My Own Bucket List

I loved the movie, "The Bucket List." I had seen it one time previously, but it was better the second time, since I knew what was going to happen and could focus on the smaller details I missed the first time I watched it. It also allowed me to consider thoughts and conceptual things that struck me for the first time, and those insights were powerful for me.

The first epiphany was something quite simple. The very concept of a bucket list is a product of relative privilege and luxury. People who can consider a true "bucket list" (things they have reason to believe they might be able to do, as opposed to things they simply wish they could do in an ideal world) are able to do so due to some kind of privilege or luxury from their current and previous lives. Financial considerations are the best example of this disparity, since more concrete, objective goals often have an accompanying price tag, while poorer people usually are forced to focus on things that are more conceptual or subjective. In fact, many people don't have the luxury of even considering the concept of a bucket list, since all their energy must be focused on nothing more than survival. 

For example, in the movie, Edward’s list was about seeing the world, which was possible only because he was abnormally rich. It included, “Go on a safari,” “Visit Stonehenge,” “Sit on the Great Egyptian pyramids,” and “Drive a motorcycle on the Great Wall of China.” Conversely, Carter’s list was full of things like, “Kiss the most beautiful girl in the world,” “Witness something truly majestic,” “Laugh until you cry,” and “Find the joy in your life.” The differences in their buckets lists could be explained as nothing more than their individual personalities and perspectives, but it is not adequate to ignore the impact of financial success and security on those personalities and perspectives. Edward was able to record practical goals that were expensive to accomplish specifically and exclusively because he had the money to make them happen, while Carter was constrained by his limited resources to goals that were not attached in any way to financial cost and which were far more subjective.

The second thought was much more personal and enlightening. My own father would fit Carter’s character almost completely. Except for the element of race, which was a legitimate, major contributing factor for Carter, my father’s life mirrored Carter’s in nearly every way. My father gave up his professional dreams to marry my mother, then he did it again, 14 years later, to give her the support she needed to deal productively with her schizophrenia. He had eight children, specifically because my mother wanted as many kids as possible, even though he knew it would increase his responsibilities exponentially. He intentionally moved from financial security to serious poverty for his wife’s sake, and, as a result, he changed irrevocably the content of what he would have included on a bucket list.

In fact, even more fundamentally, he gave up the notion of creating a bucket list and made his own life his bucket list. He lived specifically and intentionally for his wife and children, giving up nearly all aspects of pure, undiluted individuality in the process. Watching this movie reminded me that I have come to read one particular Biblical verse differently as a result of coming to understand my father's sacrifice: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

This verse doesn’t say that he "die" for this friends; rather, it says that he "lay down his life" for his friends.” There is an important difference between those two phrases. Just as Jesus, of Nazareth, set aside whatever life he had created prior to the age of 30 to begin his ministry to the people of his area, my father set aside the life he envisioned, twice, to begin his own personal ministry to his wife.

I see that same example in Carter. He lived his life for his wife and family, and he lost himself in a real and practical way. Edward offered him a chance to focus on himself again, and, initially, Carter accepted that offer. Eventually, however, he realized that the life he had established was more important than a practical, tangible, measurable list of dreams – as much as he enjoyed living those dreams. Edward didn’t improve Carter’s life in any way, ultimately, except in helping him regain the joy of his former life of self-sacrifice and service.

Meanwhile, Carter literally changed Edward’s life. The things on Edward’s bucket list that matter the most in the end were the things Carter had added, especially, “Find the joy in your life.” That joy wasn’t in the grandiose, fancy, and expensive; it was in the personal, intimate, and costless gift of his daughter and granddaughter.

That is my takeaway from this movie. Bucket lists are enticing, and, for those who can afford to fulfill them, they can be enjoyable and fulfilling to a degree. However, the most meaningful bucket lists are what people live as a direct result of their normal, daily, steady lives. I have chosen a life path that probably will not afford me the temptation to create a bucket list like Edwards, even if only in theory and not actual cost, but that chosen path has given me a multitude of experiences like Carter’s bucket list. Perhaps more than anything in my life, I am grateful for that particular way in which I am my father’s son.  

What Does the Sacrament Prayer Really Say: Not What We Often Teach

[quote="squarepeg"]The Sacrament Prayer says that we will always have His spirit to be with us if we take His name upon us, always remember Him, and keep His commandments. Maybe that's an easy one to write off as impossible since I definitely don't remember Him always. Sometimes I'm just thinking about something else and not of Him, because if I thought of Him all the time, I couldn't focus to help my kids with their math, couldn't get through the grocery checkout, couldn't make phone calls to the health insurance company about confusing bills, etc. And I break commandments all the time, every day, in spite of my best efforts to keep them. I also developed an allergy to wheat and can't take the Sacrament bread at all anymore. But I actually don't know of anyone who can keep the promises we make when we take the Sacrament, so maybe none of us is entitled to the attached blessings, either?[/quote]

Is that really what the prayers say? Are there "ifs" in there? I read it like this (emphasis added):

We usually talk about the Sacrament prayer as an if/then statement. For example, with regard to the bread:

IF we remember Jesus' body - and IF we are willing to take his name upon us - and IF we always remember him - and IF we keep his commandments - THEN we will always have his Spirit to be with us.

