Revelation As a Process of Sifting and Winnowing

“The Lord uses imperfect people…He often allows their errors to stand uncorrected. He may have a purpose in doing so, such as to teach us that religious truth comes forth “line upon line, precept upon precept” in a process of sifting and winnowing similar to the one I know so well in science.” 

- Henry Eyring, "Reflections of a Scientist", p. 47

History Tells Us All Extraordinary Leaders Were Flawed

I have studied enough history to know that pretty much every extraordinary person who changed history in a significant way was deeply flawed in some way - or can be dismissed easily by someone who doesn't want to accept him or her as what s/he claimed to be.

Seriously, from a non-Christian perspective, without the Savior and Redeemer reinterpretation of the promised Messiah's mission, Jesus of Nazareth was an abject failure - just one of multiple rabble-rousers and would-be-reformers killed by the Romans in that era. I'm not saying he failed or that he was just another guy who got lucky by having Saul/Paul spread his message; I'm saying it is the easiest thing in the world to look at his life and laugh at the claims about him. They simply aren't supported by "the facts" - but I still have no problem believing he actually could have been God's chosen representative to save and exalt His children. I can take that literally or figuratively - or both. I love what he taught, so I accept it came from God - even as I understand the intellectual questions that can't be answered satisfactorily.



Moses was an escaped murderer; Samson's sexual obsession with an untrustworthy person led to his capture, blindness, and eventual death; David's lust caused him to conspire to murder his desire's husband and eventually led to civil strife and the death of his son; Noah got dead drunk and fathered his own grandchild; Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to his god (which is seen only as acceptable because future generations saw a Christ-type in the story); Gandhi had some weird issues; Winston Churchill was a mean drunk; etc. 

I admire Joseph Smith, overall, even as I don't accept some of the things he did as being of God but rather being a result of his natural man. I like that he described himself as a rough stone rolling and that he was the most chastised person, by far, in the D&C.

I just wish we all accepted his self-evaluation in those times of candor. It would allow us to accept him for the person he really was, not the caricature we have created in his place.

My Favorite View of the Garden of Eden Narrative

I love the idea that the garden narrative is an allegorical telling of the pre-existent war in heaven between Jehovah and Lucifer. I know that is a very Mormon reading of it that probably is not consistent with the original purpose of its recording, but I don't mind, since I like the concept of likening all things unto ourselves.

The very short summary:

God's children had to choose between remaining in a state of never-ending stagnation, luxury, and ease (Eden) or leaving God's presence (as couples, not individually) by following Satan into a world of turmoil, strife, hard work, sin . . . and eternal progression.

In this view, the competing commandments were nothing more than the only options: commandments simply because they had to choose one or the other. They weren't commanded to to both; they were commanded to choose one or the other.

I also think it is fascinating and instructive that, in the garden narrative, they had to be tricked into choosing the right one (and that Adam only agreed in the end because he knew that staying with his wife was more important than staying alone with God) - that their "nature" (and prior experiences) leaned toward ease and unchallenging bliss. There is a deep lesson in that part of the narrative.

I love the Garden of Eden story - but only if I take it completely as an allegory / grand creation myth from which I can draw conceptual meaning. I don't believe at all that it is historically accurate.

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.

Extremism Is Not Modesty - and Extremism Hinders Perfection

A friend once asked me why women's clothes are more revealing than men's - in the context of a conversation about modesty and how it is taught in the LDS Church.

It's an interesting question, and I think it's an important one to ask as a launching pad for any discussion about dress standards and why they tend to fall more heavily on women than on men.  The following response is nowhere close to exhaustive, and it is a bit generalized, but I want to include it in this post to make a broader, more important point about modesty and how we talk about it - and ought to talk about it differently - in the Church:

It's evolutionary (a survival of the fittest instinct to attract men and ensure protection), cultural (look at the fashion and celebrity industries, where "innovation" and "attention" are paramount), biological (there is a physiological difference between women's breasts and men's chests), power-political (most communal leaders throughout history have been men, and they think more about women's bodies than about men's bodies), etc.  It's a complex, fully human issue, and it is influenced by just about every aspect of communal life. 

