Prospering in the Land: Communal vs. Individual

The Book of Mormon mentions repeatedly that we will "prosper in the land" if we are obedient to the commandments of God.  Many members interpret that to mean that each person who keeps the commandments diligently will be blessed with material prosperity - or, at the very least, that such a person will not suffer financially and will always be able to provide adequately for him/herself and family.  

I don't see the promise that way.  

Crap happens in a world directed by human agency, and many things are outside individual control.  Also, as it says in the Gospels, the rain falls on the just as well as the unjust.

I believe in the principle of prospering in the land by keeping the commandments - at the communal level; I do not believe in it at the individual level.

Life has taught me that - clearly and undeniably.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Dangerous View of Bishops, Stake Presidents and Leaders Generally

I know of a Stake President who once said the following to a member of his stake: 

"Your Bishop represents Christ. If people understood that they would be excited to talk to him and willing to do what he asks." 

If I was the Bishop about whom the Stake President was talking, I would have been VERY uncomfortable with the Stake President's statement - and all of the Bishops I've know personally would have been uncomfortable, as well - except one. Instructively, he was the worst Bishop I've known.

I have no problem with the idea that the Bishop represents Christ in a unique way - in some specific situations. However, in most situations, a Bishop does not represent Christ any more than any one of the members of his congregation does.  To say it differently, all of us represent Christ, but the Bishop has certain unique responsibilities in the way he represents Christ. It simply isn't one or the other; we aren't Catholic Priest of the Dark Ages and parishioners. 

"They would be excited to talk to him." 

Generally, that's a function of him as a person, not his office or calling. People usually like to talk to nice, good people; they usually don't like to talk to jerks or harsh people.  The vast majority of Bishops are nice, good, sincere, loving people - but whether or not most regular members are excited to talk to their Bishop has little to do with representing Christ. 

"They would be willing to do what he asks." 

This is where my biggest concern lies - and it is a HUGE concern. It's dangerous to put someone in a position where they can expect obedience just because of their position. It's too easy to fall for the allure of the power.  Our War in Heaven narrative and the explanation of unrighteous dominion in D&C 121 ought to eliminate our tendency to say things like the quote above, particularly without any qualifications whatsoever.

I wouldn't have a problem with,

"They would be willing to consider seriously what he asks."

but I cannot accept the quote as worded and the all-encompassing implication of someone giving up their individual agency and doing something just because a mortal leader asks them to do it.

I believe in "obeying" God; I believe in "sustaining and supporting" righteous leaders.

Those two beliefs are not the same thing, and we should NEVER confuse or equate them.  Any leader who does is on the path toward unrighteous dominion. 

Period.  

Analyzing Scripture: Alma 56:47 - "God Would Deliver Them"

Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.

In Alma 56:47, all we are told is that the Anti-Nephi-Lehite mothers “taught” their sons that “if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.” From what, we are not told. We only assume it was from physical death in war because of the situation that caused them to relate it to Helaman (war and their preservation in it).

In other words, the immediate context surrounding the statement (war) influences the readers to assume this context fully defines what is said - by translating what they were taught into, “You won’t die in war.” However, given that we are not told from what God would deliver them, it is legitimate to look at the rest of the context and realize that there might be other, more comprehensive, legitimate meanings for “God would deliver them” – that their mothers’ words might have been valid even if some of them had died in battle. 

They had been “taught” – not “told”. This might be a one time occurrence as they were leaving home for war, as is the standard assumption. However, it seems like these young men had been “taught” dedication and obedience and exactness all their lives. Individuals might change in an instant, but it is unlikely that an entire group of 2,000+ young men would become ultra-obedient and diligent overnight. It is much more likely that they had been “taught” all their lives that God would deliver them (from anything that might threaten their spiritual, eternal well-being) than that their mothers simply pulled them aside on the way out the door and promised them they wouldn’t be killed in war.

Remember, those mothers had seen many of their friends (and perhaps some fathers and mothers and sons and daughters and husbands) slaughtered by other Lamanites – killed in the act of calling upon God even though they “did not doubt”. Those mothers knew full well that God didn’t always deliver His people from physical death, but they were convinced that He could deliver them from their natural and fallen and sinful and lost state – from spiritual death. (Alma 24:27 – “thus we see that the Lord worketh in many ways to the salvation of his people.”)

