Individual Exceptions Are between Each Person and the Lord

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

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

The Ideal Is to Live in Your Own Best Way

“How . . . do we put the Savior first without putting down other people or their religions? We don’t have to insist on being right all the time. When my parents drank tea, I sat with them and drank hot water. Make compromises. Find ways to serve. Minimize the areas of conflict. Don’t retaliate. After all, you want your family to see that you’re a better, happier person as a result of belonging to the Church.

Be spiritually independent enough that your relationship with the Savior doesn't depend on your circumstances or on what other people say and do. Have the spiritual independence to be a Mormon--the best Mormon you can--in your own way. Not the bishop's way. Not the Relief Society president's way. Your way.” 

- Chieko Okazaki, "Lighten Up", p. 98-99

Spirituality and Spiritual Health, Like Physicality and Physical Health, Varies for Each Individual

Wisdom is to know when to take which kind of treatment. There is no one pill for all situations or all people.

I saw this quote regarding the various ways to treat similar ailments, but it applies to faith, as well. 

Using this analogy, I would say that my faith is all kinds of substances: entrees, appetizers, desserts, snacks, liquids, painkillers, antidotes, vitamins, nutritional supplements, some junk foods, some fast foods, etc. - and, at different times, I need each of those things, to varying degrees. "Man shall not live by bread alone" has application to faith, as well.

Just like my physical health and what I eat, the key to my spiritual health is finding the balanced faith that produces the healthiest outcome for me - while understanding that different diets work for different people. In general, however, it's as simple as ingesting more of the good stuff and less of the bad stuff, then making sure I burn as much as I consume.

It's when things get out of whack and imbalanced, whatever that looks like for each individual, that things get wonky and unhealthy.

Self-Respect Is Manifested Individually

Today's Vocabulary Lesson: 

Self-respect means acting in a way that allows you to respect yourself. It has been expressed in religious terms as living "according to the dictates of (your) own conscience". 

Self-respect does not mean acting in a way that allows others to respect you - or that conforms to others' view of self-respect. It has not been termed as living "according to the dictates of (others') conscience". 

Too many people mistake their own view of self-respect with a universal definition. If there is anything obvious in even a cursory understanding of history, it is that there is no universal norm that represents an objective manifestation through actions of self-respect upon which everyone will agree. 

Hence, the term is SELF-respect.

Assumptions about Scriptural Stories: Teaching Children to Think for Themselves

When I got home from work a few years ago, my second daughter immediately called me in to where she was studying for Seminary and asked me to help her understand something. In Seminary that morning, they watched a little video clip about John 4 - the story of the Samaritan woman at the well, and my daughter was confused about something in it. Before the video clip played, the students were asked to look for what the scene said about the woman's sin, but my daughter didn't see anything about sin in the clip - or in the chapter itself when she read it again tonight to see what she missed. She assumed the sin they were supposed to see was adultery, but she just couldn't see that as being said in the story.

She asked me two things:

1) if there was sin implied in the story;

2) if not, why the video would ask them to look for it.

I told her, not for the first time, that we tend to read into things (not just scriptures) whatever fits our own perspective and assumptions - that, in a story about a woman who had five previous husbands and currently lives with a man who is not her husband, we assume adultery without reading carefully. We talked about how it would be easy for this woman not to be an adulteress - that, perhaps, she was an older woman who simply had had five husbands die and didn't want to have that happen again with the man with whom she lived at the time. Maybe there was no sex involved at all, especially if they both were old enough to be near the end of their lives. Jesus didn't "call her to repentance" in anything he said, and adultery never was mentioned in any way. Furthermore, even if there was sex involved in the current relationship, that probably would have been fornication, not adultery - given only what is in the story itself.

She asked if the sin might be lying about her situation, but when I pointed out that the woman had answered simply, directly and honestly, she saw that immediately. ("Go get your husband." "I have no husband." "You are telling the truth, since you have had five husbands in the past and aren't married to the man with whom you live now.")