It's not a simple issue that can be fixed easily, but I like the concept of leadership teaching the correct principle, without specifics (modesty meaning moderation in all things, not just those related to sex and how we clothe our bodies), and governing ourselves. In that way, this topic is no different than tithing (individuals determine how to pay, based on a general principle), Word of Wisdom (individuals determine how to be spiritually and physically healthy without unnecessary addiction), church attendance (individuals determine how much time they can spend in church-related meetings while maintaining a proper balance with family, job, community, personal health, etc.), and on and on.

True modesty allows us to do and be more than we can at any extreme - and that's interesting to consider when our ultimate goal is to be "perfect" - meaning "complete, whole, fully developed". Extremism inhibits that type of perfection, while modesty allows it.

Book of Mormon Criticism: Anachronisms Aren't an Issue for Me

As a former history teacher, and out of personal curiosity, I've read a lot criticisms of written claims that have been dismissed by later discoveries. The criticisms made sense in their time, but they faded into irrelevance in the light of future knowledge.  It really is incredible how common such misguided criticisms have been and still are.

That doesn't prove anything one way or another with regard to the Book of Mormon and people's criticisms of it over time, but it is fascinating how many claims of anachronisms in that book have dropped away in light of later discoveries. The best example probably is the elephant reference, since it occurs only in the Book of Ether, the most ancient record in the book (and we have no clue what time period that covers, really) - and since there are American Indian references to elephant-like creatures that would fit the general time frame.

Language (specific vocabulary words) is another non-starter for me, since "translations" always depend on the vocabulary of the translator and, almost always, include approximations for words that don't translate perfectly. (The existence of non-English, non-translated words in the Book of Mormon actually is a good argument for a "translation process" of some kind.) Although it often is a criticism, the use of "adieu" is a perfect example of vocabulary precision in the Book of Mormon, since the root meaning of that word fits perfectly (and I mean perfectly) the context of the passage - far better than any single English word would. I came to that conclusion on my own, because I wanted to see why in the world Joseph would have used that word - or, from a traditional perspective, why that word would have appeared to him. I looked it up in a dictionary, saw the original, complex meaning, saw where it was used and, just as importantly, where it was not used, and realized it was the perfect choice for the context.

There are legitimate concerns about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, including the way that King James Bible passages and phrases occur in it, but I've yet to see a historical anachronism that I believe is a serious threat.

Is "The World" Getting Worse? We See from a Vantage Point of Relative Luxury

We often hear references in church talks to how the world is falling apart or declining, and those references often are included with "battle cries" that frame our interaction with "the world" in terms of conflict and war.  Frankly, I don't like how often those themes are stressed, even if they are valid in some cases, and I don't like warfare language in situations I don't see as legitimate, necessary conflicts.  

Yes, the world is worse than it has ever been - except in the cases where it's better; it's better than it has ever been - except in the cases where it's worse.

The difference, and especially the balance, generally is in the perspective of the observer.

Overall, I"m a glass half-full kind of person with regard to this topic.  I would FAR rather live in this day and age than at any other throughout history, especially given the relative luxury of living in the United States.  It's really easy to forget how good we have it, compared to the lives of the vast majority of people who have lived on this earth since its creation. 

When Stories Outgrow What They Are Intended to Teach

A friend of mine said the following a while ago, and I thought it was profound.  The discussion was about the benefits of taking some things literally and other things figuratively, mythologically or symbolically.  I bolded a few things I want to highlight. 

When it comes to religion I've found that the answer to the great question of life, the universe and everything (other than 42) is . . . hymns. I hope you're still with me, I was serious. That's my answer for a lot of the questions I've had (in my life).

So why hymns?

