Personal Limitations: We Won't Be Stuck Like This Forever

One of the reasons I hold onto the concept of a redemption and the way it is framed in Mormonism is that there is a clear statement (at least to me) of bedrock faith that we will not be punished in any way for those things we don't choose - and that we won't be "stuck like this forever" when it comes to those things we don't like about ourselves. It's termed as not being punished for Adam's transgression in the 2nd Article of Faith - and I think it's instructive that it is the second one on the list - that it's right after the statement of belief in God and BEFORE the statement about the Atonement of Christ and obedience to laws and ordinances.

Think seriously about that, please. Our first few Articles of Faith are composed in the following order:

1) the existence of the Godhead;

2) no punishment for those things that simply are a part of mortality that aren't chosen by us and, therefore, aren't "sins";

3) atonement (by implication, for "sins") through obedience (by implication, to things we are capable of obeying).

That's a fascinating, compelling, wonderful arrangement.

I know it might not help much in the exact moment of greatest pain, but, at the very least, for me, it is an amazing concept - that ALL of those things we list as our natural obstacles in life will not be held against us in ANY way when all is said and done. When all is said and done, our efforts to change some of them will be rewarded, no matter the degree to which we are (or feel) "successful". I see that as the core of the "truth (that) shall make you free" - that we are loved for who we are and that we will be allowed to escape these mortal limitations - not just in the next life, but in this life (when talking about things we can change) and in the next life (when talking about things that really are beyond our control here in mortality).

To any who read this who are struggling to deal with a particular unchosen trial of mortality: 

God continue to bless you in your efforts, but, most of all, may you find peace in those efforts and an acceptance of yourself as you are - even as you strive to be more what you want to be. This is one case where I think the statement "well done, thou good and faithful servant" applies perfectly - when "enduring to the end" means something deep, wonderful and inspiring.

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

I have a friend who said once:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I simply would say,

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

I Applaud Pope Francis: Our Core Is the Same, Despite Our Differences

In a sermon last May, Pope Francis said the following:

"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: "Do good and do not do evil. All of us."

‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’

Yes, he can . . . The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 

‘Father, the atheists?’

Even the atheists. Everyone! . . .We must meet one another doing good. 

‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’

But do good: we will meet one another there.

That is core Mormon theology, embodied in our temple worship, and I applaud Pope Francis for saying it so directly and clearly. 

The full article I read is in the Huffington Post's religion section, if anyone wants to read it: 

Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics

Jesus, the Christ, and Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer: Redeeming We Misfit Toys

The Island of Misfit Toys, with all its issues, still was a haven for the toys there - and their collective charity and acceptance of another misfit eventually set them free.

Jesus was a true misfit in many, many ways - and he spent his life serving his own "kingdom of nobodies" - on an Island of Misfit Toys he intentionally and purposefully created during his ministry. Who cares if we are blind? He healed the blind. So what if we feel "dead" sometimes. He raised the dead. Who cares if we are rejected and despised by the "mainstream" religious culture of our time?  He walked and talked and healed those outside the mainstream.  What does it matter if we are sick or tired or different? He loved and blessed the sick and the tired and the different in a very special way.

I believe we are doing God's work here in mortality, in a very real and important way, when we interact with and love those who are suffering and struggling in some way - and I think if Jesus were to spend any time with members of the LDS Church in a second ministry, it would be with those who struggle the most in the Church. I really think he would spend more time outside our meetinghouses than in our Sacrament Meetings, if his first mortal ministry is any indication - and I am not disparaging our meetinghouses and Sacrament Meetings in any way by saying that. I wish badly that more of our congregations and activities were gatherings of misfits much more obviously than currently is the case. 

I really love the idea of looking for and loving those who live on their own Island of Misfit Toys (and realizing that all of us, in a real and important way, are Misfit Toys) - and my teary eyes as I type this are a testimony to that feeling. 

What Is the Truth That Shall Make Us Free? A Book of Mormon Answer

John 8:31-32 says:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

What is the truth that shall make us free? 