However, that is not what the words actually say, in and of themselves.

Here is the prayer in its entirety, with some holding for emphasis:

"O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it,

- that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father,
- that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son,
- (that they) always remember him
- and (that they) keep his commandments which he has given them;
- that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

We make NO promises in those words, and neither does the priest. The  priest asks God to bless the bread (or water as the case may be, recognizing the wording is slightly different but essentially the same) to ALL THOSE who partake of it (no worthiness standard implied) that four things we are willing to do and receive will happen: 

1) we eat in remembrance of the body (or blood) of the Son;
2) we are willing to take the name of the Son;
3) we always remember him;
4) we may have the Spirit to be with us.

Again, nowhere do those partaking promise to do anything; rather, the priest asks the Father to bless everyone who partakes with a special blessing because of what they are willing to do - regardless of whether or not they do this even things.

I know that is not the view of the mainstream, but it is a literal interpretation of the words themselves.

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

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

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

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

He said: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's okay, too.

Grace and Charity: We Hurt Others As Much As Others Hurt Us

We are told that only God can judge our actions based on our understanding, our ability and the intent of our hearts, but that grand grace gets lost in translation at the individual level far too often.

We tend to be hardest in that regard (judging others) on those who are the closest to us, since we think we know them well enough to judge them righteously - and since our expectations are higher for them.

Think about it:

Whose lack of understanding hurts the most - and who is the most hurt by your differences with them?

I'm betting it's family, close friends and fellow congregants. It's easy to love someone, in theory and at the strictly intellectual or emotional level, if they are removed enough to not hurt you.

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to forgive someone for their view of you if you realize how hard it is for them to understand and accept your different views, beliefs and actions.

It's easy to focus on the hurt we feel and forget the hurt we cause others to feel.  I believe recognizing the hurt we inflict, usually unintentionally, is critical to obtaining true charity. 

We Aren't As Elect As We Think We Are

I personally don't believe in a "Judgment Day" - where each person stands before a judge in a court room and hears a verdict about their life. I believe "The Final Judgment" is nothing more than the natural end of our progression and growth - that point where we no longer learn and grow. I also believe that point is FAR further out into the future than most people assume, and I think FAR more people reach "godhood" or "perfection" (a state of wholeness, completion and full development) than most people assume.

I think God's grace, mercy and charity (long-suffering patience, especially) are as universal and expansive as is possible, and I think lots of people will be shocked in the end as they look around and finally realize they aren't as "elect" as they thought they were.

Grace Is the Core of Our Temple Theology

Grace is the core of our temple theology - that every person will be judged charitably and based only on their effort to live according to the dictates of their own conscience and their own ability. If any man or woman did the best s/he could, s/he will inherit the Celestial Kingdom according to our theology - no matter the details of life.

That's easier to accept for most members in the case of non-members and those who died without hearing about Jesus, the Christ, but it's true even of members - active and inactive. There is no objective, measurable standard (that we mortals can see and understand) for the judgment, as much as we tend to want one. God, alone, is the judge - and we are told He judges based on the condition and intent of the heart.

It's one of the central paradoxes of Mormon theology - the balance between motivating in this life and recognizing the complete lack of objective criteria when dealing with the dead. We do the best we can to encourage each other to do the best we can - but we acknowledge it's all in God's hands in the end.

My Sacrament Meeting Talk on Grace

Here is the summary of my talk last Sunday. The assigned topic was "Saving Grace".

1) "I Stand All Amazed":

I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me - confused by the grace that so FULLY he profers me.

I love that line, because I am a History teacher by original profession, a social scientist by nature and a lover of comparative religion. Grace has been a debated topic for thousands of years, and it truly has caused much confusion throughout history. In our own church history, I am old enough to have seen a time when we didn't talk about grace very much - and I am glad we talk about it more now than in the past. Today, I am not going to try to give a discourse about that debate over time; rather, I am going to talk specifically about the place of grace within Mormon theology and why I believe the Mormon concept of grace is even more powerful than we tend to realize.

2) Definition of grace:

Grace means favor - as in being seen as favorable / worthy of being favored. It also connotes giving something without requirement, as in bestowing a favor on someone. In this light, it is a gift that does not require a matching gift in return. It is NOT a loan, since it cannot be paid back.