Alma 53: 20-21 makes it obvious that these young men had been taught all their lives the reward for perfect faithfulness and obedience and dedication – the same reward their own “pioneers” had received, even those who had been killed for their faith and dedication and lack of doubt. I think it’s fairly safe to say, as a parent myself, that their mothers reiterated what they had been taught all their lives as they were heading off to war – that if they did not doubt and obeyed every command with exactness that “God would deliver them”, no matter the physical outcome.

There is another clue that this was not a one-time, war-specific statement. Remember, this was Helaman who was reporting about these young men. He was as close to them as any Nephite – ever. Yet, apparently, he did not know the specifics about what their mothers had taught them until they told him about it in the field of battle. He had been there when the parents had decided to fight; he was the one who had talked them out of it by invoking their sacred promise; he had been chosen as their sons’ military leader because they trusted him as a religious leader. He was intimately involved in the decision of their sons to fight in place of their parents. Perhaps “taught” simply can mean “told” – but I tend to believe that Helaman would have been there for the great send off when all the mothers collectively told all the sons that they would not die in battle – that he would have known about it and not have had to be told after the fact.

Having said all that, I do not discount the idea that the Lord might have promised the parents that He would preserve their sons in battle like He had preserved the sons of Mosiah on their missions – that it was couched in terms of, “You’ve sacrificed enough lives to follow me. I won’t require that you sacrifice your sons.” Even if that really is all it was, that’s enough for me, since it makes it an incredibly powerful story of the rewards of deep and difficult sacrifice and dedication.

Am I saying that this is the correct view of the statement, “God would deliver them”? No; I don’t know that. It might simply have been, “Stay valiant and none of you will be killed.” All I’m saying is that when you parse the text then consider the overall context, there is more than one possible meaning for that phrase ("God would deliver them.") – and assuming it simply meant “they will not die in battle” actually cheapens what I believe is taught in this story.

Are there other legitimate interpretations of this statement? If we “do not doubt”, will God “deliver” us? If so, how – and from what? Are there parallels with this statement that can apply to modern Mormonism in some real and unique way – ways to liken this unto ourselves?

Individual Adaptation within Collective Norms

 I have a friend who has struggled with body acceptance issues for a long time.  She is working on coping mechanisms to help her overcome this difficulty, but wearing garments exacerbates seriously her struggles.  I can't understand those struggles fully, since I have never experienced them personally, but they are real and, at times, can be damaging and even dangerous.

With reference to the garment, she said something to me once that I thought at the time was very powerful - and I have thought about it off and on since then.  She said:

It's difficult for me to see how a loving Heavenly Father could require something that makes us feel this way.

I had the chance to communicate with her again a while ago, and the topic arose one more time.  Having thought about it since she first shared her frustration, I answered her in the following way:

I don't believe he requires us to do things that make us feel that way - but, if you accept his existence and the foundation of communal rules in any way, he does require some people to do things that aren't "ideal" for those people. There's no way to have communal laws, rules, regulations, suggestions, cultural practices, etc. that are going to be "right" for everyone. They are approximations of what works generally for the good of the collective group.

That's an important, even critical, distinction - and I believe it's vital to understand. "We" don't get everything that would be "ideal" for "us" when we agree to be part of any group. An essential part of learning charity - true charity - is acceptance of that fact. The key is to step back a bit, see the benefit for the collective group, make whatever sacrifices are possible for the group, make individual adjustments and adaptations that are important to you personally and find peace in that balance between serving the collective good and honoring what is vital to yourself.

It's not easy - this embrace of paradox and complexity. Simple extremes are easier - but they also are more destructive. Worship according to the dictates of your own conscience, but find a way to do it within the community you choose as your own. It might take a while, but it's worth it in the end - since the faith you carve out will be your own, and it will allow you to continue being an active part of your own tribe, so to speak. 

In the specific case of the garment and her body issues, I have NO problem with her not wearing the garment in the same way most Mormons who wear it do so.  The Church Handbook of Instruction actually leaves how she does so in her hands, and I love that policy.  If adapting in healthy ways means wearing it only for specific things (like when she attends the temple) - or only for a short period of time each day and/or night - or only one day per week or month - or even not until she has a better handle on her body acceptance issues, so be it.  I would rather have her be working on getting to the point that she can wear it without real damage than be damaged in a very real way on a regular basis.  The key, I believe, is not to wear or not wear but rather to face the issue head-on and strive to find a way to do whatever is possible in the present while working on making the future better.

I think that is a good outline for most things in life. 

What or Whom Should We Follow?