In the LDS Church, we quote 2 Nephi 2:25 all the time ("Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."), but I believe we don’t quote 2 Nephi 2:26 nearly enough. This verse is beautiful and so central to the lesson taught thoughout the chapter.  (I have described verse 25 as a "bridge" from what comes before it to the most important message in the entire chapter - verse 26.)  Verse 26 says (emphasis mine):
 

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

 
I read verse 26 as saying that it is the redemption that constitutes the truth that makes us free – that “justifies” the Fall (our separation from God) and gives us the insight to know good from evil. In other words, I don’t believe we know good from evil because we were removed from God’s presence (“fell”); I believe we know good from evil because a God agreed to redeem us from that separation and allowed us to be taught “truth”.

What truth?

That we actually are children of God who actually can become heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ. That Jesus meant what he said, in so many places in the Bible, literally.  That simple “good news” makes us free to act upon hopes we can’t see (faith), act to change our very nature (repent), act to be cleansed symbolically (baptism) and act in an attempt to know God’s will (receive the Holy Ghost). It’s an acceptance of the Atonement / redemption in all its marvelous glory (not “denying the power thereof”) that constitutes the truth that makes us free to act and not be acted upon. 

Verse 26 says all of that, in my opinion – and I continually am blown away by how concisely it does so.

We Can't Judge People Who Leave the LDS Church, Even if We Think We Understand Them

I know quite a few people who have had some intense struggles, of various kinds and to varying degrees. I know quite a few who once were active in the LDS Church who no longer are, due to those struggles.  I appreciated, deeply, Pres. Uchtdorf's talk in the Saturday morning session of General Conference this month, in which he said the reasons people become inactive or even leave the Church are more complicated than we often realize and that we need to respect and not judge them.  I only add that this is true if we don't understand but also, especially, if we assume we do.  

The

The following is one example.  I share it only to illustrate the point I want to make at the end of this post:

I know someone who was unable to live at home for a while during his teenage years.  He lived with friends for a while after he could no longer live at home, and, during that time, he had a couple of incredibly strong spiritual experiences - after first deciding to listen to the missionaries because both sister missionaries were "absolute babes".  (What can I say; he was 18.)        He is highly intelligent, and he "got it" very quickly.  He and I had some long talks, and he really did have some awesome experiences and insights.    He was baptized while living with his friends, then left for college a few months later.

When he first started college, he often walked miles to get to church on Sunday.  However, he had some negative experiences in his new ward that don't need to be detailed here; suffice it to say that they were real and strong and incredibly disappointing to me.   As a result of those experiences and the subsequent lack of the type of support system he had when he joined the Church, he began to return to the life he had lived prior to his baptism.  His dysfunctional adolescence had caused some very serious issues, and, left on his own (even by his new ward), they resurfaced.   I have prayed for him and hoped for him (and still do), but I have seen his actions take him away from activity in the Church. That has not diminished my love for him in the slightest.  

He returned home once for the summer, and his father mocked his inactivity by saying something like, "I guess that Mormon thing isn't working out for you."   His response gave me hope in the midst of my concern. He said to his father, "I'm not living the way I should be living, but the Mormon Church is still the truest thing I've ever heard.  I just have to get myself together before I can live it."  

I hang onto faith that "when he is old, he will not depart from it".  I KNOW his experiences and insights were real; he knows they were real.  I have to trust that God's grace and mercy truly will save him from the results of Adam's transgression in his life - and I see the issues that are keeping him from full activity directly as a result of what he inherited and what he had to "become" to cope - and the experiences he had in a non-supportive environment when he first was on his own.

I believe the Atonement is MUCH more powerful than we often realize. Surely, God understands those whose struggles overwhelm them, in whatever way and for whatever reason, and we someday will "stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers (them); confused at the grace that so fully he proffers (them)." In the meantime, as I said at the beginning of this post, we must love and respect and support and comfort them, if we don't understand and even if we think we do. 

