We Are More than Just Children of a King

A friend of mine said the following today, in reference to common statements about being children of a King: 

When the Israelites in the meridian of time looked for the Messiah they looked for him to come in glory with conquering armies. He came instead as the child of a carpenter born in the most humble of circumstances.  

Are we not children of the Good Shepherd? Are we not children of the Master Healer? Are we not children of the patient teacher? Are we not the children of the "Servant of all"? 

May we follow in those footsteps as well.

Amen - and amen.

Jesus as Advocate and Judge - and We as Advocates Only

We had a wonderful lesson in our High Priests Group, and I want to share one particular insight I had near the end of the lesson:

We talk about Jesus as the Judge, but I like another title better: Advocate with the Father. I like the framing of Jesus representing us at the judgment seat of the Father - being our advocate (defender) for mercy, with the Father being the actual Judge. I like it conceptually, but I also like the practical application that hit me on Sunday.

When we take his name upon us, we are NOT assuming his post-mortal responsibilities, including that of Judge. In fact, we are told explicitly not to judge (with a result that we won't be judged ourselves). Rather, we are accepting a place in his mortal ministry. We are doing for others what he did for them during his life and through his death. We are promising to recognize their inherent value as children of God and advocate for them. We can't do that unless we refrain from judging them, strive to understand them, and look for justifications to defend them.

In our current system, the ONLY conflict is for Bishops, since they are called Judges in Israel. However, even they can start with their responsibility to be Advocates, and then, and only then, move on to acting as Judges. This approach, if understood and followed, would result in judges and judgments that are as merciful, gracious, and loving as possible - based on understanding WHY people did what they did and not just WHAT they did. If this was our default orientation (being an advocate/defender), much of the problem we have with overzealous, Pharisaical, strict exactness and our sometimes exclusive obsession with worthiness would disappear.

I still am working out my full thoughts on this epiphany, but I wanted to share the initial impression with all of you here.

God Loves His Children Even as They Toddle, Falter, and Fall

We have all seen a toddler learn to walk. He takes a small step and totters. He falls. Do we scold such an attempt? Of course not…

Compared to the perfection of God, we mortals are scarcely more than awkward, faltering toddlers. But our loving Heavenly Father wants us to become more like Him… 

I do not believe in a God who would set up rules and commandments only to wait for us to fail so He could punish us. I believe in a Heavenly Father who is loving and caring and who rejoices in our every effort to stand tall and walk toward Him. Even when we stumble, He urges us not to be discouraged—never to give up or flee our allotted field of service - but to take courage, find our faith, and keep trying. 

Pres. Uchtdorf, "Four Titles", April 2013 General Conference

Does God Really Direct Us Down "Wrong Roads" Sometimes?

Elder Holland gave a talk in General Conference a couple of years ago about what he learned when he and his father took a wrong road on the way home late one night. It generated a lot of discussion online about whether or not God really would direct us down wrong roads in our lives. 

My own take is that God allows us to walk "wrong roads" as part and parcel of mortality and our limited understanding (that he doesn't always stop us from walking the ones we are prone to walk), but I personally don't believe he proactively places us on or guides us to roads that truly are wrong for us. Thus, I don't believe he gives us incorrect answers to our prayers. I might be wrong, but that's how I see it. It just fits my own belief in the nature of God better.

Having said that, it makes perfect sense for someone who sees God as more of an interventionist God than I do - and it can be the only thing that would make sense for some people who thought they received answers to prayers that they followed into situations that caused pain and felt wrong to them. I also am completely open to the idea that God will do that for some people who need to learn from mistakes but won't choose them on their own - those, for example, who mare more inclined to put their head down and live a Law of Moses life, letting others tell them exactly what to so. I can see God directing them off that path in order to get them to the right one, even if that means they walk a hard road to get there.

However, I do believe that God opens doors to us at times and arranges opportunities that we can take or not take. That's how I see my own life, since I can't deny the incredible ways that the path of my life appears to be "directed" in various ways. There have been a couple of moments/periods in my life that I only understand in hindsight as what was necessary to get me to the next place my family needed to be, so, in that sense, I can understand the idea of being on a "wrong path" to get to the "right path" - even though I wouldn't phrase it that way.

I recently have come to phrase those experiences as being on the right track but the wrong train - or, perhaps more accurately, being on the only train at that particular time that would take me to the point on the track where I could catch the next "right train" for that particular time - usually with the core purpose being someone in my family or a personal connection, rather than a professional reason. In that light, I can see my life as a serious of trains connecting me to multiple tracks that made our overall destinations possible to reach - but I had to disembark from each train and climb on a new one each time to get where my family needed to be at each juncture in our life.