1) I define "doctrine" as "whatever the leadership teaches and most people in a group believe at any given time". There is no such thing as "eternal doctrine"; there only is Eternal Truth; the first (doctrine) is the best collective approximation of the second (truth) - and sometimes that approximation is farther from Eternal Truth than a previous one. (That is a concise description of apostasy - when "doctrine" slides or falls further away from Truth. It happens all the time, everywhere.)

2) My answer to the title question of this post is:

"We should follow God - according to the dictates of our own conscience and understanding."

3) Of course, I "follow" leaders as a sign of respect for them and their burdens and responsibilities (and because I want that same consideration given to me whenever I am in a position of "leadership") - but I don't do so blindly, thoughtlessly or without exception. Within Mormon theology, that last description is Lucifer's plan - and it's important to remember that always and diligently. Blind obedience "just because" is wrong - and even is classified as the ultimate thwarting of God's purpose in creation. Period. End of discussion. So...

4) I follow God, to the best of my understanding, first and foremost. I follow God by following my conscience - which means (if I have the Gift of the Holy Ghost (a member of the Godhead) and if "the kingdom of God is within you") I follow my own "I am" in my attempt to follow the great "I AM" as a fundamental part of that first and foremost. I "follow" (at the side of) my wife, as 1/2 of my own "I am", as part of that first and foremost. I follow anyone else (and I mean anyone else) second. I respect, value, support and sustain those I follow second, but I still follow them second. 

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.

Balancing Obedience and Grace: Is It Objective in Any Way?

I can’t see the actual abilities of anyone, including myself to a degree, so I have no problem believing there are no “objective” measures of obedience. We believe there are people who are not accountable at all (for anything they do), but I think we fail to accept that each and every one of us is not accountable to some degree in some ways – and that the Atonement covers that degree completely. 

That might be the only objective measure of obedience in which I believe – that we are saved and redeemed from those things that are outside of our control, and that those things probably are far more extensive than most of us realize, so we are asked to do our best while holding onto hope and faith that our effort will be acceptable in the end. 

One of the reasons I believe in the most expansive view of “Judge not, that ye be not judged” is that I believe seeking objective standards of obedience denies the Atonement in a real way – by assuming we can see as God sees and make judgments God has reserved solely for Himself. 

I know some might say that we can be judged against our past - by how much we improve over time.  I agree with that, generally speaking, but I would add the caveat that we all might have personal “thorns of the flesh” that never leave us and "ceilings" beyond which we can't progress in mortality. We can’t become discouraged and give up in those situations because of how we measure up to our past - or our desired future.

I think that’s the heart of the message of 2 Nephi 4 – and if people like Paul and Nephi can struggle with something (whatever it was for each of them), I am prone to cut myself and others a little slack as long as we keep trying.

One of the reasons I admire my own wife so much is that she keeps struggling valiantly to improve in a couple of areas that are brutally hard for her – when it would be so easy to throw her hands in the air and just say, “This is who I am. God made me this way. I’m going to quit trying to change, since I know he loves me regardless.”

The following can be and has been abused throughout history with regard to some things, but I believe the idea that, in some cases, we don’t need to measure ourselves against either our past or our hopes and expectations for the future is a wonderful principle of the Gospel and aspect of the Atonement.

My own standard is, “trying to do the best I can to recognize what I should do and then trying the best I can to do it – knowing I’m not even sure what really is in my own control but trusting that the Lord has paid for my transgressions and will forgive me of my sins as I strive to overcome them”. That’s not objective at all, but it’s how I try to measure my own efforts.

The Beauty and Danger of Pure Mormonism

I have a friend who had been raised in a home where he was taught that every single policy, rule, commandments, word of counsel, request, etc. was of exactly equal importance - that in order to be a "good member" he had to do everything, all the time.  He had not been taught about the many instances within our scriptures that talk about "a time for ____ and a time for ____" - or "it is not requisite that (you) should run faster than (you are) able" - or all the other ways to teach the principle of balance and prioritization. 

He asked me the following questions, and I am including my answers to those questions. 

First, I need to make it crystal clear that the following is my take only - the world according to Papa D:

Which "laws" do you think are necessary for becoming like Him?

The ones that deal with internalizing love, including some that aren't obvious at first glance. Probably not much else, since everything else hangs on love.

Do all LDS policies, rules, etc. fall into that camp?

Absolutely not - and I guarantee there is unanimity in the top leadership of the LDS Church with that answer.