Denying the Faith, in Practical Terms

I believe the core component of faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, is holding onto the belief that all people are redeemable - and, even more importantly, that all are worthy of redemption and that each needs it just as badly as any other. Some examples of people who appear to be irredeemable might be more obvious than others, but they are exactly the same in the end - since "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".

Again, to me, that is the heart of faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ - faith in what we believe he did and/or symbolized through his life and death. Any time we write off someone as irredeemable, we write off the atonement in a very real way and "deny the faith" in practical terms.

We, of all people, ought not condemn or give up on others - given how badly we want God not to condemn or give up on us.

It Can Be Difficult to Accept the Plan of Salvation in All It's Messiness

In Mormon theology, there were two plans: one that dictated beliefs and actions (and, as a result, allowed no growth) and one that left it up to each individual to decide what to believe and do (and, as a result, allowed both greatness and depravity - and everything between those extremes). The good news is that this theology also posits an intervention (through a Savior and Redeemer) by which sincere efforts to believe and do good things are rewarded, no matter how they align with objective, absolute truth. Not everyone in the Church understands how "liberal" that theology is, but it's there in spades.

I know how hard it is to deal with the ambiguity and relativity on which such a theology rests, as evidenced by how many members (including leaders) can't accept it fully (since it can be incredibly messy and painful), but, personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want others to be able to force me to act against the dictates of my own conscience, so I have to be willing to accept that I and mine can't do the same to them. That is true no matter how strongly I feel about the difference. 

The type of truth that I believe all should accept and follow is wrapped up in principles and characteristics and focus, not detail. I don't really care how someone describes charity, faith, hope, compassion, love, forgiveness, etc., as long as they are describing and trying to live them. I don't care if I see lots of the details differently, as long as I am working with others according to those characteristics. I really do believe that the "Gospel" is incredibly simple and "universal truth"; I just don't put much else that I can understand in that category. Pretty much everything else is more blurry or dark to me, so I don't get hung up on it when someone else sees through the mists differently than I do - or when those differing views add complexity, messiness and even pain to my life.

Different People Need Different Messages Delivered in Different Ways

If there is one part of our Mormon "culture" I would smash to pieces in a heartbeat if I could, it is the idea that we have to be "perfect" (meaning mistake free) or constantly focused on our mistakes.  I believe in repentance deeply, but, as I've said elsewhere, there are two aspects of repentance: the redeeming one that covers our sins and the enabling one that covers our weaknesses and unconscious transgressions and so much that causes so many such grief. 

The idea that we really are good enough but simply need to try to do a little better as we go through life was one of Pres. Hinckley's central messages. Unfortunately, for those who naturally have a perfection complex (which is a fairly good-sized percent of all groups) - and for those who had a distorted version of perfection pounded into them (which includes many members of the Church) . . . it can be hard to believe the magnitude of what Christ has done for us already.

It really is a balance, however - and it's really easy for many people to overlook that. People collectively tend to gravitate to the extremes ("The Church is a soulless cult" vs. "All is well in Zion" - or "I am fine just the way I am, thank you, so quit telling me I need to try to be better" vs. "I'm a horrible person and never will be good enough" - etc.) - so teaching a message that works to motivate people at both extremes and everywhere in between them is really hard.

Frankly, I think that's one reason why different apostles and Prophets have different personalities and perspectives - so everyone can hear someone "speak to them personally". For example, in General Conference this weekend, there were multiple talks about obedience and keeping the commandments - but each person addressed that principle in different ways.  I really loved one of them, was somewhat ambivalent about another one and just didn't "feel" a third one much at all.  I know that bothers some people, but I appreciate it - even when I hear something that just doesn't move me in any real way or even grates to some degree.  There also were multiple statements in General Conference that stressed the importance of accepting others who are different than we are, and it was applied to people both inside and outside the LDS Church.  What moves us through "the spoken word" is part of that. 

It makes it hard for people to listen to someone preaching to "the others" - but, at least, the others do get to hear their message, as well. It's when someone is in the group that hears "the other message" more often than "my message" that it gets most difficult.

Recognizing that both messages are being taught, conflicting though they might be, helps.

