so much of that with which we struggle so mightily would fade into oblivion - and (wo)men really would be that they might have joy.

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."

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Meaning and Purpose of Modern Commandments

I just spent over 30 minutes typing the lesson summary for today, and I lost it somehow when I tried to post it.  Thus, I am writing an outline form summary this time. We talked about each component of the outline below, to various degrees.

The Meaning and Purpose of Modern Commandments, including Things We Often Don't Call Commandments

- Started by repeating that there are things I see as commandments and things that I see as rules built on commandments - and that the key is determining if there is a way to follow a commandment or a rule and be in compliance with the two great commandments to love God, self and others. Used the earring example from Pres. Hinckley's talk (where he said explicitly that he was expressing his own opinion) to show how non-commands can morph into being seen as commands by overzealous members. Referenced the Biblical concept of building hedges about the law. 

- Asked students to help me list commandments we hadn't discussed yet. Limited list to a few we could discuss adequately.  Final list was: Tithing; Word of Wisdom; Church Involvement (combined phrase by me from "Attend Church" and "Callings in Church"); Share the Gospel; Prayer.

1) Tithing

Meaning = "a tenth" (Stressed that there is no official calculation method dictated by the Church - that different members pay on gross, net, "increase", weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, annually, whenever they get money, etc.)

Purpose = from a student: Detachment and humility

Purpose = I added "Fund the Church" (Discussed Old Testament model and modern similarities and differences; discussed exactly what tithing funds and what it doesn't.)

2) Word of Wisdom

Meaning = Read verse 2; discussed "temporal salvation" (related to time; worldly; temporary)

Purpose = From verses 3-4, protecting the weakest saints from evil and designs of conspiring men (Described scene with men conspiring to market products to increase and spread addiction, to make more money, even while knowing the terrible effects on the consumers who buy the addictive products - planning early death, in many cases, specifically to make money. Used example of people who handed out chewing tobacco to elementary students at the county fair in Alabama when we lived there. Those are evil designs, created through real conspiracy.)

3) Church Involvement

Meaning = participating in the Church organization (Stressed that participation to whatever degree is possible is the standard, and that this standard is not definable to anyone except the individual participants. Thus, "properly involved" might be participation in every scheduled meeting or it might be someone who can't leave their house but calls or writes letters or knits presents or smiles at everyone they meet. Also discussed, again, my situation in Missouri when we couldn't attend anything but Sunday meetings and Wednesday activities - and my High Council assignments, due to our financial situation.)

Purpose = Broadening circle of friends to love and accept beyond what is natural (Establishing Zion in a real way, like the orchestra described in Elder Wirthlin's "Concern for the One" - valuing all instruments instead of just the piccolos.)

Purpose = Running the Church organization and not making 20% of the membership do 80% of the work.

4) Share the Gospel

Meaning = Teaching faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end. (Discussed the practical and conceptual difference between "sharing the Gospel" and "doing missionary work".)

Purpose = Help people return to God and be like Him.

Purpose = Share what is valuable with others. (Discussed young man in class who will be baptized soon and other young man in class who invited him to come to church and learn about the Gospel and the Church. It was a very touching discussion to have a young man say, sincerely, "I asked him because I care about him," and to have the other young man say, "I am here because I want to be closer to God than I've been in the past.")

Talked about why we don't have more people in our church meetings who are different than we are in obvious ways - about why we tend to share the Gospel with people who are like us and with whom we are comfortable. Asked them to look outside their normal circle of friends when sharing the Gospel.

5) Pray

Meaning = "talking to God" and/or "communicating with God" (Discussed difference and stressed that everyone prays in whatever way they feel they can communicate with God. Shared that I have no problem having a prayer in my heart always - that I try to have and open heart and mind, to send thoughts and feelings heavenward whenever I have them - but that I struggle with formal, kneeling, spoken prayer. I understand the value of both, but the fact that I am praying continually makes it hard for me to break from that to verbalize formal prayers individually.)

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Purpose and Meaning of the Ten Commandments

We continued the discussion from last week (the meaning and purpose of commandments and what they teach us about God) by focusing on the Ten Commandments. The only one we didn't discuss this week was honoring parents, since we talked so much about it last week.