I told her the people who made the video simply accepted their assumptions and the implications that made sense to them - that they didn't think about it critically and credit multiple possibilities.

Before I had time to leave the room, she looked up at me and said:

"Wait, dad. After this, she went to everyone and told them what had happened - and they believed her and went to Jesus to be taught by him. They wouldn't have done that if she had been an adulterer, would they - especially with five marriages?" 

I congratulated her on seeing that possibility, and she said, before I could say it:

"I know. Don't take verses all by themselves. Read the context before you decide what they mean."

I then told my third daughter to get to bed. She asked if she could finish reading the scriptures for the night, and I said fine - as long as she was in bed in five minutes. She looked me in the eye, grinned, and said:

"I can't read the scriptures in five minutes if I'm actually trying to understand them. I need to read and think about each sentence, don't I?"

I love my kids. 

It isn't easy, but it's important to teach our kids how to deal with things that don't make sense to them - and how to think about and try to understand for themselves what they read and hear.

The daughters about whom I am talking were 17 and 14 at the time - and they didn't get this way overnight.

Real Faith Cannot Be Built by Using Borrowed Light

Faith is built on what is hoped but can't be seen. Unfortunately, that can lead some people to not worry about seeing anything - or even denying what should be easily visible. It's easy to forget that belief in what can be seen but is not faced is not empowering faith in the purest sense (since the Book of Mormon adds the interesting disclaimer, "which are true") - like someone who continues to believe the world is flat when there is so much evidence to the contrary.  Of course, that can be a tricky thing to say, since many people insist they know, with absolute certainty, some things that might not be fully knowable, but it still is a good thing to remember.  Believing something does not make it correct - and merely believing something does not constitute faith. 

How then should someone of faith help someone else have faith, as well? 

We all see through a glass, darkly, but glasses need to be prescription to work better than whatever we have now, and it's really hard for one person to find the right prescription for someone else - especially in an area that is as subjective and individualized as faith.  Therefore, I believe it is most important to encourage others to consider carefully and ponder deeply what they personally believe (independent of what others believe) and, if they are unsure, help them build their own individual faith.  Building faith, ultimately, must be a personal journey, based on what one person sees, does not see and hopes - and, until it is tackled individually, faith is illuminated solely by borrowed light. 

I will attempt to lend light to someone who desires to see, but, ultimately, I must encourage them to put aside my light and search for and find their own - even if that means they end up seeing some things (even things I hold dear) differently than I do.

Feeding Individuals and a Community Isn't Easy

My family has a history of physical issues that make it hard for us to eat meat without choking - unless we are very careful to chew it extremely well before swallowing. I haven't had that exact issue, but one of my little brothers almost died of choking on a relatively small piece of meat, and I have an aunt who choked to death at the dinner table. Thus, discussions of teaching meat vs. milk at church mean something different to me than to many members. 

I share that only to emphasize that every person has unique dietary needs and issues of some sort - some that are critical to health and continued life and some that deal only with taste and preference. For that reason, I am wary of describing anything as universally "milk" or "meat" - or insisting that "The Church" teach or not teach something specifically because it constitutes milk or meat to me or to someone else.

I believe strongly that we should be engaged in "meatier" conversations and classes as adults of God, but I also realize that there are many physical adults who still are children of God spiritually - and that, to some degree, that is true of all of us. Thus, I throw out really small portions of "meat" in most group settings carefully to see if it is digestible before putting a larger chunk on the communal platter - and I often "chew on" the meat I put out there by taking a moment to frame it honestly but carefully as something a friend once said - or something I've thought about over the years - or something an apostle once said - or some other phrasing that makes it less likely to cause someone to choke.

Finally, I stopped expecting or requiring "The Church" to feed me a long time ago and shouldered that responsibility myself. Seriously, I wasn't getting "fed" at church with what I needed for my own growth before I left Primary - so I've been feeding myself for a long, long time. I still get a really good meal quite frequently at church, in one form or another, but it usually is dessert to me - not the main course.