2) Overview of the pre-existence and its foundational relationship to Mormonism's unique view of grace:

We had two choices: to accept HF's plan and suffer many things in mortality, including a fall from grace (favored status of parent-child relationship) and an atonement (a return to a higher favored status of equality) or to accept Lucifer's alternate plan, which was no fall from grace, no atonement and return in the same condition as we had prior to mortality. The first plan included pain and suffering and anguish and grief and weakness and transgression and sin and guilt and disability and everything else we experience in this life that allows us to learn and grow; the second plan was pain-free and growth-less.

We teach that the atonement was promised to all who would accept HF's plan. In essence, HF said to all of us:

[quote]Trust me. I will not fail you. If you choose to accept what I am offering, my grace will cover everything you experience as a result of mortality, and you will be saved from the natural consequences of that life.[/quote]

So, when I am asked by a friend if and when I have been saved, I answer:

[quote]Yes, I have been saved - before I was born by my acceptance of Jesus as my Savior and Redeemer. So have you - and so has every other child of God. Paul said, "For as in Adam ALL die, so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." I believe him.[/quote]

Brothers and sisters, we have been saved by the grace of God already - so why is it so hard for us to accept that?

3) Before I talk about the biggest reason I think we struggle to accept that, I want to highlight one of the most fascinating and least understood verses in the Bible, then add an interesting insight from the Doctrine & Covenants.

Luke 2 tells of Jesus' life from birth until the age of 12. The last verse in that chapter (verse 52) gives a summary of the next 18 years. It says:

[quote]And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.[/quote]

Remember, grace means to be favored, so, in a real way, this verse says that Jesus increased in grace. D&C 93:13 puts it this way:

[quote]And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness.[/quote]

This places grace, in its fullest sense, as the empowerment that moves us through a process of growth - and it frames grace in terms of growth and progression, rather than in terms of a one-time offering. In other words, as my son said, we are not saved from something; rather, we are saved continually to or toward something. Yes, we have been saved - but we also are being saved. If even Jesus, of Nazareth, went through this process, why do we tend to insist that we be perfect now?

4) The Gospel and life are full of paradoxes, and perhaps the most central paradox of all is that we are acceptable to God just as we are but we also are commanded to be perfect, as Matthew 5:48 says. Our teaching of this need for perfection, I believe, is the biggest stumbling block to an acceptance of the grace that so fully he profers us - not that we believe in perfection but that we don't teach it the way it was meant by Jesus in that verse. We tend to accept the Mosaic Law view of perfection - a view that equates perfection with being mistake-free (like a test that requires 100% to be given a passing grade). For that reason, whenever we make a mistake, large or small, we feel guilty and worthless and unworthy and not acceptable to God. Often, this occurs even when our mistakes are the direct result of things we inherited from just being born.

However, the footnote for Matthew 5:48 frames perfection very differently. It says that to be perfect is to be "complete, whole, fully developed" - and, interestingly, that Jesus was NOT an example of that when it was given. Notice that ONLY Heavenly Father is listed as an example of perfection in that verse.

It also is difficult to accept grace when we are focused on not letting others see our weaknesses and struggles. Pres. Uchtdorf also compared the church to a showroom for cars and a repair shop. He said church meetings aren't supposed to be a showroom; they are supposed to be a repair shop. My father used to say that warts only can be healed if they are exposed and treated - if we let other people see them. I believe in wearing nice clothing to church to show respect, but when we put on our Sunday best and carefully apply makeup before we go, others only see us as if we were in a showroom - and they never see our warts - and they think they are the only people in church who have warts - and they feel guilty and worthless - and the perfection cycle continues.

5) This brings me to the way we tend to explain things in terms of parables. In "Believing Christ", Stephen Robinson gives the parable of the bicycle - in which a girl asks her dad if she can have a bike. He tells her that she can have a bike if she saves every penny she earns until she can afford one. She returns after some time with 61 cents and says she has saved all of her money and asks, again, if she can have a bike. Her father takes pity on her and buys the bike for her, even though her money doesn't not come close to covering the actual cost.

I appreciate the point Brother Robinson makes that God will give us the bike even if we can't pay for it on our own, but I like a different parable. I believe he provided a vehicle for us (a way to go where he wants us to go) in his first plan before we were born and simply asks us to accept it and do our best to learn to operate it - to try to drive where he wants to take us. The vehicle is free, as is the license to drive it; all that is required of us is to get behind the wheel and drive. When we get into an accident, he asks us to learn from the experience, get back behind the wheel and continue to drive. He doesn't care how many accidents we have (or, even, as the parable of the workers says, when we start driving); he only cares that we accept the gift of the vehicle and drive. I believe he will let us drive until we reach our final destination, no matter how long that takes. After all, he has time and all eternity to be patient and extend his love.