In each case, we talked about how the commandments can be read, based strictly on the words themselves, and, in some cases, discussed why we have to look at the overall concepts being taught (the purpose) to understand the meaning in a way that makes sense to us.

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

We talked about the cultural context of that statement - that the Israelites were part of a world that believed in competing gods, much like the gods about whom we read in ancient Greek mythology. This command originally wasn't about "competing interests" (like money, fame, jobs, etc.), as many people talk about now; it was about not leaving the "LORD thy God" - their deliverer - to start worshiping a different god. I told the students that I think it can be a good discussion to talk about other things that get in the way of our worship in this day and age, but I stressed that this command was direct, explicit and obvious in its time.

We talked about other religions and "their gods" - and how important it is to understand those other religions enough not to say they are breaking this commandment if they really aren't. First, it was given to a particular people who had accepted and followed "the LORD their God", not to all the world. Second, Muslims and Jews clearly worship the same God we do, even if they do so differently than we do and use different names. Buddhists worship a different god, but I told them that I still identify with Buddhism's teachings more than most of Protestant theology - so we shouldn't use this commandment to dismiss other religious teachings automatically.

2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

If verse 4 is read literally and comprehensively, we would not be able to make any images of the sun, stars and moon - or trees, mountains and animals - or fish, corral or ocean animals. The key is found in verse 5, where it says, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." It's not making images that is the problem; it's what we do with them - how we use them - if we substitute them for God in our worship - if we can't worship without them - if they "become God" in a real way for us.

I asked the students about crosses and the rosary - if these things were graven images that should not be used. It was interesting to see them think about it, and one student finally said, "It depends on how they are used." We talked about the difference between them helping people remember God and their covenants and people not being able to pray to and worship God without them - that we could say the same thing about the Priesthood garment I wear or a CTR ring. Any of these things can be a symbolic reminder, or it can be an object of worship - and, if the second, it constitutes a graven image.

We talked about verse 6 and the statement that God is a jealous god who will visit the iniquities of people to the third or fourth generation. We read the footnote definition for "jealous" (possessing sensitive and deep feelings) and the natural effects of people's beliefs often being passed on for at least three or four generations - that it's not God saying, "I'm jealous, so I'm going to punish your grandchildren and great-grandchildren for what you do", but rather that actions have consequences that naturally last that long. We also read verse 7 where it says that God will be merciful to all who love him and keep his commandments, meaning the generational effects can be changed and avoided.

3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

First we talked about the Jewish prohibition of speaking the proper name of God, but that the actual wording doesn't teach that - since it includes the qualifier "in vain". We talked about what "vain" means: senseless or foolish; without real significance or worthless; ineffectual or futile; arrogant or without authority; etc. We discussed how each of these definitions can apply to using the name of God: using the name as nothing more than an exclamation, using it in a vow ("swearing" in the Biblical sense of that word), saying "God damn you" (multiple definitions apply to that one), etc. We talked about the purpose of the command being, at the core, humility and proper reverence.

4) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

We talked about why this is a commandment, focusing on verse 11 - which says that we are to keep it sacred as a day of rest, because God set it aside for rest after he completed the six stages of creating the earth. This means that God said, "I rested, and I command you to do the same thing." We talked about the practical need for rest (using the athletes in the class as an example they all would understand) and the need to clear our minds of earthly things in order to contemplate heavenly things.

One of the speaker in Sacrament Meeting did a great job talking about this one, so we didn't talk more about it.

5) Honour thy father and thy mother.

We talked about this last week, in detail, so we skipped it today.

6) Thou shalt not kill.

The same speaker in Sacrament Meeting (an active soldier in the army) talked about this one, as well, so we focused exclusively on understanding the original meaning. We looked at the footnote that gives the actual Hebrew word - "murder". I asked the students for reasons why that is an important difference to understand, and they came up with the following:

a) People can claim it's wrong to kill animals. (We talked about that justification for vegetarianism, and I told them that I can respect that stance, even if I don't read such a prohibition in the command itself.)

b) The people obviously didn't see the command at that time as all inclusive, since they were engaged in multiple wars to gain a new homeland.

c) A comprehensive prohibition would mean nobody could kill in self-defense or to protect someone else - or, for example, to stop someone from torturing someone else, no matter how gruesome.