I Do Not Have a Spiritual Feeling Orientation

I have never "felt" anyone in spirit in my life. The closest I have come is while doing baptisms for the dead in the temple and feeling choked up while saying someone's name (but it wasn't really feeling a presence) - or when words or thoughts come into my mind that I classify as revelation (and that has happened too many times for me to remember - to varying degrees of strength).

At the most fundamental level, I do not have a "spiritual feeling" orientation - although I do have emotional experiences regularly; rather, I have a "thinking" orientation. Since I was raised LDS in a culture that values "spiritual experiences" highly, I had to come to grips with that different orientation at a very young age. 

There is an obvious theme of balance between feeling and thinking in our religion (or completion including both thinking and feeling), but individuals tend to emphasize what is natural to them - which is ironic, given what we say about the "natural man". I think a huge part of giving up the natural man is seeking and finding balance (ideally, by acquiring a characteristic and/or ability not naturally possessed) - and balance between experiencing God in one's heart and mind is a great example of that. However, I don't think that kind of balance needs to be a 50/50 mathematical split - or a combination of classic, common experiences in either category. I believe it can be different in practical terms for different people, even as nothing more than an openness to experiencing something in the future never experienced previously.

To bring this full circle, that means that I need to recognize my own thinking orientation and my own lack of feeling a spiritual presence but maintain the belief that it could happen to me, if necessary.  It also means I need to accept and value the experiences of people that I can't understand fully because they have not occurred in my own life - and I have to accept and value those experiences for others as much as I do my own for myself. 

The Conflict between and Importance of Communal and Individual Morality

Believe it or not, the following is my attempt to provide a very short post about the nature of morality:

I think morality as a general concept (determining what is "right" and "wrong") is part and parcel of group interaction - even, in a very real way, among animals of widely varying degrees of intelligence. It is, at its most basic level, part of survival instinct. It is focused on what "is" - at the most basic level. It is focused on "how" interaction needs to occur in order to perpetuate the species and, although instinctual rather than conscious, really is "morality" at heart.

I think morality among humans, specifically, has the exact same foundation - but our ability to think outside ourselves allows us to move from the most practical, biological, survival aspect of morality to a philosophical foundation that expands from a purely group-based paradigm to include a focus on the person even, sometimes, at the expense of the group. It is focused on what "should be" - and, frankly, that transition, although important to us, is what complicates morality exponentially and makes things get really messy at times.

Finally, I see the existence of agency (the ability to think about and choose one's actions consciously, even when they conflict with the morality of one's community) as the monkey wrench in the ease with which morality can be evaluated and determined, since it is the only thing that posits the need for competing moralities - one communal and one personal that can and do conflict.

Morality is an incredibly subjective thing, but most people want it to be objective - since objective morality is SO much easier to implement and "obey". Frankly, the most extreme version of objective, communal morality we have within Mormon theology is Lucifer's plan - and I think it is important to understand that simple fact. 

The Temple Garment Is Sacred - but So Are We

I was involved in a long conversation online quite a while ago focused on how the temple garment affects some people with severe psychological issues relative to body image and self-acceptance.  It was a fascinating conversation, and I am grateful I was able to participate in it and learn from so many different people.

Near the end of the conversation, one person referenced Jesus' statement about the Sabbath being made for man and not man for the Sabbath.  He said that he views the temple garment in the same way - that, while it is sacred in his eyes and important symbolically, it should not become more important than the person wearing it and that person's spiritual connection with God.

Someone else responded with the most concise, profound summary I have ever heard, and I want to pass it on to everyone who reads my blog.  She said:

I don't object (when people say) that the garment is sacred and should be treated with respect, but so are we. 