Setting scriptures or gospel principles to music helps us remember the principles better. It's a mnemonic. For instance, I have several hymns memorized but I have a real hard time committing those scripture mastery scriptures to memory.

I think that was the point of all the stories in the scriptures - being vehicles to help us remember the principles they relate. The problem is that the stories grew a life of their own - so much so that the principles the stories teach are completely overlooked or overshadowed.

Noah's Ark for instance. It can be a story about following God . . . or about seeing a job through to completion, planning ahead, providing temporal needs for your family, and doing the right thing despite peer pressure . . . or we can search a mountain range for remains of a boat and try to arrive at the true size of a cubit to see whether there was enough room for the dinosaurs.

Adam and Eve is another one that's trending these days. My facebook feed is filled with creationists attacking evolutionists and vice-versa. In some ways, the story has outgrown the teachings, even to the point of contention.

I Don't Look for "The One, True Interpretation"

I am completely comfortable taking whatever I want from a story and leaving the rest - choosing how I want to interpret it. I do that with commercial fiction, from historical books, from myth and even from scriptures. 

Where I am convinced of a scriptural story's allegorical, figurative or mythical nature (Jonah, Job, some of the more extreme narratives in the Book of Mormon, etc.), I don't try to draw lessons from a literal interpretation - but in cases where I simply can't be certain, I pick whatever interpretation gives me the most powerful message - and, in some cases, I pick multiple interpretations (one literal, one allegorical, one mythical, for example) and take multiple lessons from each one.

Some people who want the one, true interpretation can't stand that approach, but it works for me.

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.

LDS Church History is a Microcosm of Judeo-Christian History

For quite a while I have viewed the history of the Church as a modern reenactment of "The Restoration of All Things" - meaning that I have seen something akin to an evolutionary process as the Church has progressed that models religious history.

A sort of spiritual explosion (Big Bang) started it all - taking chaos and starting to organize it into a habitable formation; an Old Testament-like isolation and "kingdom building" (the establishment of a new "people") followed; next came a long integration into "the world"; finally, a New Testament-like shift in emphasis to principles over form occurred as the composition of "the chosen people" morphed to include "others".

I see the Church as being in the early but not beginning stages of that New Testament shift and expansion.

Undersatnding God: The Lens of Modern Technology and Embryonic Gods

There are a number of prophecies and general theological statements that become extremely interesting when viewed in terms of modern technology.

Just a few examples to consider: 

1) We now can conceptualize and accept the possibility of the creation of life completely outside of traditional sexual intercourse.  Thus, we can envision Heavenly Parents creating "spirit children" in ways that would have been called science fiction in the past. 

2) We now can conceptualize and accept the possibility of being so inter-connected and aware (satellite news feeds, Facebook, video chat, text messages, etc.) that it is possible to see and know everything that happens around the world - and, by extension, eventually, throughout all creation;

3) We now can conceptualize and accept the possibility of lots of "godly" things that were dismissed as unknowable and mysterious only a relatively short time ago, much less hundreds or thousands of years ago. 

I'm going to say this carefully, but we, as "normal humans", now are closer in some ways to how God has been described in ancient scriptures - and that is both an exhilarating and frightening thing. For example, it's one thing to fight like animals, unaware of the world at large and with little effect on it, but it's another thing entirely to fight like mythological gods, with the literal power to exterminate the entire species (and more) while understanding it is being done.

"Ye are gods, and children of the Most High God" is more understandable now than at any previous point in history.  The central question for me is:

What kind of gods will we be - or, through our actions, who will be able to say:

I am the God of this world. 

Why I Don't Worry about the End of the World

A belief in the Second Coming obviously is not just a Mormon or modern belief. It is clear in the Old and New Testaments, as well as in the Book of Mormon - and lots of non-Christian texts, as well. People all throughout history have thought their time was so wicked that the world would be destroyed. We (modern Christians, not just Mormons) have reinterpreted Biblical warnings about "the last days" to be about our time, but they weren't seen that way when they were written and spoken back in the day. At that time, the warnings weren't seen as being about a long-future time; they were about the immediate or relatively near future. 