7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

We talked quite a bit about this one last week, as well, so we talked only about why the core command was focused on adultery and not fornication of all kinds. We talked about the personal and social effects of adultery, and I shared a couple of my experiences working in communities where the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 90% or higher.

8) Thou shalt not steal.

This also was addressed in Sacrament Meeting, with a great example of using the office copy machine to make copies of an invitation to a personal party, so we just listed a few more examples of stealing that are so commonplace most people don't see them as theft.

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

I asked them what they normally hear this command shortened to say - how they think it would be explained to a five-year-old. They immediately said, "Don't lie." I then told them that is NOT what the commandment actually says - and that the difference is important.

We talked about what a "witness" is - an official testimony given in court. It is a statement describing what someone has seen. Thus, a "false witness" would be giving an incorrect description of something seen OR not giving a description of what was seen - actively giving a false witness or refusing to give a true witness. We talked about how they feel when they hear things that people say about them that are not correct - or how they feel when they know someone knows the truth but won't protect them by telling it.

We then refocused on the phrase "against they neighbor" - with the emphasis on "against". Bearing false witness means hurting someone in a real way, knowing that what is being said or not said is not true. This is why gossip actually is a FAR worse sin than lots of other things we tend to consider to be worse - because it very often is a case of bearing false witness, either by passing along something that is not true about someone else or by presenting it in such a way that people think it is a personal witness when, in reality, it only is a repeat of what someone else said - which that person might not have seen personally. It serves almost always as a "witness against thy neighbor" - and, lacking sure knowledge, it generally is "false" in some way.

(On a personal note, not shared in the lesson: This is why I try really hard not to make authoritative, declarative statements about people, currently living or dead, if I am not absolutely sure about what I am saying. Gossip isn't only about the living. I tend to use more qualifiers and disclaimers than most people, specifically because I don't want to "bear false witness" - especially when I have no personal witness to bear.)

I finished by pointing out that this command says nothing about lying to protect someone - like telling a Nazi that there are no Jews hiding in your house when there are Jews hiding there - or lying to a rapist about where your wife or daughter is - or any other instance where not telling the truth is not a "witness against" someone.

I told them that I do not advocate lying about very many things, but I understand the commandment itself isn't about all forms of lying; rather, it is focused on one particular kind of lie - the kind that hurts others, particularly in a formal, legal situation.

10) Thou shalt not covet.

We were out of time, so we hit the initial reaction regarding definition ("wanting something someone else has"), and I pointed out that it can't be that all-encompassing, since we are commanded to want some things others have if we don't have them. I told them the best definition of "covet" I have heard is "wanting something so badly that you are willing to take it from the person who has it" - not to gain it ALSO, but to have it ONLY - not to share something with, but to take something away.

Sunday School Lesson Re-Cap: The Purpose and Meaning of Commandments

This month, the focus is on commandments. I decided to model my approach on what I did when we covered ordinances and covenants - focusing on the meaning and purpose of commandments, generally, as the foundation of understanding what commandments can teach us about God, and then dissecting specific commandments to see how they fit into the overall framework of what commandments can teach us about God.

We began by looking in the Bible Dictionary and seeing that "command" and "commandment" are not defined there. I told the students that I think there are some things that are assumed to be so simple and obvious that we tend to think they don't need to be defined in a place like the Bible Dictionary but that I disagree - strongly. I believe commandments are a complex subject, worthy of an entire month of study. We did read the entry for the Ten Commandments, since they are the foundational commandments of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

We then defined "commandment". We got "rule" - which then was amended to "God's rule" - which then was changed to "a rule that is so important that it has to be followed or dire consequences occur". I asked where else the word "command" is used, and we talked about the military application. I pointed out that we now allow soldiers to not obey a direct order if that order is particularly egregious but that soldiers used to be discharged, jailed or even killed automatically for not following a direct command. We talked about how commandments and punishments have changed over time - how we no longer accept some things that used to be seen as commandments and no longer punish people the same way for not obeying commandments. We used honoring parents, adultery and polygamy as specific examples, and we talked about what we can learn about God from the fact that commandments have changed throughout history.