Are some laws more important to keep than others if we are to become like Him? If so, which ones?

See my first response. (Wow, that was easy. *grin*)

Which laws from God (as defined by the LDS church) have unintended consequences, and when (if ever) do those unintended consequences outweigh the benefits?

All laws, policies, rules, etc. have extraneous consequences, some that are not "ideal". The policies, rules, hedges about the laws, etc. have unintended consequences - all of them. The consequences outweigh the benefits whenever they do. 

I really don't mean that last answer to be flippant. Each one of those policies, rules, hedges, etc. will have different consequences for different people - and even for the same people in different circumstances, which means each of us ultimately has to answer that question for herself.  I simply would add that distinguishing between God's law and man's best attempt to figure out God's law is not an easy exercise, which is why personal revelation, agency and accountability are such a central part of Mormon theology. 
 
That's both the beauty and the danger of pure Mormonism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"By Obedience to the Laws and Ordinances of the Gospel" Does Not Say Anything about the Church

As I have contemplated how to approach my New Year's Resolution post for this week, something jumped out at me that I have known for decades but that hasn't hit me in quite this way previously - so I figured I would share it, even though it is a very short thought for this type of post.

The 2nd Article of Faith, in its entirety, says:

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. 

This Article of Faith says nothing about the LDS Church (other than the fact that the "ordinances of the Gospel" are included within it), and it says nothing about believing everything someone else believes, and it says nothing about cultural expectations, and it says nothing about general rules and instructions, etc. It only talks about "the laws and ordinances of the Gospel". 

I think that's important to consider.

Thoughts? 

"Sustain and Support" vs. "Obey"

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

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

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

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

A Version of Lucifer's Plan I've Heard Some LDS Members Advocate

Someone I admire greatly said something in a thread a while ago that really bothered me. It is something I've heard stated previously, and I simply couldn't disagree more. He said:

If a church leader in authority over you asks you to do something, even if you question it (and you can certainly question them or someone "higher up"), you should just do it.

My response was:

No way.

That, in a nutshell, is Lucifer's plan. ("They will do exactly what I tell them to do, and they won't be punished in any way because they just are doing what they are told to do.") It also is in direct opposition to what our own apostles and prophets tell us regularly - **especially in the temple wording to wives and in D&C 121 with regard to unrighteous dominion**.

Let me explain that as clearly as I can:

Women in the temple are told quite clearly that they have NO obligation to hearken to their husbands simply because they are their husbands - that their husbands can be wrong, and, in those cases, they are not required to agree with or accept their opinions. Men are told explicitly in D&C 121 that their authority is gone when they try to rule on the basis of "because I said so".

Now, to be just as clear, I generally accept and do what is asked of me by church leaders, even when I disagree - but I can't support an extreme "just do it no matter what it is" stance. Leaders can fall, and leaders can give terrible advice - and, at the heart, I just don't support Lucifer's plan.

One more thing:

We hear all the time, and rightly so, that little transgressions can lead to little sins and to bigger sins - until, eventually, one can be excommunicated for serious sins. I accept that fully. Conversely, I believe the same applies to imposing meaningless restrictions. The acceptance of arbitrary and relatively unimportant restrictions can lead to an acceptance of more specific and damaging restrictions - until, eventually, freedom is lost and we are enslaved. Again, the fulfillment of this idea is Lucifer's plan.

The real irony of this is that those who advocate most vociferously for total obedience regardless in church generally are the same people who argue most vociferously AGAINST such a standard in politics. Take the quote I excerpted and apply it to political leaders . . .

New Year's Resolution - 2011

For the past three years, I have focused on the Sermon on the Mount and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (charity) as the center of my New Years' Resolutions. The posts introducing why I have done so and detailing my actual resolutions can be found at the following links: New Year's Resolution , New Year's Resolution - 2009 and New Year's Resolution: 2010.  This year, I am keeping the same basic resolution (to become more Christ-like) but changing the scriptural focus of my effort.

My focus this year will be on some of the specific things Alma mentions in Alma 5 as leading to being spiritually born of God.  Since I can't paste the entire chapter in the space available here, I instead will quote from the introductory overview in Verse 14 and summarize my resolution for each month - with the appropriate verse citation for those resolutions.

Verse 14 reads:

And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?