Knowing a God Whose Ways Are Not Our Ways

I have thought periodically about the tension between the idea that life eternal is to know God and the statement that God's ways are not our ways - as well as the complete and obvious lack of objectivity when it comes to human perceptions and conceptions of the divine.

I have been asked, in one way or another, about how I view God given this paradox, and I have struggled to answer that question concisely - as everyone who knows me will understand.

The following is my attempt to explain how I view God, given my recognition of the competing statements within our canonized scriptures:

I have solved the central dilemma for myself simply by acknowledging that I don't really know God objectively and avoiding any kind of dogmatic definition in the first place. Thus, I am free to take whatever I like from any and all views - even if that means I have conflicting, paradoxical "definitions" operating simultaneously.

It's really liberating to be able to say,

"I love the concept of God being my Father, but I also can see great value in Voltaire's absentee clockmaker God - and that God condescended to become human to know us at the most basic, intimate level - and that God is a condition that allows all of us to be gods - and that god is collective unity - and that God is the spiritual unifying essence of the universe - and that God is a conceptual ideal for which we can strive - etc."

I really don't have "a definition" - or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I accept and embrace an unrestrained definition that allows for alteration through addition as I encounter new views from which I can take something that resonates with me. I tend to reject the either/or constructs and accept instead a both/and framework.

For what it's worth, that is my basic approach to pretty much everything that I can't prove conclusively. It eliminates a lot of angst and adds wonderful surprises to my life.

When God Is Our Only Physician

I know a man who is from South America. He and most of the people he knew growing up were truly, objectively poor.

I was amazed once when he told me about all of the healing blessings in which he had participated throughout his life. A few were jaw-dropping in their nature and result, but many were for conditions that are commonplace to us - things for which we wouldn't think of asking for a blessing. Initially, I was a bit bemused and almost dismissive of how "commonly" they relied on blessings, and I asked him why it was so commonplace and not more special.

His response humbled me, but it also opened my eyes to my own assumptions and what I take for granted. He said:

"You can take some aspirin or go to a doctor and get a prescription. Your health insurance makes it cost next to nothing. We didn't have that option. God was our only physician, so we went to him."

I will never stop using the resources I have available to me, but I also will not ridicule or even question people who go / went to God in their lack of things I take for granted. I hope I can take advantage of ALL of my resources, and I hope that never stops including God - even if that varies in degree from others on either side of the spectrum from me. 

I also think there is a powerful message in this story about those things which medication (and even faith) cannot heal. Sometimes, even in abundance, God might be our only physician.

Letting Go of "Should"

At some point, you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening. - Anonymous 

I love this, because you can live fully in what is happening and still work to change what you can, where you can. In Buddhist terms, it is called being fully present - not wallowing in the past and not obsessing about the future. One can be aware of both past and future, and use that awareness to guide the present, but, in the end, now is all that is real and true for each individual.

I love the concepts I learned in my youth that all is present unto God and that time is measured only unto mankind. A huge part of my peace has come through allowing myself to live in what is happening, not in the future or the past.

A Beautiful Article That Explains Why I Reject the Prosperity Gospel re: Individuals

"Death, the Prosperity Gospel and Me"  (Kate Bowler, The New York Times)

Using the Book of Mormon: Personal Soapbox Alert

Last Monday, I wrote a post about how we often misunderstand the Book of Mormon.  This post is a follow-up of that one.  

I have no problem with the statement that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. I just accept that characterization for a different reason than most people.   

When it was used as the keystone ("Here is Moroni's promise. Read this book from cover to cover with that promise in mind. Follow that promise. THEN, when you've done that, we'll start teaching doctrine."), missionary work flourished the most. When we started using it as a doctrinal proof-text and started focusing on teaching doctrine over converting spiritual experiences, missionary work flourished the least.

I know people who were converted to Mormonism through the Bible, and nearly every unique aspect of Mormon theology is grounded more in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon (which far too few members realize), but I know so many people whose subsequent reading of the Bible was influenced by what they read in the Book of Mormon - who "gained a testimony" of the Book of Mormon then had totally new insights as they read the Bible. After all, the Book of Mormon says in at least two places that it's primary intent is to convince people to believe the Bible - and, in my opinion, that means believing what the Bible actually teaches, not what centuries of theologians and religionists have said it teaches.

I believe the Book of Mormon does what it was intended to do very well, when used as it says it should be used - not for every single person, since nothing works for everyone, but generally. I think we as a people might understand that better if we actually used it "correctly" as a "correcting tool" - again, not with regard to doctrine but rather with regard to "spiritual orientation" or the opening of "spiritual eyes" to possibilities that have been hidden by centuries of denial.