The students suggested the following things:

1) God gives us commandments that are best for our own circumstances - that the world changes and, therefore, some things about how we need to live change, as well. We talked about what it means to believe in continuing revelation and how we can't get stuck following outdated rules simply because people used to accept them as commandments.

2) God gives broad commandments, and we are the ones who make the smaller rules that we accept as commandments.

We used the second reason as a springboard to discuss the old Mosaic Law - to understand how ten original commandments ended up being over 600 specific rules. I told them that we would talk about that in more detail as we discussed specific commandments this month.

I asked them if we can rank commandments in order of importance. They all agreed that we can, so I asked how we might do that properly. They came up with the following, which we discussed - after my disclaimer that we can't let ranking sins allow us to think that it's okay to commit "lesser" sins simply because we aren't committing "greater" sins.

1) By severity of consequence to others: Thus, as a rule, killing is worse than stealing.

2) By severity of consequence to ourselves: Thus, adultery is worse than not keeping the Sabbath holy.

3) By personal temptation: Thus, lying can be "worse" than killing, if someone is not inclined at all to kill but is inclined to lie.

With that foundation, we read Matthew 22:35-40:

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I asked them what "tempting him" meant in that context, and they understood it meant it was a test - a way for the man to start an argument and discredit Jesus.

We talked about what it means to love others as ourselves: not doing anything to someone else that we wouldn't want done to us; doing things for others that we would want others to do for us; sacrificing what we want to make sure others have what they need; etc.

I then asked them what it means to have all the law and the prophets "hang" on the first two, great commandments.

They understood the concept quite well, and we settled on the analogy of multiple articles of clothing hanging on a rack. Remove the rack, and the clothing falls to the floor - lying there gathering dirt and dust. The thing that is the "hanger" provides support so what hangs can be used properly - so it can be effective and proper. Also, from one of the students, without the support of the hanger, we could have all the clothing in the world but it wouldn't help us - since we wouldn't want to wear clothing that had been lying on the floor getting dusty and dirty. We talked about how we can "keep every commandment" without it changing us in any way if we don't keep the two great commandments upon which all the others hang - that, if we obey without love, we are following the Mosaic Law and not the Law of Christ. Conversely, if we really love God, others and ourselves, we will keep the commandments naturally - especially if we understand how each commandment can be grounded in love.

With that in mind, we turned to the list of commandments we had written on the board and talked about each one of them in the context of how they can be related to loving God, others and ourselves. One of the students had mentioned earlier that a Seminary teacher had said that each negative command ("Thou shalt not") could be rephrased in a positive manner ("Thou shalt"), so we used that concept in analyzing each command we discussed.

Honor they parents: How do we do that within the context of love?

We honor righteous, caring parents by showing our love for them - accepting their right to lead us and set rules, becoming who they want us to become, etc. I explained the Protestant idea that honoring God generally is framed in terms of praise - but I pointed out that, given the choice of either extreme, I would MUCH rather have my children become whom I want them to become than to hear them praise me every day. Praising God is important, but it's more important to "honor" God by becoming what he has asked us to become.

I told them that they all have wonderful parents, but I asked them how someone with lousy parents can honor them. What about a girl who grows up with a father who beats and sexually molests her? How can she honor him? We talked about how breaking the cycle and becoming someone different brings honor to the family name - how that person can live in such a way that others who used to curse or belittle the family name can praise it, instead.

Thou shalt not kill: How do we reframe that in the context of love?

We can love others so much that we treat them the way we would want to be treated - and, out of that love, not kill them. I mentioned the acceptable exceptions, like self-defense, protection of others being threatened, justifiable wartime actions, etc - but, even then, we can do everything possible to avoid such an extreme action.

Thou shalt not commit adultery: How do we view that in the context of love?