A Discussion of Suffering and Desire - and Salvation and Redemption

The following is a short conversation among some friends of mine about suffering.  I hope it makes sense and helps someone in some way: 

Friend 1) I posit that we suffer because we want suffering more than not suffering. We will suffer and cause suffering until we decide (collectively) to stop. This doesn't require a central authority (God) directing and orchestrating the suffering. In my own view, we can decide to no longer suffer. We can still experience physical pain, but spiritual suffering is a choice we make. We experience and cause suffering by wanting something else (anger, violence, revenge, theft, etc.) more than peace, especially more than giving up our mortal life.

Friend 2) This sounds like a Buddhist idea. I haven't studied a lot of the ideas, but a friend of mine was a Buddhist. He said that much suffering comes from wanting things. Fix your "wanter" and then you replace suffering with happiness. Not happy you don't have a nice house to live in? Then stop wanting it. Unhappiness gone.

 
 

Friend 3) To me suffering just is.  I know little about Buddhism but agree that all life is suffering, that it has a cause, and there is a way out of it.

 
 

Me) Rather than "fixing my wanter", I have worked on being at peace with the gap between what I want to be and what I am. Notice, I did not say "between what I want and what I have." There's an important difference. I also beleive there are plenty of people who simply are wired genetically to emotional suffering and others who aren't.  It's easy to overlook that.  It can be addressed and overcome, but it's not easy or natural.

 
That's where the idea of grace and mercy amid "failure" resonates so strongly with me. I live a life full of paradoxes, and it isn't easy to recognize them and strike an appropriate balance between competing extremes. It's the idea that there is "salvation / redemption" IN AND DURING what I call the "muddle in the middle" (the suffering) that inspires me to strive to become perfect ("complete, whole, fuly developed") while not letting my inability to do so in the here and now keep me from trying, regardless. (Personally, I like "redemption" more than "salvation".)
It's finding peace in the journey and letting go of the need to fight or struggle or suffer - and that isn't a natural thing, especially for those who are less inclined to let go than I am.

Redeeming Our Ancestors (and Others) through Our Actions in This Life

A friend of mine once said:

The Old Testament says Yahweh will visit the sins of the fathers on their children unto the third and the fourth generation. But if we arise and atone, we redeem the fathers from that curse.  

I know that part of who I am is inherited from those who came before me - my ancestors. Thus, what I do is (in part) a result of what they did. Thus, they are partially responsible for me. Thus, one of the ways I can "redeem" them is to act in such a way that their actions (in helping to create me) result in good through me. Thus, I must be willing to overlook and "forgive" the ruinous elements of what they gave me while recognizing and maximizing the goodness they left for and in me. Thus, as I look at my own descendants, I hope they can take what I leave for them (take what I gave to them in helping to create them), be charitable in how they view me and have the ultimate result be good through them.

In popular terms, this is like "leave the world a better place than it was when you arrived" - but it adds a personal element of gratitude for our ancestors' role in making it possible for us to do that and a humility to hope that our own descendants will be charitable in how they view our efforts and strive to "redeem" us in the exact same way - by making our lives ultimately meaningful on a scale larger and more lasting than just what we lived on our own in mortality.

If you take this concept and insert "Joseph Smith" or "Brigham Young" or anyone else in my communal heritage, the same concept applies. It's an interesting exercise, and I recommend everyone go ahead and do it. Re-read the first two paragraphs with the suggested change, then do it again and insert anyone from your personal or communal past instead of "ancestors".

Did you have an abusive parent - a mean teacher - a petty Home Teacher - an unsympathetic Bishop? Try inserting their name. Do you have someone now who will need to be "redeemed" in the future by someone else - perhaps your own descendants? Try inserting their name.

Reaching this general attitude has freed me from SO much stress and potential anger and bitterness and wasted energy. It's one aspect of how I personally view the term "Saviors on Mount Zion" - those who lose their own lives, in a sense, in an effort to "redeem the world". I also have no problem applying that term to anyone, anywhere - like Mother Theresa or the Assemblies of God missionary I met years ago who helps establish safe houses for girls in third world countries who desperately need them. I believe they are "redeeming the dead" in a very important, powerful way. 