To say it in a slightly different way:

In more than once passage, the Book of Mormon itself says that, ultimately, the Bible is more important than the Book of Mormon. I believe that message is loud and clear in the Book of Mormon - but it doesn't contradict the idea that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. The Book of Mormon can be the keystone while allowing the Bible to be the most important theological treatise (the record "held up" by the Book of Mormon) - which is how I would classify the two if I was trying to be concise. In other words, the Book of Mormon says as much about the worth of the Bible as it does about the role of Joseph Smith - although it does address that role, obviously.

The core intent of the Book of Mormon is to teach and testify of Jesus, the Christ. I don't think there is any reasonable dispute about that. However, I believe that this goal is accomplished differently than too many members realize.

The structure of the Book of Mormon (especially Moroni 10:3-5) is laid out in such a way that people who read it will believe that God can and will speak to them (let them know the truth of all things) - and that such a recognition will allow them then to read the Bible and understand and believe what it really says (primarily about God, their relationship to God and what the "power of godliness" really entails). In other words, the Book of Mormon allows people to read the Bible with "new spiritual eyes" through which the "mists of darkness" caused by centuries of Christian apologetics can be overcome and people can understand who they really are.

To say it differently, much of the grand theology of the Bible has crashed and burned since the Bible was written and canonized (and even before then). The "keystone" allows that theology to be rebuilt firmly; it "holds it together" not because of the words themselves contained in it but because of the process generated by the concept it teaches of a Father God who actually will communicate with his children and, subsequently, when re-reading the Bible, teach them of their "divine worth".

A core failure of our current approach at the local membership level, in my opinion, is both a lack of understanding of the Book of Mormon's role in that process (and what the Book of Mormon actually says) and a lack of understanding of the Bible and what it actually teaches. When we short-circuited and altered how we study, view and use the Book of Mormon, I believe we started losing the former respect for and understanding of the Bible that LDS members used to have.

Heavenly Kingdoms As Figurative Descriptions of Eternal Progression

I take the kingdom construct (Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial) figuratively as descriptions of the process of growth, so I absolutely believe in progression from "kingdom" to "kingdom" until each person reaches his or her own limit. I believe the final judgment happens only when that point is reached - and I think it happens long, long after we tend to believe. I take the classic breakdowns within the kingdoms to describe people in this life - and I think the general outlines in the D&C fit that time frame very well.

I believe God is WAY more charitable and powerful than we often envision - and I think he has eternity ("all eternity") to do what he wants to do. After all, "time is measured only unto man" (or however that quote is worded). Thus, I think we talk in terms that will motivate us here and now, but I think we see through a glass, darkly, when it comes to there and then.

Our theology is universalist in nature; our doctrine can't be as universalist if it is to motivate many people to act now. (opposition in all things means ALL things, even our theology and our doctrine) I get that tension, and I'm OK with it - even as I wish we could strike a balance that would work better for me and lots of others I know.

As to life without my loved ones, one of my favorite scenes from any movie is near the end of "What Dreams May Come" - where the husband thanks his wife for being the person he would rather be with forever in Hell than without in Heaven. It's a powerful message, and it's how I feel about my own wife - and children.

I can't imagine God feels differently, and I can't imagine he lacks the ability to make it all work out in the end. After all, charity is defined as the pure love of God - and it includes "long-suffering". I think we simply can't fathom what that term really means.

Perhaps the Most Beautiful, Touching, Profound Comment about Faith I Have Ever Read

A dear friend whom I admire greatly shared the following last year in an electronic conversation.  I copied it at the time and decided to post it today.  It is one of the most profound comments on faith I have read - ever - in my entire life: 

Regarding faith, I would point out that faith includes, by very definition, a degree of uncertainty. It is hope in the absence of knowledge.

I would also talk about Exodus 33:18-21. Moses asks to see God's glory. God says He will pass by while obstructing Moses' view but that Moses will see His back. Some translations indicate that it wasn't God's "back" but "where God had been".

I think this is a beautiful description of faith. Few of us see God. But we can see where He has been in our lives, in our world, and in our own hearts.

I've seen the footprints of God beside those labored shuffles of mourning families as they make that difficult trek back to a waiting black car from a graveside service. I've felt the warmth His hands have left on the shoulders of a prison inmate sobbing at the realization of the suffering caused by selfish acts. I've breathed His scent overwhelming the stale air of shantytowns where poverty, disease, and desperation would otherwise choke out goodness and hope. I've felt the cool breeze in His wake as the cleansing morning of forgiveness dawns on a penitent sinner. I've felt the hem of His garment as by their faith He has healed sick bodies and through their illness He has exalted tender souls. I've seen His reflection in the eyes of those who weep for the suffering, those who show compassion for society's outcasts, and those who gently bind up the broken.