We can love our spouse so much that we would not hurt him or her by breaking our marriage covenant. We can love the other person and their spouse so much that we would not hurt them by contributing to their marriage covenant being broken.

We ran out of time, so we will pick up the discussion next week and continue to talk about other commandments (and rules), their meaning and purpose, and how they can help us understand God.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: "Following the Counsel Given by Priesthood Leaders"

Last Sunday, the lesson title was:

"Why is it important to follow the counsel given by priesthood leaders?"

I wrote that title on the board and then wrote the following on the leftt side of the board, under the title:

1) Follow vs. Obey
2) Counsel vs. Command
3) Sustain & Support
4) Group vs. Individual

I asked everyone for the first thing that came into their minds when I read the lesson title - whether that was an answer to the question or any other thought or comment. The responses were all answers to the title question, and I was impressed by how thoughtful and, in a couple of cases, nuanced they were. Among the responses were:

"Because they are older than we are and have years of experience."
"Because they are good people who only want the best for us."
"Because there has to be order in the Church, not chaos."
"Because they usually try to know what God wants and share it with us."
"Because they care about us, and what they say usually is good."

I agreed with all of those reasons, and I asked them how they would react if I changed the title to the following:

"Why is it important to obey the commands given by priesthood leaders?"

All of them immediately got the difference and expressed concern over that wording, so we moved into a discussion of the numbered list above. I won't got through all of it here, but it was a very good conversation that lasted about 15 minutes. (It helped that we had covered revelation and Priesthood & priesthood extensively over the past couple of months.)

We then read and discussed the following scriptures, which all were in the official lesson outline:

1) Ephesians 4:11-14 - We talked about some of the "purposes" for the offices listed (most of them) were institutional, while a few ("perfecting of the saints", "coming to a knowledge of the son of God") relate to personal growth - just as the reasons they had given at the beginning of the class were split between institutional and personal reasons. We talked about why it's important to distinguish between those purposes when determining whether or not to "follow the counsel given by priesthood leaders" - and I mentioned again the example I used of a High Priests Group Leader and spheres of revelation and stewardship in the lesson about Priesthood vs. priesthood.

2) D&C 1:38 - I asked them what the standard, easy interpretation of that verse might be. They agreed among themselves that it seems to say that church leaders speak for God. I told them that I was about to share my personal opinion, as I always do when that happens, and I told them that this verse is a perfect example of why I read scriptures very carefully, word-by-word, to see what meaning seems most likely and "true" to me.

We went phrase by phrase:

"What I, the Lord, have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;"

This means that the Lord doesn't rescind anything he has said - that he doesn't "make excuses" for things he's said in order to get out of responsibility for saying it. In other words, "I stand by whatever I've said."

"and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my words shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled,"

This means that everything God has said will happen, even if it is after this earth is gone.

"whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

I asked them if they believe that everything a church leader says, even apostles and prophets, is the pure word of God. They all said no. We talked about things that have been taught in the past that we no longer teach or believe - like Paul's statements about women being silent in church and Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory. (They hadn't heard about that, so I gave them a very short, very simple summary.) I asked them if that makes Paul and Brigham disqualified as prophets, and they all said that it doesn't. I asked them if that was the case, what D&C 1:38 could mean.

That stumped them, so I broke down the last phrase and showed them that God's voice is singular - and so is the "voice" of (plural) servants. I told them that I read that verse to say that when something has been taught throughout our history by all of our prophets and apostles (when their "voice" is united), with no variation or disagreement, it's a very good bet that it is "what the Lord hath spoken". I told them that the list of those things is relatively small, like: there is a God, we are his children, love is important, Jesus is the Christ and our Savior and Redeemer, we need to repent, etc.

3) D&C 21:4-5 - We did the same reading exercise, and the students immediately recognized the importance of "as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me". We talked about those disclaimers, and I used the example, which I emphasized happens very, very rarely but does happen, of a Bishop whom they know is having an affair. That type of egregious sin invalidates the charge to "give heed to ALL his words" - even though we still ought to consider those words and give heed to those we can accept as coming from God while he serves in that office.