Truly, even after all we can do, it still is by grace that we are saved.

6) I want to spend the last few minutes talking about how, in order to be full participants in divine grace, we need to extend to others the same grace we receive from HF and Jesus.

We are invited to become like God, and being gracious is perhaps the ultimate goal in that process. I am concerned that we are not as accepting and loving toward others as God is toward us. If he offers his grace to ALL of his children, and if Jesus spent his ministry serving the people who were rejected and shunned by the religious people of his day, I am convinced we should be more like him and less like the leaders who avoided the sinners and the sick and the despised. If we are full of grace, we will not turn anyone away; we will embrace all and love them actively and fervently, no matter what mistakes we believe they are making; we will help them on our collective journey through life; we will ride with them, together, side-by-side. If someone stumbles into our Sacrament Meeting, reeking of alcohol - or wearing what we deem to be totally inappropriate clothing - or holding hands with someone we think they should not love in that way - or any other image that comes naturally to our minds when we picture a sinner- in those situations, I pray we can be grace-filled and thank God they found us rather than ask why they are here. We judge too much, too quickly, too harshly and too stereotypically - and I believe Jesus would say, simply:

I loved and served them when nobody else would. Why won't you do the same? They have my grace; why can't they have yours? Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Brothers and sisters, may we be gracious to all around us, as God is gracious to us, is my prayer.

My Sacrament Meeting Talk: Faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ

I spoke in a small branch today, and a sister in my ward was the other speaker. I asked her to  read  Pres. Wixom's talk Sunday morning and Pres. Uchtdorf's talk in the Priesthood session and speak about whatever she took from them.

She shared two stories: one about a relative who was away from the Church for years due to a really bad experience with some members and a local leader and one about herself and her struggles to accept that she doesn't get answers to prayers like most people who speak and teach and lead in the Church. It was heartfelt, personal and moving.

I changed my talk almost completely as I was sitting on the stand during the meeting. The assigned topic was "Faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ", and I prepared a talk combining elements of talks in General Conference from Pres. Uchtdorf, Elder Holland and Elder Nielson. As I sat on the stand and looked at everyone in the chapel (about a dozen people), I decided to scrap that talk and talk about two things, primarily: looking at who Jesus was as a mortal and whom he served during his ministry.

I mentioned that Jesus was born in a manger/stable/barn/grotto cave, that his father worked with his hands (that he wasn't a doctor or lawyer or professor but a carpenter), that his mother was (almost surely) an unwed teenager, that he was moved to and raised in Egypt (in order to escape Herod's rage), that he returned in a way as an outsider or foreigner, that he grew up in Nazareth (of which the Old Testament includes a question asking if any good thing can come out of Nazareth), etc. in almost every way, he would not have been accepted as an insider by the "important" people of his time.

I pointed out that when it came time for his ministry he served others like himself in some way: the outcast, the sick, the diseased, the obvious sinner, the poor, the hated and marginalized.

I repeated Pres. Uchtdorf's description of church as a repair shop, not a showroom, and I talked about how we all are fallen, failing, broken, etc. in some way and how we should be able to come to church for help being repaired/healed. I said we exercise faith in Jesus when we recognize ourselves as needing repair and accept other broken vessels to meet with us, no matter the nature of their brokenness - when our congregations are not just geographic wards (and branches) but also hospital wards.

I summarized the degrees of glory as conditions of the heart: unrepentant Telestial, no real effort Terrestrial and best effort Celestial. I explained that nothing in the descriptions includes a required checklist of actions but, instead, focuses on effort only. I talked about the statement, "We  know that it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do," with a reference to Pres. Uchtdorf, and rearranged the statement to say what he taught, "(Even) after all we can do, we know that we (still) are saved by grace."

I ended with the parable of the sower and simply pinted out that the good soil produced different amounts of fruit, some thirty, some sixty and some a hundred. Again, it wasn't the amount produced that mattered, since ALL of it was called good, but simply that it produced good fruit. I told them that having faith in Jesus, at the most basic level, is about accepting that he will call us good if we do our best to produce good fruit, no matter how much we end up producing. It isn't about numbers; it is about loving effort, recognizing and accepting that we already have been saved by God's grace and will inherit the ultimate divine glory simply for trying to follow Jesus' example and love and serve ourselves and others.

Did We Choose Our Mortal Trials in the Pre-Existence?

I have a friend who said once:

"We are all put in the right place for the best possible outcome."  

I have thought about that idea off and on for a long time, and I both agree and disagree with it.  My main concern, however, isn't in the wording but rather in the extrapolations that are so common from it.  I hope the following makes sense as a summary of why I am conflicted about the quote above. 