I don't believe strongly this is the beginning of the end - but I believe we now have more power to cause the end than humans ever have possessed. In that regard, I understand modern millennial prophecies and beliefs well enough not to ridicule and dismiss them. We have the capability of annihilating ourselves, so end time prophecies make more sense now than they have at any other point in history. 

Also, it can be useful to understand that our individual earthly end is near - but that reading is based on a recognition that classic end-of-the-world prophecies have not been accurate for thousands of years. It's a productive repackaging of the statements, if you will, so I have no problem whatsoever with it and have used it on occasion, but it still is a repackaging. 

When it comes to "the end times", my own standard is, "No man knoweth the time" - so I can chalk up everything else as generalized messages about preparing for the end of the world, whether that be my own life or the literal end of human existence on this earth.

Life Isn't about God Reaching out to Us

As a history teacher by training, I am convinced that the world has been the world and that evil has been evil pretty much throughout history.  I don't think "the world" is worse now than it has been in the past, especially when I look back and see every bad now in other times.  Modern technology has made the scope of availability of evil larger, and we are able to know about more now than ever before, but there is so much more good in many ways in our current world that didn't exist in other times, as well. 

The only important difference I see concerning the nature of good and evil has been the attitudes of certain people at certain times in certain places that transcended history and created something unique and special. The City of Enoch is a great example of this, and even that can be viewed, with real meaning, as either a literal occurrence or a mythological parable which we should strive to recreate. 

What I take from this is that my life and purpose is not about how things used to be; it's about how things can be, if we make them be different than they naturally will be.

In that sense, primarily, this life isn't about God reaching out to us and promising a glorious future in another world; it's about us (gods) reaching out to each other (gods) and collectively establishing Zion in the here and now.

I think that's the greatest lesson we can take from the life of Jesus, of Nazareth, as well.  

Extraordinary People Do Extraordinary Things - on Both Sides of the Line

I believe much of the wonder of humanity is found at the extremes (both good and bad), and I believe we miss much of the extraordinary in our attempts to suppress "disorders" and normalize everyone. My mom is schizophrenic, so I'm not saying medication for disorders is bad in any way - but I believe strongly there is wonder and beauty that we miss when we stigmatize and reject experiences outside the norm.

I also believe people who are willing to live and think outside the box are more likely to receive revelation, inspiration, insight, etc. than those who are locked more tightly into a logic box alone - even as I value logic highly and want it to balance the illogical. Look at Nephi as presented in 2 Nephi 4 - and Joseph Smith's mercurial relationships - and impetuous Peter - and Moses being kept from entering the promised land - and Winston Chuchill's famous sarcasm and issues with intoxication - and Gandhi's and Martin Luther King's sexual dalliances - and on and on and on.   

I understand the dangers and excesses that occur at the extremes, and I support fully efforts to shield people from much of what is experienced at the extremes, but I also cannot reject anyone simply because their reality included or includes some extreme elements.  Most people are not defined by the extremes in their lives, even when those extremes are magnified by scope and public observation, unless they give in to those extremes and start seeing themselves as exceptional - which is a very different thing than being extraordinary. 

The Importance of Trying to Understand People in the Scriptures as Real People

Too often, I have heard people in our scriptures described almost as caricatures, with little or no thought given to analyzing and understanding the "little details" in the stories about them.  I believe strongly that his tendency is not good - that it covers wonderful lessons that are available through a more thorough examination of the records and even through a willingness to speculate a bit and make educated guesses.

Take Lehi and his family as an example:

I have said in multiple places that I feel for Laman and Lemuel and how they are portrayed by Nephi. I read a lot between the lines in Nephi's account, and I think the situation was way more complicated than most members assume.

First, I think Lehi's sudden conversion has to be factored when dealing with the family dynamic. 