Because I can see where God has been, I live in the hope that there is a better world awaiting all those who are willing to follow His footsteps into the forsaken places where He is so actively at work.

Because I can see where God has been, I am unable to turn away from the sick, imprisoned, hungry, thirsty, and naked.

Because I can see where God has been, I walk by faith that my small efforts to shadow His path will eventually bring us face to face.

Who Would God Choose to Start a Church or Religion?

I think God would establish a church or a religion through anyone who was a good person at heart and had the type of personality to believe God would talk with them and establish a church or religion through them.

I think just about the only people who have any chance of establishing a church (or any organization) that has the potential to change the world in some way walk a balance beam of sorts - and fall off regularly. I think the main difference is whether they get up - and which side of the beam they walk the most.

When it comes to who we accept as inspired religious leaders, I think it is VERY easy to dismiss Jesus, of Nazareth, as a crackpot and a fraud, if one is so inclined. I'm not comparing Joseph Smith to Jesus in any way that involves divinity by saying that, but I am comparing the two of them to Mohammed, Moses, Luther, Calvin, Confucius, Ghandi, King and others in saying it - and I am comparing them to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Herod and any number of people who got up and walked primarily or exclusively on the other side of the line. Every one of them had something that set them outside the norm in their field of focus, and every one of them was magnetic for those who followed them. Charismatic leaders are extraordinary - for good and/or bad - sometimes clearly one, but sometimes a difficult mix of both.

I think God understands us far better than we understand ourselves and each other - and I think he works with people we assume naturally he wouldn't, including, often outside our own awareness, us.

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).

It Is Better to Be Godly than to Be Merely Religious

I think one of the central messages of the New Testament is that it's better to be godly (spiritual, in the best sense) than to be religious, if it has to be one or the other. I think the ideal is both, but the foundation needs to be the condition of one's soul, not just the actions of one's body. Without the spiritual foundation, what we do is nothing more than "dead works".

I also think this is reflected in the emphasis in the LDS Church on "becoming" over "doing" over the last decade or so.

Puzzles and Mosaics: Or, God Came to Me at the Unexpected Death of My Daughter

I have a dear friend who shared the following with me some time ago.  I have thought a lot about it since that time, and I love the concept of the mosaic.  I hope what he shared can help someone in some way:

I remember reading an article in the BYU alumni magazine that showed a gap between two points. Overlaid on this were some puzzle pieces of a suspension bridge, but considerable portions of the puzzle were missing. Where the missing pieces had been there was a pencil drawing of the bridge.

The moral of the story is that even if I can't fit all the pieces together right now, I can be confident that there is a "plan" that does fit all the pieces together.

I was unable to re-find the exact article but here is a similar description:

Maybe another metaphor will help - that of an old jigsaw puzzle. The picture on the box is a broad, or holistic, view of some reality given by revelation; but the picture on our box is incomplete (see Article of Faith 9) and unclear in spots (see 1 Corinthians 13:12). Moreover, we are also missing several pieces of the puzzle, and we are not even sure how many are gone. Some of the pieces in our box do not appear to belong to our puzzle at first, and others quite definitely are strays. The picture on the box becomes clearer to us, however, with greater study of its details. The more closely we examine the available pieces and the more use we make of our minds, the more we are able to put together a few pieces of solid truth here and there. We may, of course, put some of the pieces in the wrong place initially, but as other pieces are put into position and as we continually refer to the picture on the lid, we are able to correct those errors. As our understanding of both the picture and the pieces progresses, we gain greater respect for what we know, for how it all fits together, and for what we yet do not know.  (excerpted from this article)

There is a similar metaphor of a tapestry that is sometimes used to explain adversity. The idea is that, from where we sit, the jumbled, chaotic, and painful experiences are as the loose threads hanging on the underside of the tapestry. If we could but see from the Master’s perspective we would see how each thread fits into the master plan. (The Hugh B. Brown illustration of the currant bush is a famous LDS equivalent.)

These ideas seem to indicate that there are not only plans for humanity as a whole but also individualized plans for each of us. When tragedy struck me, I pondered whether this was part of a grand design for my life based on this understanding. Was such a horrible event fated to bring about the maximum divine potential for everyone involved?