Given our belief in a "veil of forgetfulness", the pre-existence is where Mormon theology gets a bit squishy, but within Mormon theology there are some things that point toward the wording above. Two of those things are:

1) In the case of a crack baby (or a child born into terrible abuse) who dies early, if we accept the idea that all children who die before being accountable inherit the Celestial Kingdom (which my heart loves, but by head has a hard time accepting due to my dislike of predestination), that baby gets the best possible reward for what s/he suffers in this life.

2) Our temple work does not require anyone to accept God or Jesus or Mormonism or the LDS Church or anything else in this life - and it leaves the final judgment completely in the hands of God. The standard really is what type of person each individual becomes, relative only to their personal effort and circumstances - and, again, that judgment is God's alone.

My problem with the quote above, as worded, also is with the phrase "in the right place" and how it can be interpreted. I have heard it used way too often in my life to justify a condescending attitude toward "the other" - that their specific situations in this life (and, by extension, our own situations) are a direct result of something about their former life, usually worthiness or valiance.  Thus, I believe the idea that every person is born into the best circumstance for that person can be viewed in such a way that it functions as a conceit of luxury. It's a way to justify one's own privileged position and rationalize others' horrible circumstances.

It's also one of the reasons I am open to the idea of multiple probationary experiences, even though I don't preach it or believe it passionately. Rather, I lean toward a structure of eternal progression that is WAY more expansive and extended than a limited focus on mortality allows. I do believe that this life is the most important stage in our eternal progression at this moment, but I also believe our previous stages were the most important at those times and that our future stages will be the most important at those times. I believe all is present unto God in the sense that the past is gone and the future will be whatever the present makes it be.

I think all we can see is the here and now, so we do the best we can to understand the stark differences all around us - and, because we see through a glass, darkly, we each end up with partial views that make sense to each of us. That's why I try to understand the best I can and allow others the same privilege, let them understand how and what they may.

I simply would say,

All who are born will receive the best possible outcome, according to the wisdom, grace and love of God. All who "keeps their first estate" will be rewarded for it to the greatest extent possible.

No Way in Hell: The Beauty and Power of Temple Theology

One of the core aspects of my testimony is that "God" is a father and mother who flat-out, no-way-in-Hell are going to condemn any of their children to roast forever just because they didn't place them in a situation where they would know of them and Jesus in this life. That would be sadistic to the highest degree, and I simply don't believe in that kind of God.

If there really is a God, and especially if there really are Heavenly Parents, the Mormon concept of all-encompassing grace and vicarious temple ordinances is an amazing concept - and it is powerful even if it only is figurative. I choose to take it literally because it fills, touches and enlarges my heart in a way I like - and it just feels good and true.

Competing Realities: Grace, Atonement and Charity Are Key

I was asked once why people hurt other people "by avoiding reality" instead of dealing with difficult things.  My most concise response was that it is because they are human, and humans only can handle those things which they can handle.

My longer answer would be:

Most people aren't consciously lying or avoiding reality when they hurt others. They simply are dealing with what they are capable of seeing and feeling - and I don't mean to be condescending or judgmental in saying that. In my case, part of my being comfortable with uncertainty is admitting I might be wrong, especially about things that require me to make some kind of subjective judgment, and that is truer in the realm of religion than anywhere else - but I still have hurt others at times because the way I see things (my reality) simply is different than the way those others have seen things (their realities).

A practical example:

Some people believe in "tough love", while others believe in never alienating others almost no matter what they do. Neither is lying or refusing to face reality; rather, they simply are seeing what they see and acting on it.

At the most basic level, "reality" is whatever it is for each and every person. When a schizophrenic is hallucinating, those hallucinations are reality to him. I mean that completely; they are reality to that person while they are occurring. When he hurts others in that situation, he isn't avoiding reality; he is reacting to reality - living within his own reality.

Thus, for all of us, grace and atonement are critical - and charity is the heart of it all. 

Evil Can Be Pretty; Great (Wo)men Can be Deeply Flawed

There is an old movie that portrays evil as very seductive and handsome and convincing and suave and enticing - that evil personified can be indistinguishable from you and me based just on physical appearance - that it is easy to succumb and can be resisted only by single-minded focus on God. In one part, it also portrays evil as nearly universal - that the person who resists is the anomaly - that the world is hopelessly lost and ruled by powerful evil. In fact, I think such a message can't be ignored as one of the central themes of this particular movie. The "darkness" of the presentation style doesn't rival our more culturally popular movies (like The Dark Knight, for example), and the overall message leads to a happy ending, but the message of the section that deals directly with evil personified is fascinating.

One of the central protagonists succumbs to this evil and is saved from it only by the resistance of another protagonist who chooses consciously to thwart the evil by remaining with the other character in the continued presence of that evil in order to fight it together. Interestingly, I think many people who have seen this movie would classify the one who succumbed as the ultimate hero in the end - or, at least, just as much a hero as the one who stood fast in opposing the evil. However, I wouldn't say the film glorifies or celebrates evil in any way - even though it clothes it in such a "pretty package".