There is no indication he was a religious man (in the classic sense of that term for Jews of his time) before his vision - and there is evidence that he was an absentee father, to some degree, during Laman and Lemuel's early years. I read Nephi's family narrative as describing a situation similar to that involving Jacob and Joseph - the favored younger son and the anger of the older brothers, right down to "birthright / ruler" issues. 

To take the vision situation further, as a prophet-type Lehi was an "outsider" to the people in Jerusalem - much like Samuel, the Lamanite, preaching repentance to the Nephites. Lehi wasn't a Jew, so preaching repentance to the Jews would be a lot like someone from a Mormon offshoot group preaching repentance to the LDS in SLC - or LDS missionaries preaching in the Deep South. It's no wonder he was rejected, from a psycho-social standpoint. They had a hard enough time accepting Jewish prophets calling them to repentance, much less someone who lived in the general area and probably was considered a rich foreigner, to a degree. The condemnation of "the Jews" by Nephi is natural, given his own outsider status and his relative youth and probable lack of age and social maturity. 

As another example, based on the general tone of his writings, and especially 2 Nephi 4, I believe Nephi might have been bi-polar or subject to depression of some kind - and I think, if that is true, that it's an important aspect that influences my reading of his narrative greatly.

I see a very complicated, very dysfunctional situation, and I believe the power of the stories gets lost when the family dynamics are ignored - when "the prophets" are viewed as next to perfect and their narratives are viewed as objective.

For what it's worth, I also think Alma, Jr. was influenced greatly by Alma, Sr. - and the fact that Old Alma had been a bit of a Sith Lord in his earlier days probably had a lot to do with how he worked with Young Alma during his dark force time before his vision and conversion.  I also believe those rebellious years and his guilt for them haunted Little Alma until his death and played a huge role in how he spoke to Corianton when he screwed up on his mission. 

Why I Believe DNA and the Book of Mormon Is a Non-Issue

I think the Book of Mormon DNA issue is very easy to reconcile intellectually, IF the only conclusions are drawn from the actual book itself and not from what members (including leaders) assumed for a long time that it says. I'll try to be concise, but here is the way I read the book itself, relative to DNA:

Three groups are detailed, to some degree, in the book. In order of longevity and size:

1) The Jaredites - This group is described as being large at the beginning of their migration - mulitple familes, perhaps an entire "tribe". If we assume the standard Old Testament chronology, which I don't assume to be accurate but can use for this purpose, they left their home probably no later than 3,000 BC - which means they were in the "promised land" for roughly 3,000 years when the other two groups arrived. The Book of Ether is quite clear that it covers ONLY the people who remained at or near the government center - and basic population demographics pretty much guarantee that they would have spread widely across whatever land they inhabited. Thus the total annihilation described at the end of the Book of Ether logically could have been only the people who lived close enough to be gathered, leaving many people still spread out elsewhere - and the area they inhabited easily could have been massive.

In looking at the society described, as a former History Teacher, I would place their origin in the Northeast Asian steppe region, meaning their DNA would be consistent with the current research. Thus, it is very plausible that they would be the "principal (largest and/or original) ancestors" of the Native American Indians - that the primary DNA still extent 2,000 years after the destruction of their government would be Asian.

2) The people of Mulek - This group was relatively small and occupied a very limited area (one city and perhaps its surrounding area) when discovered by 3) the Nephites. As small as they were, they were "more numerous" than the Nephites - the smallest group. Interestingly, both groups combined were FAR smaller than the Lamanites, which only makes sense if the Lamanites had combined with a more numerous, indigenous people - and if that indigenous people were of Asian descent (some of the non-killed Jaredites), it would explain perfectly the "apostate" designation and dark skin stigma attached by the Nephites to the Lamanites.