4) D&C 124:45-46 - They saw that the wording in this passage is phrased exactly like D&C 1:38 - with "voice" being singular.

I told them that we will be reading Elder Oaks' "Two Lines of Communication" and focusing again, like when we talked about institutional and personal revelation last month, on the need to balance both "lines of communication" Elder Oaks describes in that talk. I told them that 90+% of my time in the Church, I have been able to "follow the counsel given by priesthood leaders" - but that there have been quite a few times when I felt I had to speak up and express my disagreement with something or propose a different course. Whenever I felt that the final decision was not so damaging as to violate my core conscience, I have accepted that decision - especially when the decision was focused on the institution, not individuals. Whenever I felt the decision simply was something I couldn't do or support in good conscience, I said so and refused to "preach it", even if I still sustained and supported the leader whose decision it was. I also told them about the time I quit a job, with four kids and no job lined up, because I was asked to do something I couldn't do in good conscience.

I told them that I believe each of them, at least once in their life, will be in a situation where they have to make that type of decision, even if it might not be that extreme - and that I hope they are able to follow their own conscience in that situation.

Why I Generally Don't Use the Phrase "Breaking the Sabbath"

I understand the traditional phrase "breaking the Sabbath", and I believe in keeping the Sabbath Day holy, but I try not to use the phrase "breaking the Sabbath". I just don't think the Sabbath gets "broken" when someone doesn't "keep it holy". I think we can end up breaking ourselves if we don't set aside time for rest, relaxation, sacred activities, etc. - but the phrase "breaking the Sabbath" simply doesn't resonate with me. As in most things, I try to find wording that makes sense to me, so I don't use this one unless I'm not thinking and fall back into traditional culture-speak.

When I explained this to a friend of mine a few years ago, he responded with the following:
 

Most of the "commandments," beliefs and practices we have work really great in the positive.


-Keep the Sabbath Day holy, and you will find benefit in it.

-Obey the guidance of God, and you will see Him again someday.

-Families can be forever.

-Following the Gospel will make you a better person

Most of these same things break down quickly with problems when you use them in the negative.

-Break the Sabbath Day and you will be punished.

-You won't ever see God again if you don't obey.

-You will be separated from your family and never see them again if you are not married in the temple, one chance and it's over.

-People who don't follow the Gospel are unhappy and are bad people.

So ...

"Keep a Sabbath and make it Holy. It will bring you benefits."

is much better than: 

"Don't dare break the Sabbath!!"

Should We Obey "Commandments" Even If We Don't Believe They Come from God?

I believe commandments are and always have been mortal attempts to explain how those mortals feel it is best to act toward each other and God. Some are established by those accepted as prophets; others are built up over time.  At one extreme, commandments included human sacrifice; at the other extreme, commandments are denied completely. In the middle, where I and the majority of people live, commandments are our best ideas about how we should act and show our devotion to God.

I really like the core principles underlying most of the "commandments" we have in the LDS Church. I don't like a lot of the hedges we've built around some those principles, and I don't like a lot of the practical extrapolations we've created - so I don't focus much on them, even as I live many of them simply for the sake of a community I love.

In the end, for me, it all boils down to the commandments on which all others hang. If a rule helps me feel closer to God and my fellow mortals (if it helps me love God, myself and others), I "obey" it without question or hesitation. If it actually makes me feel further from God and my fellow mortals (if it doesn't help me love God, myself and others), I don't.

The stuff I mentioned in the second paragraph constitutes a third category - those "commandments" that neither draw me closer to God nor pull me further from God. Those are the ones I see as "rules" or "general guidelines" or "counsel" - rather than divine commandments. Those are the ones about which I simply don't care - and many of those are the ones I follow simply for the sake of the community. I don't do so "just to make others happy" - but I don't fight them when I know others won't understand and my fighting them will make people unhappy or cause them pain, much like Paul's admonition in the Bible to avoid eating meat in front of those who abstain from meat.

I don't need to have everything I would want in an ideal world, and I don't need to have everything I would want if I lived alone. I'm fine with making concessions in areas that I think are inconsequential - and the more confident I am in my own beliefs and charitable I become in my view of others, the more things become truly inconsequential to me.