I think the idea that deeply flawed people who often fail in their struggles to resist temptation still can perform heroic acts and be respected and admired and loved because of it fits side-by-side with nearly all of the scriptural canon I try to read regularly - and I believe that is a central theme of the Atonement of Jesus Christ that is part of what we call the Restoration.  
I don't know exactly how Joseph Smith would feel about the movie I mention here in its current form, but I'm fairly certain he would understand those who view him similarly to what I just described in this paragraph - as a flawed man who did great things, nonetheless. In fact, what I have read leads me to believe that he would rather be characterized in this way than as an "idealized hero" - that he would prefer his own description of being a "rough stone rolling" to a romanticized version that describes him only in hushed terms and air-brushes away the thorns of his own flesh.

"I am that I AM." -- "It is what it is."

I know quite a few people who have struggled at some point in their lives with feelings of pressure and guilt from situations that were not within their control.  This pressure and guilt were the result of unrealistic expectations about how their lives "should be" - feeling like they should be able to handle things differently and have lives that were closer to "ideal" in some way.  

I understand such feelings, but, in cases where the cause of the struggle is not chosen or intentional, those feelings must be addressed and understood positively and proactively in order for those people to be healed in a meaningful way. 

If that description fits you to any degree, I hope the following helps somehow:

The first thing I would emphasize is that our 2nd Article of Faith says, in my own translation, that we will not be punished for struggling with things we do not choose - that come to us simply as a result of the Fall of Adam, so to speak.  This means that there is no "guilt" attached by God to the existence of those things in our lives - that they are covered automatically and freely by his grace and the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  That recognition alone can be powerful and emotionally healing.  

I would reframe that concept as a clear recognition that there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with struggling with lots of things - simply because you can't avoid them. Just as the best name for God is "I AM", often the best answer to something is simply, "It is". That recognition won't eliminate anything automatically, even the guilt felt right away, but it is important to recognize unrealistic expectations and learn to know when they are hitting "in the moment".

On a very practical note, my wife started writing a weekly blessing list on her personal blog a few years ago. Despite the struggles in her life, which aren't few for her, that has forced her to look back and "count her blessings" regularly. What she has discovered over the past few years is that knowing she would be writing such a post has made her more aware of the blessings as they happen - which has given her the ability to recall them in the moments of hardest struggle - which has given a degree of perspective she didn't have before she started compiling her blessing lists. She still struggles with some things that are her own "thorns of the flesh", but she is able to break out of those struggles more quickly and even avoid them at times.

However you can do it, counting your many blessings and naming them one-by-one is a good idea.

Varying Valiance in the Pre-Mortal Life: An Abominable Remnant of Apostasy

I started thinking about it because the premise that this life is a continuation of the pre-mortal life and that the state we are born into is a result of our valiance and effort in the last life.

I believe in a pre-mortal existence, but I think the idea that the state into which we are born into mortality is a result of valiance and effort in that existence stems from a faulty foundation and is a mutation that stemmed from the earlier attempts to justify the Priesthood ban and on-going attempts to claim that we in the LDS Church are special. I see both of those justification motivations as the result of pride, even as I understand how deeply attractive they are to the natural (wo)man.

I believe more in the concept of, "There but for the grace of God go I," than in the idea of, "There but for my superior diligence and righteousness go I." 

Those are two very different premises, and they address belief in a pre-mortal existence and rewards for varying levels of righteousness. The first one (a continuation of life from a previous existence) in no way depends on the second one (some kind of valiance determinant), and the second one is only stated directly in our scriptures about "the noble and great ones" (in Abraham). It can be read as implied about others in places like Jeremiah 1, Alma 13 and D&C 138, but it is not an automatic and obvious implication unless that belief is held prior to reading those passages.

There is no indication whatsoever anywhere in our scriptures to support the idea that someone born into poverty or with a disability of some kind was less valiant in the pre-existence than someone born into wealth or full health - or, just as importantly, vice-versa. In fact, in the one case where disability is mentioned in the same passage as a pre-mortal life, Jesus said the blind man was born that way to manifest the power and glory of God. (and that passage is crystal clear in its portrayal of Jesus' followers believing in a pre-mortal existence and Jesus not contradicting that belief)

So, even if we take the scriptural accounts literally, which I generally don't do, the idea of varying degrees of valiance in a pre-mortal life affecting birth into mortality for the vast majority of people who have lived and now live just isn't there. I believe that we, as a people, needed a justification to deny black people access to the temple (not just a Priesthood ban), so our former leaders bought into the whole curse of Cain nonsense that was being preached in the Protestant congregations of their upbringings (since they all were converts originally) and used that to develop a uniquely Mormon version that expanded the apostate belief to include valiance in the pre-mortal life. We also wanted a reason to claim special status as individuals (as pretty much all religionists have done since the beginning of time), so we took the Protestant idea of pre-destination and the general idea of the noble and great ones being fore-ordained and morphed that into the idea that every person who is born or baptized into the LDS Church was fore-ordained because of pre-mortal valiance.