There are thirty-three distinct questions asked in this chapter that deal directly with the outcomes listed in Verse 14 - three of which are in Verse 6, three of which are in Verse 14 and twenty-seven of which are in the verses following Verse 14 (some of which are re-statements of the root questions - like the multiple questions in Verses 15-18). Since I view the first three questions as preparatory to the central questions asked in Verse 14 and the questions following Verse 14 as the blueprint outlines to achieving the condition described in Verse 14, I am going to organize my resolutions for 2011 the same way I have for the previous three years - one per month throughout the year - focusing on the questions asked in Verses 15-59.

Thus, my resolution for this year will be:

January:  Exercise more faith in the redemption of Christ. (Verses 15-18)
February: Have a purer heart and cleaner hands, and project more the image of God. (Verses 19-25)
March: Feel more deeply to sing the song of redeeming love. (Verse 26)
April: Walk more blamelessly before God. (Verse 27)
May: Be more humble and less proud. (Verses 27-28)
June: Be less envious. (Verse 29)
July:Be less mocking of others. (Verses 30-33)
August: Set my heart less upon the things of the world. (Verse 53)
September: Recognize more fully that I am not better than others. (Verse 54)
October: Persecute other less. (Verse 54)
November: Recognize the needs of the poor more and share more readily with them. (Verse 55)
December: Watch over the flock more diligently. (Verse 59)

Just as I have for the past three years, I will post about this resolution each Saturday throughout the year.

Any thoughts at the beginning, before I start writing my weekly posts, would be appreciated.

Being the Lord's Hands - Rather Than Our Own Hands That He Sometimes Directs

First, I believe the best definition of "obedience" from a Gospel perspective is:

doing the will of the Lord

Our commandments are nothing more than our attempts to provide very basic statements that represent the will of the Lord for ALL - but our own scriptures are replete with examples of instances when individuals understood the Lord's will for them at that moment to be different than a commandment that applied to all. I believe exceptions must by exceptions, and I believe that the person claiming the exception must be convinced it is from the Lord (and I believe many "exceptions" really are not of God but merely justifications and rationalizations of the natural man), but I believe strongly in exceptions that are approved by the Lord in unique or even merely individual circumstances.

There are multiple ways doing the will of the Lord can be pursued, and it is important to consider what works best for you as an individual.

I am going to present two extremes, with the understanding that they are not the only options for true and sincere attempts to do the will of the Lord. This is a thought exercise, not a prescription - since I believe each of us must consider our own abilities, capacities and circumstances to determine exactly what approach we must take to be obedient, especially since it is next to impossible to be obedient to every "rule" that has arisen through the culture of the church.

Jesus said that all the law and the prophets hang on love. Thus, all the other commandments, rules, customs and social norms are supplemental guidelines that, hopefully, lead us to or are expressions of that love. The following, again, are examples of the extremes in how we might show our love and attempt to do the will of the Lord - but there are as many individual ways as there are individual children of God.

When we see someone who needs help, two extremes might show our love and desire to help:

1) Lord, I will help anyone you tell me to help.

2) Lord, I will help anyone I see who needs help, unless you tell me not to do so.

When we see someone who does not understand the Gospel:

1) Lord, I will share with anyone with whom you tell me to share.

2) Lord, I will share with everyone, unless you tell me not to do so.

When we hear something that we believe to be incorrect or misleading:

1) Lord, I will correct anything you tell me to correct.

2) Lord, I will correct anything that I believe is incorrect, unless you tell me not to do so.

Again, I am NOT claiming that one of these approaches is good and the other is bad - or even that one always is better than the other. I am not saying that one constitutes doing the will of the Lord and the other does not. I have been in situations where, in that moment or time in my life, the first was better for me - but I also have been in situations where, in that moment or time of my life, the second was better for me. I believe that determination must be made at the personal level, but I also believe it must be a conscious decision or the default position will be the first approach - and I believe that position, while good, is not ideal as the default for all situations. I believe there must be areas where we are willing to be the Lord's hands (as Pres. Uchtdorf said in a recent talk) and not just our own hands that He directs.

That is a subtle distinction, but it is an important one to me.

I believe it is much more about our attitude with regard to love and service than it is about the specific, exact service we render, and I believe our attitude is FAR more important than the quantitative amount of service we provide - or the dollar value that might be attached to it. I believe we need to be willing to give our all for others - to "be the Lord" for them. I believe that is important as an ideal, even if we never are sure exactly how much of what we do actually is directed by Him or merely constitutes our own intuition and best attempts. After all, the ideal is that we become like Him - doing what He would do (with our own limitations upon Him) were He there to do it.