Songs of Redeeming Love: Please Contribute

Last week, I linked to one of my favorite hymns about redeeming love, "I Stand All Amazed".  Today, I want to link to three other songs I love.  I know the first one isn't about Jesus, directly, but I love the song and its message - and it's easy to listen to it in reference to the Redeemer of the World.

I hope you like and are moved by these songs as much as I am. 

"We All Need Saving" (Jon McLaughlin)








"Nearer, My God, to Thee" (Vocal Point)

"Oh, Holy Night" - David Archuleta

Please share your favorite songs of redeeming love - with a url or link, if possible.  At least, share the titles - and the lyrics, if you know them.

The Song of Redeeming Love

My New Year's Resolution for this month is to "feel more deeply to sing the song of redeeming love" - taken from Alma 5:26.  This is a direct result, I believe, of recognizing what was the focus of my monthly resolutions thus far this year - that we are, in fact, loved enough to be redeemed.  Since I have focused on that foundational belief in those resolution posts, I have been contemplating how to approach this month's resolution in a specific manner that builds upon and adds to what I have written thus far.

As I thought about how to begin, I realized I want to make one simple, yet critical, point:

In order to feel to sing a song of redeeming love, it is necessary to feel redeemed.

As I stated last month, there is a fundamental difference between being "redeemed" (bought back, purchased, etc.) and being "saved" (kept from being sold / lost).  Mormon theology is crystal clear that all have been redeemed from the Fall and the influence eternally of evil - that the only people who are not redeemed are those who know they are being offered that redemption and consciously choose to reject it and embrace evil instead.  Everyone else, regardless of their actions in mortality, are redeemed and "rewarded" in some way. 

This recognition should bring a degree of joy and rejoicing to those who believe it - but, unfortunately, our focus on the "final reward" (salvation and exaltation) often gets in the way of a simple appreciation of the initial gift (redemption).  Too often, the obsession with the final reward blinds us to the obligation we should feel to "sing the song of redeeming love" - and that's a shame.

Therefore, my only plea at the beginning of this month is for anyone who reads this to consider the love of God that would motivate a God to promise redemption for all who agreed to come to this mortal sphere - to not let us be separated forever - to do whatever it took to purchase us from a fallen state and, subsequently, offer to keep us from falling again.

Salvation and exaltation are impossible without redemption occurring first - so we should feel the emotion expressed within a song with which I will end this post:

I Stand All Amazed 

(Click the circle next to "Words and Music" at the top, left of the page - then click the "Play" button above that spot.)

How I Describe Faith, Especially in the Redemption of Jesus

A friend with whom I have been communicating online recently asked me to explain how I see faith - and especially faith in Jesus Christ.  The following is my answer to her - and it is my wrap-up for this month's New Year's Resolution:

I like Paul's definition of faith in Hebrews:

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

I also like that he talks in that chapter about it being the motivating force behind action - that he describes its EFFECT on people and what they DO as a result. He gives a list of people who had faith and to whom that faith was imputed for righteousness - and he does so by listing what they did as a result of their faith. In other words, "faith" can be described as a noun ("substance" and "evidence"), but, in full context, to be "effective" or "efficacious", it also must be described as being "exercised" or "planted and nurtured" or in combination with some other action verb.

In the LDS Church, the most commonly quoted verse on faith probably is in James 2, where it says:

"Faith without works is dead, being alone." 

I like that, but it's just a concise way to say what Paul said in Hebrews.

(Interestingly, Luther and some other early Protestant reformers didn't like The Epistle of James and thought it should not have been included in the Bible - specifically because it was so obviously opposed to their view of faith and works. The irony is that they didn't object to Paul and Hebrews, even though the message is exactly the same. Paul just wasn't as blunt as James.)