In short, I believe in a pre-mortal life, but I don't believe in varying degrees of valiance in that life that are exhibited in this life. I don't believe there were fence-sitters in the War in Heaven.  I think our temple theology annihilates the idea of varying valiance (or, at the very least, that, if it did exist, it matters in any way whatsoever after this life), and I also like Bruce R. McConkie's statement after the Priesthood ban was lifted that said we need to forget every justification that was uttered by anyone, no matter who they were, to explain the ban - that "we" spoke from "limited light and knowledge". For me, that includes the idea that pre-mortal valiance played / plays any part in the objectively quantifiable circumstances of our mortal birth.

God Is Not As Offended As We Tend to Think He Is

I sometimes think of Joseph's statement shortly before he died that his conscience was free of offense toward God and man. I know he offended people regularly, but I believe he was sincere in that statement. That used to puzzle me - greatly. What I have come to believe is that each of us only can answer to our own understanding of ourselves - to our effort to live the best we understand - to be whatever we believe we are supposed to be.

I know I also have offended people at times - sometimes through what I have written here on this blog. I've done things that I believe "should" be offensive to God, but I've come to believe that they might not be - that he might look down and sigh as he watches me muddle through my life, but that he also understands I'm doing the best I can do. I have come to believe he appreciates that, and I am grateful for the peace that belief brings me as I also try to accept my own weakness and understand that I am worthy specifically because he has deemed me to be so.

That perspective gives me peace, so I accept it and keep on keepin' on.

We Shouldn't Judge Ourselves or Others for the Thorns of Our Flesh

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.  (2 Corinthians 12:7) 

The assertion that “wanting to repent of it” is all that is required to be able to change one's weaknesses and repent fully is problematic for those who struggle to overcome deeply ingrained inclinations and never totally conquer them in this life - and, to some degree, in some way, that applies to each and every one of us. For example, I know quite a few people who want badly to react differently to their children in stressful situations but can’t conquer their current reactions totally - and I would never claim that their desire to repent simply isn’t strong enough.  There are things about my own "natural man" that I am not sure I will be able to eliminate in this life.  The conclusion is simple but profound:

Some things are thorns of the flesh that will go away only in the resurrection.  If Paul, the apostle, and Nephi could write what they wrote about this issue, it's important to cut ourselves and others some slack and not insist that everything is fixable if only we really want to repent. 

That is not a blanket excuse for any action that the Church deems to be sin. It merely points out the danger in blaming one’s inability to control perfectly one’s deeply ingrained impulses and inclinations on an inadequate desire to change. The beauty of the Atonement, in my opinion, is not just that we can receive strength to change in the here and now, but also that we can receive grace for our efforts even when we cannot change in the here and now.  To even imply that not being able to conquer something completely is a matter of lack of faith or desire to repent denies the Atonement in a very real, practical way.  

I think that points to the need for those who find they struggle (or even are unable to) live a command completely at least to strive to live as close to the ideal as possible. It might not be the ideal, but all of us are commanded to try to live as closely to the ideal as we individually are able - trusting that the Lord in His infinite wisdom will understand our hearts and make up the difference. I’m not going to be judged against any other individual, and I’m not going to be judged against a universal, Mosaic Law-like standard; I’m going to be judged against myself - what I did with what I was given. Since I have enough problem understanding myself fully and have no idea the exact extent of any other person’s struggle to deal with his/her own thorns, I try to preach the ideal but not hold anyone to that ideal - trusting God to know all of our hearts and, in the end, be merciful, loving and long-suffering with his children.

After What Do I Hunger and Thirst - and Why?

I view the purpose of this life as becoming like Jesus was in His mortal life - and the purpose of the next life as becoming like Christ is now in His post-mortal life. Everything else (specific doctrine, intellectual understanding, nuanced discussions of exegesis, whatever) is secondary to that.

The core Josephism to which I cling is: "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." "Principles" is not equivalent to "doctrines" or "intellectual understandings". That's important to me.

When it comes down to it, I base my core principles on three main statements of Jesus:

"Be ye therefore perfect," (Matt. 5:48) - "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt. 7:20) - "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 7:21) -- (basically, the entire Sermon on the Mount, but especially those three verses)

When push comes to shove, I don't give a rat's hairy hindquarters exactly what someone says they believe - only what they do and what they are becoming. If they teach Buddhism or if they claim atheism - whatever their background - I don't care one bit. I really don't, as long as they are trying to do the will of the Father (the God in which they believe or their conscience) and become perfected (whole and complete) - and not doing so in a highly destructive way or exercising serious unrighteous dominion and compulsion.