This idea did not resonate with my internal compass and I had to discard it. It didn’t seem to make sense that God would smash my beautiful glass and steel structure only to say, “You’ll thank me later.”

A Mosaic is different than a puzzle. A mosaic is a work of art. It may be from pieces of broken glass. It may be of puzzle pieces that were never intended to go together.

Elder Maxwell used the metaphor of a mosaic in one of his talks:

The finished mosaic of the history of the Restoration will be larger and more varied as more pieces of tile emerge, adjusting a sequence here or enlarging there a sector of our understanding. 

The fundamental outline is in place now, however. But history deals with imperfect people in process of time, whose imperfections produce refractions as the pure light of the gospel plays upon them. There may even be a few pieces of tile which, for the moment, do not seem to fit.("Out of Obscurity", October 1984 General Conference)

But it seems to me that he is still using them as puzzle pieces - that there is a master plan and eventually we will see clearly what now we can only see in outline form. He seems to use the refractions of gospel light through the "imperfect" pieces as a degradation of the "pure light of the gospel." I guess in his context he was talking of being tolerant of imperfection in our leaders – but there is beauty in divine diversity.

The following is an excerpt from a talk I gave some years ago.

I can’t speak with any degree of certainty about others, but as I analyze my testimony. I see that the fabric of it is literally made up of thousands of experiences that combine together to form a “witness.” I may not be able to remember most of the moments that have shaped my testimony. Still, all of these instances have left their mark and contributed to the whole. (see also "Testimony as a Process", Elder Carlos Godoy, November 2008) I am left with a tapestry in progress, adding line upon line and thread upon thread, to discover as Jesus said in the Pearl of Great Price – that all things testify of Him. (Moses 6:63) Each little strand in its own way and the whole mosaic together bear record that He is the Christ.

Because our individual testimonies come through varied experiences and at different stages, it is to be expected that there should be some variation and nuance in how each of us experience the Restored Gospel. (See also Elder Donald L. Staheli of the Seventy Saturday, Oct. 9, 2004 ) Elder Uchdorf says, “A testimony is very personal and may be a little different for each of us, because everyone is a unique person.” ("The Power of a Personal Testimony", October 2006 General Conference) 

I feel like I am constructing a mosaic and not a puzzle. I am putting pieces together not because this is where they must fit but because how they look together “speaks to me.” What I'm building is not a map to "what's out there", it is a reflection of what is inside me.

I like the idea of “refractions.” I can imagine divine light shining through my personal mosaic. What a glorious sight. Mine is unique and special, but it is still a valid expression of divine light. Sometimes I feel like a mosaic person in a puzzle church. Sometimes I feel like others are not comfortable with me because I might "color outside the lines" or put my pieces together in non-traditional ways. It doesn't matter that my mosaic doesn't look the same as someone else's.

I do not believe that God planned out the early death of our daughter, but I do believe that he came to me there, amidst my internal pile of crumpled metal and shattered glass, to offer comfort. I believe that He is encouraging me to rebuild as a mosaic. This new structure has no architectural drawing and must be grown organically with heart and mind and spirit. I make no claim that my internal structure is perfect or that I will ever be done building it. I believe that God is willing to bless my mosaic and breathe into my imperfect structure His breath of life. God can work with the imperfections and fill the whole of it with the “pure light” of his immeasurable love. Like light flowing through a stained glass window, the human and the divine come together. This has become my chapel.

A Beautiful Testimony: Puzzles and Mosaics

A friend of mine once shared the following.  I understand why the puzzle idea he describes works for lots of people, but I love the idea of the mosaic.
----------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading an article in the BYU alumni magazine that showed a gap between two points. Overlaid over this, were some puzzle pieces of a suspension bridge, but considerable portions of the puzzle were missing. Where the missing pieces had been there was a pencil drawing of the bridge.

The moral of the story is that even if I am can't fit all the pieces together right now, I can be confident that there is a "plan" that does fit all the pieces together.

I was unable to re-find the exact article but here is a similar description:

A Puzzle
Maybe another metaphor will help—that of an old jigsaw puzzle. The picture on the box is a broad, or holistic, view of some reality given by revelation; but the picture on our box is incomplete (see Article of Faith 9) and unclear in spots (see 1 Corinthians 13:12). Moreover, we are also missing several pieces of the puzzle, and we are not even sure how many are gone. Some of the pieces in our box do not appear to belong to our puzzle at first, and others quite definitely are strays. The picture on the box becomes clearer to us, however, with greater study of its details. The more closely we examine the available pieces and the more use we make of our minds, the more we are able to put together a few pieces of solid truth here and there. We may, of course, put some of the pieces in the wrong place initially, but as other pieces are put into position and as we continually refer to the picture on the lid, we are able to correct those errors. As our understanding of both the picture and the pieces progresses, we gain greater respect for what we know, for how it all fits together, and for what we yet do not know. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... &chapid=60

There is a similar metaphor of a tapestry that is sometimes used to explain adversity. The idea is that, from where we sit the jumbled, chaotic, and painful experiences are as the loose threads hanging on the underside of the tapestry. If we could but see from the Master’s perspective we would see how each thread fits into the master plan.  (The Hugh B. Brown illustration of the currant bush is a famous LDS equivalent.)