In "the Gospel", faith is in Jesus - as in, "We believe the first principle of the Gospel is faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ;" Frankly, I think faith gets devalued by too many Mormons - almost taken for granted in a real way in their quest for knowledge. After all, the Doctrine & Covenants says that some people are given the gift to know that Jesus is the Christ, while some people are given the gift to believe those who know.

I also don't like some of the common examples of faith that are used to teach children about it. Believing a light will go on when you flip the light switch is NOT faith, and it shouldn't be taught as such - even to very small children who can't understand the full concept yet. It's experiential knowledge of things actually seen - and that simply isn't faith.

So, to me, our "faith" is that for which we hope in Christ and the evidence we see for that hope - a belief, yes, but such a strong belief that it actually compels us to act on our hope. It is Christ-centered, and the examples we use ought to be Christ-centered, as well - like those Paul used in Hebrews. 

My Talk Last Sunday: Exercising Faith in the Redemption of Jesus Christ

The following is a fleshed out outline of the talk I gave last Sunday.  A few people asked for a copy, so I am posting it here:

1) Jesus has many titles we use to describe him and his relationship to Heavenly Father and us.  Lord, God, Prince of Peace, Master, Judge, Creator, King of Kings, Son of God, Son of Man, Lamb of God, etc.  There are two titles that are so common and that are used together so often that they almost blur together and are seen as synonymous.  They are "Savior" and "Redeemer" - and sometimes we say them so fluently that it comes out sounding like one title - "saviornredeemer".  However, they actually mean very different things, and it is very important to understand those different meanings if we are to exercise faith in the redemption. 

a) To "redeem" means to "recover, purchase, buy back".  (Give example of something of great value that is pawned and must be "redeemed".)  In the Gospel sense, all of us are "fallen" and "lost" when we are born into mortality - where we live in a world influenced to a large degree by Lucifer.  In a way, symbolically, it is not inaccurate for him to be referred to as "the god of this world".  We are separated from God, and the very first thing that has to happen in order for us to return from that separation is to be bought back from the one to whom we were sold, so to speak. 

b) To "save" means to "keep from being discarded".  (Give example of things we value that we just can't bear to throw away, often even long after they have any objective worth left.)  In combination with "redeem", we are "saved" by Jesus pledging to not let us be sold ("lost", "pawned", "separated", etc.) again. 

c) So, before we can be "saved" BY (meaning not just through but also "at the side of") Christ, we must be "redeemed" from Lucifer. 

2) Explain distinction between "being redeemed" and "exercising faith in the redemption".

a) "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  So, "exercising faith" means acting on hope and unseen evidence.  In the case of faith in Jesus' redemption, this means acting in a way that shows we really believe two things: I) God can and has redeemed all mankind; II) All are worth redeeming. 

b) God can redeem and has redeemed all mankind.   First, we MUST admit that all need to be redeemed, including me and all of you.  "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." "As in Adam ALL die, so even in Christ shall ALL be made alive."  The first step in exercising faith in the redemption is to accept and truly believe that ALL actually have been redeemed, with the exception of the Sons of Perdition - those very few who look God in the face and swing their fists. 

I think this generally is accepted intellectually as a given - that God has the power to redeem all.  The real question is my second one: Are all worth redeeming - and, more pointedly, do we live in such a way that provides "evidence" that we truly believe they are? 

c) Am I redeemable?  (Discuss issues of self-worth and how our view of ourselves affects how we treat not only ourselves but also others.  Explain that it is harder for some to believe this, especially when issues like clinical depression, bi-polar disorder, post-partum depression, etc. are present.  Mention the issue of arrogance and pride - believing that we will be redeemed because we deserve to be redeemed.) 

d) Are others redeemable?  (Discuss idea that it's easy to believe others are redeemable the further removed from us they are.  Start at the furthest from us [the person born in China 1,000 BC] and move up to our own friends, family, fellow congregants, neighbors, etc. - especially those who have hurt or let us down in some way.  Mention specifically and by category those within our own church family who struggle to feel of worth, acceptable, redeemable, appreciated and/or loved - the single, the divorced, the gay, the politically different.)