I wear the temple garment day and night, since I have no issues with it and am completely comfortable by now in doing so.  However, I believe, deeply, that anyone for whom wearing the garment all day and all night, every day and every night, with the only exceptions being as outlined in the general guidelines of the Church Handbook of Instructions, constitutes a true hardship and is damaging in some real way (and I believe there are more people, especially women, in that situation than most members realize) - that anyone in that situation should be given the respect to make reasonable adaptations to their practice of wearing the garment in an effort to lessen or eliminate the harm maximum wear creates.  If that means they wear the garment for a certain amount of time each day and night - or remove it for more activities than generally is accepted - or wear sizes outside the standard norm - or any other adaptation that doesn't violate the symbolism, then so be it.

Interestingly, the Church Handbook of Instructions validates this stance, as it states clearly, after all the general guidelines are listed, that each individual has the right and responsibility to make the final decisions as to how to wear the garment.  

After all, the garment was made for wo/man, not wo/man for the garment - and the person wearing it really is just as sacred (more so, I believe) as the garment being worn. 

A Few Random Thoughts about Faith, Understanding, Change, Sharing the Gospel and Love

I allow myself to believe whatever I come to believe and try to live according to the dictates of my own conscience.

I don't try to force or convince others to believe as I believe. I try to help them figure out what they personally believe and then live according to the dictates of their own consciences.

I try to study and understand every conceivable view about something - to sort through them as carefully and thoughtfully as I can and then craft my own understanding.

I allow myself and others to change their minds about anything - to continue to believe and live according to the dictates of our own consciences, understanding that even our own consciences can change with time and experience.

I share what works for me, but I do so without any expectation or requirement that others agree and/or comply.

More than anything else, if I have to err, and I know I will err, I try always to err on the side of love.

I Am Accountable to Come to a Personal Understanding of What I Believe - and Then to Follow It

In the end, when all is said and done and I stand before God, I believe I will be held accountable for how I lived what I personally believed - and I also believe I am responsible to come to a personal understanding of what I believe. I've stopped caring if I believe exactly what others believe (even the majority of the membership of the Church with regard to some things); I care much more about figuring out what I actually do believe and refining it continually, based on "studying it out in (my) own heart and mind" and on "receiving on-going revelation" (both from God directly and from others whom He has inspired). Revelation to me through someone else ultimately is revelation to me from God. 

The principle of "on-going revelation" is important to me - since "revelation", at is core, simply means the uncovering of things that previously were hidden from view. I sustain and support prophets and apostles, and I value their insights and beliefs and perspectives HIGHLY - but, in the end, I believe I'm not going to be judged at the most basic level by how I "obeyed" them. I believe I will be judged by how I obey God - and that is determined almost exclusively by how well I follow my conscience and do my best to understand and internalize what I believe to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a result of who I am and who I become. 

I compromise all the time on lots of practical things as a member of a society (including of the LDS Church and as half of an equal couple), but we are told that the ideal is for all people, as individuals, to be prophets in the purest sense of the word (those to whom God speaks, in whatever way that occurs for each individual) - so that's my primary goal.

Learning to be at peace with that individual journey within my partner-marriage relationship and the collective, communal Church is the key - and most of that peace has come from nothing more than learning to accept my best effort to do and be my best.

Some People Who Don't Pay Tithing Can Hold a Temple Recommend

A friend of mine once told me that her Bishop refused to sign a temple recommend for her, since she didn't pay any tithing.  This good sister was married to someone who was not LDS, and she didn't work outside the home; thus, she had no personal income.  She asked me how I felt about her Bishop's decision to refuse her a temple recommend based solely on her non-payment of tithing.  The following is my response to that question: 
-----------------------------
10% of nothing is nothing.

Let me repeat that, mathematically:

0 x .10 = 0

So, someone who has no income and pays no tithing is a full tithe payer. Period. End of discussion. No gray area. 