These ideas seem to indicate that there are not only plans for humanity as a whole but also individualized plans for each of us. When tragedy struck me, I pondered whether this was part of a grand design for my life based on this understanding. Was such a horrible event fated to bring about the maximum divine potential for everyone involved?

This idea did not resonate with my internal compass and I had to discard it. It didn’t seem to make sense that God would smash my beautiful glass and steel structure only to say, “You’ll thank me later.”

A Mosaic is different than a puzzle. A mosaic is a work of art. It may be from pieces of broken glass. It may be of puzzle pieces that were never intended to go together.

Elder Maxwell used the metaphor of a mosaic in one of his talks:

The finished mosaic of the history of the Restoration will be larger and more varied as more pieces of tile emerge, adjusting a sequence here or enlarging there a sector of our understanding. 

The fundamental outline is in place now, however. But history deals with imperfect people in process of time, whose imperfections produce refractions as the pure light of the gospel plays upon them. There may even be a few pieces of tile which, for the moment, do not seem to fit. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... y?lang=eng

But it seems to me that he is still using them as puzzle pieces - that there is a master plan and eventually we will see clearly what now we can only see the outline of. He seems to use the refractions of gospel light through the "imperfect" pieces as a degradation of the "pure light of the gospel." I guess in his context he was talking of being tolerant of imperfection in our leaders – that there is beauty in divine diversity.

The following is an excerpt from a talk I gave some years ago.

I can’t speak with any degree of certainty about others, but as I analyze my testimony. I see that the fabric of it is literally made up of thousands of experiences that combine together to form a “witness.” I may not be able to remember most of the moments that have shaped my testimony. Still, all of these instances have left their mark and contributed to the whole. (see also Testimony as a Process, Elder Carlos Godoy November 2008) I am left with a tapestry in progress, adding line upon line and thread upon thread, to discover as Jesus said in the Pearl of Great Price – that all things testify of Him (Moses 6:63) Each little strand in its own way and the whole mosaic together bear record that He is the Christ.

Because our individual testimonies come through varied experiences and at different stages, it is to be expected that there should be some variation and nuance in how each of us experience the Restored Gospel. (See also Elder Donald L. Staheli of the Seventy Saturday, Oct. 9, 2004) Elder Uchdorf says, “A testimony is very personal and may be a little different for each of us, because everyone is a unique person.” [The Power of a Personal Testimony (Oct 2006)]

I feel like I am constructing a mosaic and not a puzzle. I am putting pieces together not because this is where they must fit but because how they look together “speaks to me.” What I'm building is not a map to "what's out there", it is a reflection of what is inside me.

I like the idea of “refractions.” I can imagine divine light shining through my personal mosaic. What a glorious sight. Mine is unique and special but it is still a valid expression of divine light. Sometimes I feel like a mosaic person in a puzzle church. Sometimes I feel like others are not comfortable with me because I might "color outside the lines" or put my pieces together in non-traditional ways. It doesn't matter that my mosaic doesn't look the same as someone else's.

I do not believe that God planned out the early death of our daughter. But I do believe that he came to me there, amidst my internal pile of crumpled metal and shattered glass to offer comfort. I believe that He is encouraging me to rebuild as a mosaic. This new structure has no architectural drawing and must be grown organically with heart and mind and spirit. I make no claim that my internal structure is perfect or that I will ever be done building it. I believe that God is willing to bless my mosaic and breathe into my imperfect structure His breath of life. God can work with the imperfections and fill the whole of it with the “pure light” of his immeasurable love. Like light flowing through a stain glass window, the human and the divine come together. This has become my chapel.

Why I Can Say I Know Things I Don't Know Intellectually

I believe in gods, and my absolute favorite aspect of Mormon theology is the concept that "I (and every other person) am a child of God" - that I can be godly - that I can be and become a god.

I believe in God, because I want to believe in God. I believe in Heavenly Parents, because I want to believe in Heavenly Parents.

Do I "know" intellectually that they exist and that what I believe is accurate?