Why do I share that in this context? I believe in the Restored Gospel deeply and passionately, and I enjoy the intellectual stimulation I find on various blogs. However, my intellectual efforts do not define my discipleship. That is defined by my realization that no matter how my brain constructs my doctrinal understanding, it's much more important what I do than what I say - what I am becoming than how convincing my arguments are. My understanding might be different than another's, but if we both are working to become the same thing (complete and whole and "right"eous), our journey can be one of mutual respect and camaraderie and joy.

I engage in internet conversations specifically to find ways to hone my discipleship - to plumb the depths of others' understanding to find new ways to bring me closer to my Father. That's what I long for in the discussions in which I engage - a place of refuge and rest, where I can drink deeply from the cup of perspective and insight - no matter the theological or denominational affiliation of those with whom I converse. I don't want to fight and argue over minute points of doctrinal interpretation, although I will challenge statements that I think are hyperbolic and mean-spirited. I want to share and sup. That is the sustenance for which I hunger and thirst - the soothing sips of insight that restore and reaffirm my resolve for righteousness. I don't hunger and thirst after insight for itself; I hunger and thirst after insight that leads me to greater *righteousness* - to be filled with the Holy Ghost - to do the will of my Father - to bring forth fruits meet for repentance - to become therefore perfected (whole and complete).

Everything else is meaningless if it isn't involved in getting there and helping others get there.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Atonement as Taught in Our Hymns

Last Sunday, we talked about how the Atonement is taught in our hymns. We used the sacrament songs as the text, going through as many as we could (in numerical order in the hymn book) in the time we had - having each student read one verse at a time and summarize the message of that verse.

It was interesting to lead them through a study of what is taught in the hymns and point out how many atonement theories (lesson from earlier this month) were mentioned. I won't go into detail for all the hymns, but it is a fascinating process I recommend highly.  I do want to mention, however, one thing that hit me and about which we talked in more detail at the end of the lesson.

A number of the hymns we read talked about partaking of the sacrament with clean hands and/or a pure heart. (e.g., "Let us remember and be sure our hearts and hands are clean and pure." "In Jesus' name we ask thee to bless and sanctify, if we are pure before thee . . ." etc.)

"O Lord of Hosts" (#178), however, in its entirety, says the following, emphasis added:

O Lord of Hosts, we now invoke thy Spirit most divine to cleanse our hearts WHILE we partake the broken bread and wine. May we forever think of thee and of thy suffering sore, endured for us on Calvary, and praise thee ever more. Prepare our minds that we many see the beauties of thy grace - salvation purchased on that tree for all who seek thy face.

I pointed out the contrast between the idea that we need to be pure to partake and be blessed and the idea that partaking is part of the process of cleansing wrought by the Atonement - that we don't have to be perfectly clean and pure but, rather, are required merely to be actively and sincerely seeking God.

I told them about a dear friend who went to the temple for the first time and was overwhelmed by the covenants he made - who was a wonderful man but didn't return to the temple for about 15 years, since he felt fundamentally unworthy. I told them that I hoped they never latched onto the idea that we need to wear ourselves out and become "perfect" before the Atonement can benefit us but that, as the song above teaches, strive to "seek (his) face" and allow the Atonement to be a force for progress in that pursuit - that we see it not so much as a reward in the next life but more as a guiding light in this life.

We Can Be "Wrong in Our Heads" as Long as We Are "Right in Our Hearts"

I've said multiple times in lots of places that our general inability to accept the truly "liberal" parts of our theology is the single biggest reason for much of the misunderstanding we experience from other Christians - and the idea that people outside of the LDS Church can have a "mighty change of heart" and a "true conversion" is one of those "liberal" aspects of our theology.

It's not hard to understand why other Christians get mad at us when the message they hear is,

"Your beliefs are wrong, and your conversion isn't real."

since we get upset at them when they say the exact same to us. 

I think we can believe the first part of that statement and still reject the second part - or, as Joseph Smith once said, I don't think anyone should or will be condemned for erring in doctrine. I believe, as our Article of Faith implies, that we will be judged by the intent of our heart and sincere efforts (for Christians) to "exercise faith in God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ" - not by the specifics of our understanding of theology and doctrine. In other words, I believe we can be "wrong in our heads" as long as we are "right in our hearts" - even as I believe it is important to try, to the best of our ability, to be right in our heads, as well.

"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 believe we will be judged primarily by how truly we worship according to the dictates of our own conscience - and that God probably sighs in exasperation over our collective inability to be more charitable toward those who worship / believe differently than we do, especially since all of us "see through our glass, darkly".

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.