Seriously, if you have no income, you can answer "Yes" to the tithing question without hesitation. You are a full tithe payer. You don't need to explain anything, but if you are questioned, simply say that 10% of nothing is nothing - so you are a full tithe payer. (The best example of this are youth who don't work, don't pay tithing but still have recommends to do baptisms for the dead in the temple.) 

Furthermore, there is no expectation of any kind of receiving tithing from non-members. Holding one person responsible for the actions of another person in this regard is against the teachings of the Church - even if the spouse is a member. In other words, if a spouse has no income but would pay tithing if an income existed and the other spouse does have an income but refuses to pay tithing, what I said above applies - even if the spouse with an income who refuses to pay tithing is LDS.

As a similar example, even if one spouse is excommunicated, the other spouse can remain a fully active member - and even attend the temple. Things like this are supposed to be evaluated individually.

The particular example of a non-tithe-paying member spouse is not understood by some members and local leaders, but if my wife wasn't working and I didn't pay tithing, she should not be kept from the temple for my non-payment. Period. End of discussion. I believe most members and leaders would agree with me if I had a chance to talk with them about it (and I believe the vast majority of Bishops and Stake Presidents understand it this way) - and I am certain nothing would be said to me by 99% of the local leadership if I discussed it in a Stake Leadership Meeting. It's getting the ones who don't understand to think about it that is the issue in most cases - and having it presented by someone they view as an "authority" of some kind helps, unfortunately.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Family Proclamation; Part 2

Last Sunday, we talked about the rest of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". This is going to be long, since we went through the all but the first three paragraphs (covered last week) sentence-by-sentence and talked about what each sentence means.

I began the lesson by reminding them that I had skipped the sentence last week dealing with gender, identity and purpose, and I told them that I had thought a lot about how to address that sentence openly and honestly with them. I told them that my own view on those topics is outside the norm for most members - that it is not orthodox - and that I didn't feel comfortable sharing that view with them as their Sunday School teacher. I told them that I would be wiling to discuss it with any of them on an individual basis, as long as their parent(s) approved, but that we simply would skip it in the setting of a Sunday School lesson.

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."

We talked about that first commandment - to multiply and replenish the earth. I mentioned that some people can't have kids and others never marry, so this isn't a universal commandment that must be followed, but rather a commandment for those who can multiply within marriage. For example, I told them explicitly that I would rather have someone die single than marry just to marry and end up being miserable and/or abused their entire lives. We also talked about the fact that the LDS Church has NO mandate relative to how many children any couple should have and that there are top leaders who don't have large families - and, in some cases, have no children or are not married.


We talked about how in the temple Adam and Eve report their partaking of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden to the Lord - and how, in a very real way, Adam chose to suffer with his wife rather than remain in paradise with God.

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

We put it in direct, simple terms: No sex outside of marriage - and I pointed out that there is no prohibition in this wording on intimacy that is not procreative. I mentioned our previous lesson about the actual wording of the Law of Chastity in the temple and how the Church does not take any official stance on what can and cannot be done within marriage.

"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed."

We put it in direct, simple terms, which started as, "Sex is good." I told them the sentence goes further than that by calling it divinely appointed. I told them that I hate it when I hear any member of the LDS church echo the old Catholic original sin concept and call sex bad, dirty, or in any other way that implies negative connotations.

"We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan."

I asked them what that means and what issues are addressed in it. One of the students said, "No abortion" - so we talked about the Church's official statement about abortion. We talked about how it emphasizes that life is sacred, but it also mentions explicit cases where abortion is not forbidden - like rape, incest, the health of the mother (and I mentioned that the wording includes emotional health, not just physical health). It also says, ultimately, that the decision is up to the parent(s) involved. We talked about how the Church no longer encourages teenage mothers to marry the father in all cases or have the grandparents raise the child - that the counsel is to give birth to the child and allow it to be adopted. We talked about why that is the current counsel - all of the issues related to teenage parenthood and marriage and the effects on the parents and the baby. I told them that we do not see abortion automatically as murder, like many other people do. I told them that the best description I have heard of the statement is that it is BOTH pro-life AND pro-choice - but that, ultimately, it is based on agency and individual accountability.