That parenthetical (with our own limitations upon Him) is easy to forget, but it is vital, I believe, to happiness, joy and peace as we serve and strive to be His hands.

An Epiphany Regarding "Ask, Seek, Find" - A Truly Beautiful Message

As I mentioned at the beginning of the month ("Accepting What Is Given, Found and Opened to Us"), I have had a hard time in the past with Matthew 7:7-8 - especially the way that it has been interpreted to portray God as a vending machine who "gives out" according to what we "put in". I also have struggled to reconcile the interpretation that, because of this passage, wealth is an indication of righteousness. I believe in blessings for obedience, but I also couldn't reconcile the passage with so many people's lives and experiences where they have asked and NOT been given, sought and NOT found, knocked and NOT had it opened unto them.

As I contemplated this issue throughout the month, something hit me that is elementary - so basic that I couldn't believe I hadn't had that epiphany much, much earlier. It is something I have taught my children and students for years, and it is something I have preached as a core, foundational study technique for as long as I can remember. Somehow, with regard to this particular passage, I have failed totally to incorporate this simple mechanism - and that is embarrassing to me. Greater than the embarrassment, however, is a sense of gratitude that the Lord would gently whisper to me somthing that deserved a good roundhouse kick in the head.

The principle I have taught is nothing more profound than the following:

"Context matters."

If the meaning of somthing is not clear immediately, or if there is something that simply seems "off" or wrong about a common niterpretation, I stress two things:

1) Parse the words themselves totally devoid of context, simply to understand the possible meanings.

2) Look at the context in order to narrow down the possible meanings to the most logical or plausible one(s) - often reaching the conclusion that there really is only one reasonable interpretation or meaning.

Frankly, when Matthew 7:7-8 is parsed without context, the beliefs I can't accept are the most apparent interpretations. They are worded in a very straightforward, unambiguous manner and appear to leave little room for interpretation. However, when the overall context (The Sermon on the Mount) is considered - and especially when the immediately surrounding verses are scrutinized - the straightforward conclusion is shattered totally, and a new understanding emerges.

To illustrate this, I am going to summarize and excerpt from the entire sermon, quoting only those verses or statements that influence directly Matthew 7:7-8 - then I will re-interpret those two verses in light of the overall message Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5 = Blessed are those who possess (obtain) certain godly characteristics; there used to be a standard (from which some specific examples are given), but now another standard is in place (from which the counterpoints to the examples are given); through acquiring these characteristics and acting in this manner, become perfected (whole, complete, fully developed).

Matthew 6 = Don't be hypocritical; tackle the process outlined in Matthew 5 as a personal quest, not as a public endeavor; you can't serve two masters - heaven and the world; therefore, choose to serve heaven.

Matthew 6:33 = "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

Matthew 7:1-5 = Don't judge others' journeys along the process outlined in Matthew 5; you will be judged in the same manner you judge others.

Matthew 7:6 = Treat sacred things with great respect and care.

Matthew 7:7-8 = Those who dedicate themselves to this process (acquiring godly characteristics, living the new standards of interpersonal relationships, avoiding hypocrisy, choosing to serve God, seeking first His kingdom and His righteousness, not judging others in their journeys and treating sacred things as sacred) will receive those things for which they ask (since they will ask only for God's will to be done - or for that which is proper), find what they seek (since they will be seeking internal godliness and interpersonal peace and fulfillment) and have heaven's doors opened unto them.

Matthew 7:9-12 = Those who reach this state will treat others as God treats them - as they want to be treated - in a godly manner.

Matthew 7:13-27 = This way to godliness is strict and there are many imitations. Follow the proper path and beware of false paths and guides.

Notice that the promise of Matthew 7:7-8 is at the tail end of the "path to perfection" - the ultimate result of that effort - a re-statement of the conclusion of Matthew 5 ("Be ye therefore perfect.") as a practical statement of what happens in that state of completion, wholeness and full development. In a way, the message really is that you get out of life what you put into it - but it is not a picture of a vending machine that emerges; rather, it is an image of a guide - a shepherd - a mentor - a teacher - someone who has laid out a clear path that leads to exaltation (real, practical, understandable, attainable "perfection").

In essence, in context, these verses say:

"As you journey on the path I have laid out for you, I will give you that for which you ask, allow you to find that for which you seek, open the door unto you as you knock."

What a powerful passage! What a beautiful message of inspiration and hope and empowerment - and ultimate, parental love!!