No.

Do I feel deeply that there is great power in the concept and principle and that I have experienced something outside my rational comprehension that I choose to accept and call "God"?

Yes.

Thus, do I feel comfortable in a group of members using the accepted vernacular and saying that, based on my own experiences, I know God lives and loves us?

Yes.

I am comfortable saying it in that setting, even though I explain it differently (more comprehensively) on a site like this where I try to flesh things out and explain in more detail.

I'm fine using shorthand when shorthand is appropriate.

My Sacrament Meeting Talk Last Sunday: How Our Understanding of the Godhead Ought to Influence Our Actions

My wife and I were asked to speak about "The Godhead" today. The following is the general outline of my talk:

1) Human understanding of God has evolved throughout time. From our scriptures and Mormon theology, this includes:

a) In the pre-existence, GOD was the Father of all spirits ("Elohim", which is plural, so I included a Heavenly Mother), with Jehovah as a chosen representative.
b) In the Garden of Eden, GOD was the Father of all humans (Adam and Eve, whose names mean man and woman/mother).
c) By the time of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, God was seen as one of many competing, tribal, regional Gods.
d) When Jacob experienced God in his travel outside his homeland, he expressed surprise that God was not bound by geography - but the God of Israel still was "our God", not "their God" or the God of all humanity.
e) At the time of Jesus, that had not changed, with the Israelites tracing their chosen status to Abraham, Issac and Jacob and with a warrior God who would avenge their long oppression.
f) Jesus reintroduced the concept of a Father God, working through a Representative Son, whose primary characteristic was love. Jesus taught:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:34-35)

This focused on loving each other, and the use of the word "as" means "like; in the same way; following the same pattern".

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? (Matthew 5:43-46

Here, Jesus focused on the other extreme - those who actively do things that make them enemies. He also says explicitly that God blesses even those at the other extreme. What is left unaddressed in these two passages so far is the HUGE majority of people who are neither "us" nor "the enemy".

Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. (John 15:8)

This verse also was spoken within the context of love. I told everyone I would return to that concept later.

g) Jesus then commanded his disciples to take the Gospel message outside of Judaism, and Paul's ministry began to extend the chosen people status to others. However, in a very real way, God still was limited, in that God still was seen as "our God" and not as the God of "others".
h) Over the centuries, the concept of a Heavenly Father as distinct from a Representative Son began once again to disappear within a large section of Christianity. Many essentially eliminated the Father completely - both through official theology and through removing Him from the process of prayer (praying to Jesus, in Jesus' name, for example).
h) Perhaps the most basic aspect of the Restoration through Joseph Smith was the re-emphasis on God, the Father, and God, the Representative Son, as distinctly individual Beings - and the reassertion that God is the Father and God of all who desires to save and exalt all of His children. The most distinct aspect of this is our temple theology, through which we perform ordinances for any and all who have lived. We focus first on our own ancestors, but we also do the work for those about whom we know NOTHING - and that is critical to the purity of our teaching. We don't pick and choose who receives vicarious ordinances, based on any criteria; we do the work for ALL, since ALL are equally loved by God, our universal Father.

I then went back to the idea of being disciples of Jesus. I defined "disciple" as "pupil; learner" and then added "follower" as one who applies what is learned and acts accordingly. I talked about "following" being an action verb and that following Jesus when he lived would have meant, literally, walking with him and helping him do what he did.

If that is the case, what did he do?

He preached to people, but we have ONE reference to that happening in a synagogue. We don't know if he attended synagogue regularly, since we don't have a day-by-day accounting of his ministry, but we only have one reference to that. What we have are some references to teaching and a LOT of references to serving and helping and healing - of actively ministering to people.

To whom did he minister? Whom did he love in action and not just in word?

Those who were rejected, marginalized, scorned, outcast, ridiculed, etc. by the religious people of that time: publicans (the tax collectors), sinners (those whose sins were seen as particularly heinous), lepers (the disgustingly sick), Samaritans (the unclean, heathen extended family members), etc.

If, as Pres. Uchtdorf said in "His Hands", we are supposed to be the hands of Jesus to those around us, whom would He be serving if He lived among us now? Whom are WE, as the religious people of our own time, rejecting, marginalizing, scorning, ridiculing and excluding from our fellowship?

Perhaps the list would include, those who drink too much, those who smoke cigarettes or use illegal drugs, homosexuals, those on welfare, illegal immigrants, unwed teenage mothers, etc.

I love our ward, but I look around and see that we are a fairly homogenous group - and that leads me to self-reflection. 