I obey lots of rules that others consider to be commandments simply because I don't care enough to make waves and cause difficulties. Why fight the insignificant?

A Priesthood leader asks me to wear a white shirt every Sunday due to my calling? Fine; I couldn't care less, so it's not worth fighting. I wear the white shirt. 

Tea is prohibited in the Word of Wisdom - in the area where I live? Fine; I couldn't care less, so it's not worth fighting. I don't drink tea. 

A prophet asks women to wear only one pair of earrings? Fine; I couldn't care less, so it's not worth fighting. I support my wife and daughters in wearing one pair of earrings.

I'm not saying everyone needs to see the things I've listed above the way I see them, and I understand totally if some people place more importance on them than I do and, therefore, don't act as I do with regard to them.  I'm not concerned nearly as much about the specifics as I am about the principle, which I summarize as follows:

Life's too short and precious to waste time fighting about the inconsequential. I love people too much to cause them to suffer over what is important to them but not important to me. I couldn't care less, so I don't fight.

Commandments and Constraints within the Church and the Gospel: Sexual Activities as an Example

I believe we should strive to keep every commandment we believe is "valid" - every commandment that we feel can be attributed to God / inspiration / revelation. I just think we have to be VERY careful never to equate that with every commandment we like naturally. Without commandments that require we do what we don't want to do naturally, we would experience no growth and change. To me, the concept of an Atonement / grace that bridges the gap between what we want to do / become and what we actually are able to do / become is the key - as long as it doesn't rob us of the motivation to change. In many ways, commandments and constraints are what we make of them - but I don't believe in constraints just for the sake of constraint. I also don't believe everything that many people frame as commands actually originated from God as universal command - and that's an incredibly important principle for me. 

A good example of this is sexual activity. It is powerful - both sublime and terrible - binding and destructive. It is what we make of it. 

I have no problem with some general constraints on such activity within the Church and the Gospel (no problem with the principle of a Law of Chastity), particularly in our current society that leans toward no restrictions and, as a result, is full of really, really, really, really messed up people and destroyed relationships. On the other hand, I am saddened by the general insistence on treating discussions of sexual activity as taboo - on promulgating a prudish, Victorian attitude that is nearly as destructive as promiscuity. I also am discouraged by our general insistence on simplifying such a complicated, far-reaching issue into a binary, black-and-white view that misses so often the complexity of the scientific reality.  Human sexuality is something we still understand only partially, and, while I believe our theology has the power to encompass so much that we still don't understand fully, I believe we haven't touched the surface of that power in many cases relative to this topic. 

At the most basic level, I think we simply have to remember that we are not a collection of homogenous individuals - that the best standards for communities and societies are not the same as the best standards for some individuals (especially those who are "different" in some way) - that communal standards tend to center around acceptable minimums for the majority (and often radically misunderstand multiple minorities) - that what is not destructive for some persons often is destructive for other persons and/or the collective people as a whole. It cuts both ways, and, unfortunately, it's really hard to implement commands and constraints throughout societies that don't end up cutting portions of those societies in real, painful, "unfair" ways.  It's important to remember that, even in cases where it doesn't change anything in practical terms.

People are complicated, and we do each other a grave disservice, in my opinion, whenever we try to categorize everyone in a strict binary system where only two options exist - or, in many cases, only one. We must have communal constraints, but we also must have the ability in most situations to accept individual exceptions to those constraints. After all, we as Mormons have a long history of wanting others to allow us to be a peculiar people; we can't expect that, however, if we don't allow all (wo)men everywhere the same privilege - if we end up exercising unrighteous dominion in our zeal to promote the commands and constraints we accept for ourselves. 

"Sustain and Support" vs. "Obey"

If I am convinced God does not want me to do something, especially if I have received a personal answer of some kind, I won’t do it – no matter what mortal tells me to do it. I still will “sustain and support” my church leaders in their callings, even if I can’t do exactly what I’m asked or counseled to do, but that wording does not say “obey regardless”.