The population and distance clues in the book itself are convincing to me of a limited geography model - and I reached that conclusion on my own long before I read any modern arguments for them (and long before I read any DNA research showing Asian origins for the Native American peoples). Thus, I see a very limited geography and a relatively small population of Nephites (just over a couple of million, tops, and perhaps significantly less) destroyed, while a much larger population dominated genetically by "Asians" continued to spread widely (perhaps even inter-continentally) for a total of at least 5,000 years.

That's what I see when I read the book itself and focus only on what I think it actually says. That means two very simple things to me:

1) The latest DNA research doesn't invalidate the claims of the actual book about origins.

2) The latest research shows that the assumptions about the overall demographics in the book (particularly what "principal ancestors" meant) held by the people who believed in the book (the early Mormons, including Joseph Smith and other leaders) were wrong.  

I'm OK with the second conclusion.

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.

Agency: Gospel vs. Doctrine (of Varying Sources)

I think it is extremely important to distinguish between the Gospel of Christ ("Good News" of faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, enduring to the end), the doctrines (teachings) of Christ (as recorded in our scriptures, understanding the "translated / transmitted correctly" caveat), the doctrines (teachings) of the early Christian leadership (which sometimes contradicted the teachings of Jesus recorded in the New Testament "Gospels") and the doctrines of the LDS Church.

They aren't the same thing, and I don't even classify all of the Biblical "teachings of Christ" as eternal and completely binding - since I am not convinced Jesus of Nazareth actually taught all of them. Move forward into the Pauline epistles, the teachings of the "Christian fathers", the teachings of the Popes, the teachings of the Protestant reformers, the teachings of the early Mormon leaders, the teachings of the subsequent Mormon leaders, the teachings of the current Mormon leaders, the teachings of my parents and co-worshipers, etc. and I see generally good people doing their best to understand the Gospel and the doctrines of Christ in ways that help them in their own world. I'm cool with and honor that - but I don't see it as eternal or binding. I also see my own need to "be the source" in my own life for myself - to establish my own "doctrines of Ray" that govern my life - to be, truly, an agent unto myself, as it says in the Book of Mormon.

I'm fine with some compromise (quite a bit, actually) from what might be my own personal ideal in order to work best with my immediate family, my church family, my community, etc - but, in the end, I have to figure out what my own doctrines are and try to live by them. After all, I am told that I can receive revelation (obvious or not) and live by what I believe to be the word of God. Really, that's all I can do - and I won't push that responsibility onto others, even as I default to "doctrines of the Church" when I lack a personal alternative about which I feel strongly. If it doesn't matter enormously to me, I generally will accept the group standard - but I still maintain my right and privilege to change my view about anything if I feel I've gained "further light and knowledge" about it.

I think that is a central tenet of Mormonism and indispensable within the concept of agency and accountability. 

More Often than We Admit, "They" Aren't the Problem: "We" Are

It's always easier to blame someone else for problems than to face the fact that they aren't someone else's fault.

Marriage is falling apart? Blame the gays.

Morality seems to be declining? Blame the infidels.

Job productivity is decreasing? Blame Facebook.

Promiscuity is rising? Blame the media. 



I don't see it that way. 

If those things are happening (and I"m not convinced they are happening, since, as a history teacher, I am well aware of how weak marriage and morality and job productivity have been and how rampant promiscuity has been for thousands of years), they are happening because "WE" are dropping the ball - not because "THEY" are corrupting our wonderful society.

I believe we should try to fix our own house before complaining about the conditions of other houses. If America is being killed, the current descendants of immigrants who came here earlier are doing the killing - not the immigrants who come here now.

If marriage is failing, it's heterosexuals who are causing the failure - not homosexuals.

If morality is failing, it's Christians who are causing the failure - not Muslims and atheists.

If promiscuity is rising, it's the religious who are fueling that rise - not the non-religious.

etc., etc., etc.

If this country (and others) fall, it will be "we" who make it happen, not "them".

Accountability and charity are powerful principles, and we cut the heart out of both of them when we insist on blaming others for our own problems.