I have lots of friends who drink and smoke, but do I use that as a reason not to invite them to church - especially if they do so to excess? I have lots of gay friends, but do I not invite them to worship with me out of fear that they won't be accepted and loved? Whom do I instinctively avoid - and can I see myself seeking them out, serving them in a way that shows a real love for them?

Elder Wirthlin said in "Concern for the One" that many people stop coming to church because they are different. Am I contributing to their departure? I know there are members of record in our ward who drink and smoke, and I know there are gay members of our ward. Are they not among us because they feel like they will not be accepted and loved due to those things?

Pres. Uchtdorf said in "Stop It", "Don't judge me because I sin differently than you do." All of us sin and come short of the glory of God; all of us must rely on God's love and the grace of Christ to be saved. 

Am I judging others who are living as being too different to love - unlike those for whom I am willing to do temple work? If I can go through the temple for someone regardless of what they did in this life, why can't I take that same approach for those who are living? Why can't I love them in the same way - and honor and accept them simply because they are a child of Heavenly Parents just like I am, despite both subtle and obvious differences?

Mormon theology states, as a central concept, that our purpose in life is to become like our Heavenly Parents. If that is our belief - and if we really believe it, we need to participate to the greatest extent possible in the ministry of God, the Representative Son, and gain a deep conviction that our own congregation should reflect more comprehensively our community and the world. We should love and serve and fellowship those whom we would avoid naturally - and that love should be motivated solely for a love of all of our spiritual brothers and sisters.

I closed my talk by asking each person in the congregation to ask himself and herself to identify one group of people whom s/he naturally avoids and to find a way to get to know those people better, to serve them unconditionally, to love them AS Jesus loved others. I bore testimony of the transformative power of that effort.

Pres. Kimball: "I Made What I Thought Was the Loving Decision"

John L. Lund's Audio CD titled "Love One Another" includes the following, which I absolutely love (bolding is mine): 

There were some kinds of challenges that President Kimball had that were very, very difficult and it came to a point of sometimes weighing church membership in the balance and he had to make the decision. And it was on the basis of his decision that the first presidency of the Church would act at the time, because this was when he was an apostle.

President Kimball under those circumstances would say that sometimes lives are so complex, conditions are so incredibly confused, guilt and responsibility are so diffused in so many ways that it is very, very difficult and it is not a clear cut issue of right and of wrong. And he said that frequently with some of these more difficult problems he would pray mightily unto the Lord and ask for His guidance and direction and sometimes would not receive a clear cut answer as to the direction that he should proceed and that when that would happen, he would stop and ask himself the question:

“What is the loving thing to do?”

And he said, "Some day I know that I will stand before the judgment bar of God, and some of the decisions I made will have been wrong. I will have erred. I will have made a mistake that maybe the decision should have been another way."

And the Savior will ask me: 

“Why did you make that decision? That was not the correct decision.’"

And I will say with the integrity of my heart: 

"Lord, I did that because at the time I wasn’t sure what was the direction that I should go and so I made what I thought was the loving decision.”

I am confident that God will look down upon me on those occasions and forgive me of my error."  

My Sunday School Lesson Recaps: There Is No Reward in Thoughtless Obedience

This month, the topic is "Temporal and Spiritual Self-Reliance". Thus far, we have talked about the following:

D&C 58: 26-28 - "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; for the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

We talked about needing to make our own decisions and choose what we believe about lots of things - that being told everything to think, believe and do is, essentially, Lucifer's plan, which is why those who do only what they are told to do receive "no reward". They don't grow; rather, they stagnate and never develop any degree of godliness.

We talked about "anxiously" meaning "with fervor and excitement - and how being "engaged" means being "committed and in a close relationship", not just casually doing something occasionally. We talked about how "good cause" is singular, while "many things" is plural - that we should do lots of good things, but that it's better to choose a good cause into which we can pour ourselves than to do multiple things only shallowly.

We talked about how "(wo)men do good" isn't confined to any one area (not even church), so anyone who does good, no matter what that is, will be rewarded.

Alma 37:37 - "Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good."

We discussed how "counsel" means "discuss among equals - that it doesn't mean to do only what you're told or commanded to do. That ties in really well with doing much good of one's own free will. We also discussed how "direct thee for good" does not mean "tell you what to do" - that it's much more like pointing in a general direction and away from the opposite direction. Another way to say it is that God will point us toward a good outcome, but he won't tell us exactly how to get there.

D&C 9: 7-8 - "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind;"

We talked about the background for this passage and then focused on the need to "study" things prior to asking for answers - and how it is important to do so "in your (own) mind" and not just rely on or accept what others think, no matter who those others are.