D&C 121 is crystal clear about demanding obedience simply because of one’s position of authority, “as they suppose” – and I’ve never believed we will be blessed for knowingly doing wrong. I just can’t accept that we will be blessed for sinning, and since “sin” generally is defined partially as “knowing right and doing wrong” – I don’t buy the argument that we should obey any leader unquestioningly if they tell us to do something we believe to be wrong.

Having said that, I’ve thought and prayed about counsel I’ve been given with which I disagreed, and I’ve changed my mind as a result more than once. I also have accepted and followed counsel I believed to be poor counsel but not morally wrong in many instances when I have offered my own counsel and the leader reached a different conclusion. That’s just life in a community / organization of any kind.

I don’t believe in reflexive dismissal, and I agree totally with Elder Oaks’ characterization in his talk during General Conference last year in which he said that reflexive disregard for commandments and counsel due to a feeling that one is an exception to rules does not originate from God. At the very least, I would say such disregard is born of pride.

When Current Counsel Contradicts Former Counsel

I believe that members who ignore current counsel by holding tightly to former counsel actually perpetuate incorrect ideas and reject current leaders. For example, the Church used to teach its members to date only other members, but the official, current dating standards in For the Strength of Youth don't include it. I see teaching the former standard now as ignoring current counsel by holding onto past counsel.

In theory, it's no different to me than someone today ignoring recent statements by Pres. Hinckley and Elder Oaks about racism and continuing to embrace the justifications that were used by Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie (that Elder McConkie repudiated shortly after the ban was lifted and Pres. Hinckley condemned in no uncertain terms for us now). Again, if the Church changes it's counsel in some matter, valuing prophetic counsel includes letting go of former counsel - like the former prohibition on dating non-members.

I believe wholeheartedly that following prophetic counsel is important, but I also believe in the absolute necessity for individual inspiration and adaptation. The fact that I allow for individual exceptions based on a belief in direct intervention of the Holy Ghost doesn't diminish how I view prophetic counsel. In every case where I feel I have not been given direct and explicit counsel otherwise, I have tried to follow prophetic counsel with exactness, specifically because I value it so highly. Rather, it simply means that I believe following what I feel to be God's direct counsel to me as an individual is of utmost importance, even in those RARE circumstances when it conflicts with prophetic counsel to all. I see that principle taught in so many places throughout all of our canon that it appears to be crystal clear to me.

Abraham sacrificing Issac; Nephi killing Laban; Captain Moroni threatening to overthrow the government; Joseph Smith instituting polygamy; so many more - It's easy to discount these examples, since they are prophets acting out exceptions, but the fact remains that they were told by the Spirit to do things that went against the general counsel of their day - and their exceptions were MUCH more severe than anything I have felt inspired to do. In each case, they "ignored" the prophetic counsel that governed their day and acted as they felt compelled to do by a member of the Godhead. They valued that individual counsel so much that they acted against general counsel they also valued greatly.

This is bedrock Gospel to me, since I believe we will be judged individually on how well we learned to understand and do the will of God for us as individuals - NOT just by how well we marched in lock-step to general command in comparison to those around us. I view the highest manifestation of our commitment to the Gospel as being what we are willing to do to ascertain His will for us individually - to discover what work and mission he has for us personally and fulfilling it individually. In my opinion, "To obey (what God tells us personally to do no matter the cost or difficulty to understand) is better than to sacrifice (our agency by doing nothing more than what is given to everyone as general counsel)." Joseph Smith would not have been the Prophet of this Dispensation - and I would not be the unique son of God that I am - extended to each and every child of God - if he did not listen for and hear the word of God to him and us - if all of us ignored personal revelation, even when it contradicted general counsel, and lived essentially the exact same life.

Perhaps there are those who can fill the measure of their creation within the general counsel - who are called to follow the general counsel without exception. I am fine with that idea, and I don't think that makes them any less "worthy" than others who perhaps are prompted to do something that is an exception. I'm not saying such a person is "better" in any way than anyone else - not at all, in any way, shape or form. I'm really saying there is no "better than someone else" - as long as each is doing what she feels she is being commanded and counseled to do within the general framework of obedience to counsel and command.