The next paragraph deals with caring for children and how God will hold people accountable for how they do that. There was a very good talk in Sacrament Meeting about that basic topic given by one of the students in the class, so I endorsed what was said in that talk and we moved on to the next paragraph.

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."

I simply reiterated what I said last week about being aware of and sensitive to how we teach that within a group that includes many people who are not part of traditional families.

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

I told them I believe deeply in the "general ideal" being taught in this sentence, but that I am bothered by how badly it is misused by some people. We talked about what "entitled" means (possessing a right), so this sentence is focused on what would be ideal for children - to be raised by a couple who are faithful to each other. I asked them if they would support taking children away from single parents - or putting children into abusive situations simply because the parents were married and monogamous. They all agreed they wouldn't do that, so I emphasized again, like when we talk about interpreting scriptures, that we can't pull something out of context and use it in selective, damaging, uncharitable ways.

The rest of the paragraph deals with happiness in family life and parental responsibilities, and since we have talked about that paragraph in at least two former lessons, we simply emphasized that it is up to each couple to decide how to balance the things they have to do to care for their families. As an example, I mentioned that I know some Mormon couples where the husband stays home and takes care of the kids while the wife works - and that such an arrangement is not forbidden in the actual wording of the proclamation. I told them that they have to make those decisions on their own when they get married and that they shouldn't do anything just because most other people do it. They have to take responsibility for how they structure their marriage and family life.

We also talked about what it means to have a marriage and family "founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ" - that it does NOT say successful marriages and families have to be Mormon or Christian or anything else. As long as the teachings of Jesus are the foundation, even if Jesus is not known to the people, successful, "ideal" marriages exist - and Mormon or Christian marriages are worse than other marriages if they are not founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the others are.

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity (adultery, particularly, since the word "covenant" is used), who abuse spouse or offspring (in any way, not just physical or sexual), or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God."

I told them about the temple recommend question about obligations for children and how someone is not supposed to receive a temple recommend if they are not taking care of their children - like failing to pay child support, for example.

"Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

I emphasized that this is focused on "disintegration" - NOT general issues all marriages and families face and not occasional divorce or death. I told them how much I am bothered whenever I hear this sentence used to preach against divorce in a broad, general way - again, because it hurts good people doing their best to cope with divorces that are necessary and, in many cases, better than really bad marriages. I also told them about working for years in places where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is over 90% - and how "calamity" is a good description of what life is like for those communities and many of the children, especially, who are raised in them.

"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I told them that there are controversial things we could discuss relative to this sentence, but I stressed instead practical things like parental leave policy differences between Europe and America - how much longer the leave is for parents in Europe and how fathers can take paternity leave as part of that extended leave, if the mother returns to work before it ends. I told them that there are so may "simple things" like that we need to address that it would be a shame to spend all of our effort fighting people and ignoring the things that actually can improve our own marriages and family lives.

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

Last Sunday, the lesson title was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We went phrase by phrase:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding Your Blessed Abnormality

I understand the need for organizational conformity with regard to certain things, but I absolutely LOVE the concept that nobody is "normal" - and that part of fulfilling the measure of MY own, individual creation is finding where I have a "blessed abnormality" and magnifying it.

I really believe each and every one of us can accomplish **something** unique in this life - and I believe part of why we are alive is to find and accomplish that unique aspect of our own individual creation.

Harvard explains its objective as working to admit and create "well-lopsided" students - meaning students who can follow any non-technical discussion about any topic but who understand one topic deeply. It is a recognition educationally of this concept - that everyone is unique in some way, and part of being truly educated is finding and magnifying one's uniqueness. I believe in the spiritual manifestation of that concept as much as I believe in the educational effort.