e) How we treat two groups of people reflects most clearly our faith in the redemption of Jesus: I) Those who are most different from us; II) Those who are closest to us - of whom our "natural man" has (often unrealistic) expectations - who are different from us in ways that we deem to be important. 

f) Quote from "Where Can I Turn for Peace?" (Hymn #129): "Where is the quiet hand to calm my anguish?  Who, who can understand? He, only one."  Explain that I believe this is NOT the ideal - that I hope all can pray and find comfort and calm, but that the ideal is that there be someone in the here and now, flesh and blood, who can be, as Pres. Uchtdorf said so eloquently in his General Conference talk, "His hands". 

g) Quote "Lord, I Would Follow Thee" - the entire song without the final repeated phrases at the end of each verse.  Emphasize, "In the quiet heart is hidden sorrow that the eye can't see."  Explain that over 10% of all our hymns deal directly with consolation and comfort as a major theme and that MANY more include that theme secondarily. 

End with a request for each member to consider those in their lives whom they naturally see as lepers, Samaritans, publicans and sinners and ask them to live their lives so that it is obvious they believe that those people are every bit as "worthy" of Jesus' redemption as they are themselves - that they act as God's hands in both the redeeming and saving of those people - that they create among themselves as a congregation their own "kingdom of nobodies" as a friend once described Jesus' earthly ministry. 

Ask point blank that they each consider what their initial reaction would be if a man staggered into the chapel in the middle of the administration of the sacrament muttering and reeking of alcohol - or if two men walked in holding hands and sat in a pew with their arms around each other - if a young woman entered in a mini skirt, visible tattoos and a nose or eyebrow ring.  Would that immediate reaction be, "Ooooh, get out of here.  You're interrupting our worship service" - or would it be, "Thank God you found us!!"  Would they recoil or embrace? 

Until we can embrace all, especially those who are rejected and seen as irredeemable by others, we can't say honestly that we are exercising faith in the redemption of Jesus.

Accepting the Seemingly Irredeemable as Redeemable

Last week, in my New Year's Resolution post entitled, "Exercising Faith in Jesus as Redeemer: God Will Save Us, As Well', I wrote the following:

I believe exercising faith in Jesus as Redeemer is more about living the type of life I believe he lived and wants me to live than about exact understanding of doctrine or philosophy or theology - as much as I absolutely love the study of those things.  To me, exercising faith in Jesus as Redeemer means becoming like him - and the biggest aspect of that, perhaps, is nothing more than learning to see every person around me as valuable, important, worthy of love and, in the best sense of the ideal, a sibling and a fellow child of God.  

I have been thinking about that idea as part of the concept of "redemption" - that, at the most fundamental level, redemption simply isn't "godly" and "infinite" if it doesn't include those who appear to us to be irredeemable.  It has been particularly piercing this week, since I have been dealing with both a situation and a person for whom and in which I have been struggling to feel compassion - struggling to feel as if the person and the situation are irredeemable.  I have been frustrated not only by this person and this situation (which, for the sake of clarity and full disclosure, are distinctly separate and not related in any way) but also with myself for not being able to deal with each properly. 

The only thing I want to share tonight in this New Year's Resolution post is an epiphany I had this week as I struggled to reconcile my attempt to understand the redemption of Jesus Christ and how I can exercise faith in it with the deep frustration I was feeling in these two aspects of my own life.  That epiphany is two-fold:

1) In the case of the person, it struck me that much if not all of my difficulty in seeing redeemable worth is the result of a very strong, very negative first impression.  This person said some things quite a while ago that for me were extremely inflammatory.  They were stereotypical broadsides - attacks on much of what I hold dear to my heart in what I perceived to be an uninformed, mean-spirited, sweeping, condescending, contemptuous way.  I didn't bother trying to get to know this person; I simply took offense and, uncharacteristically, swung back.  Since that time, whenever I was in a situation to interact with this person, my immediate reaction was negative - assuming the worst of what I was about to experience. 

That initial reaction, based solely on one interaction and lacking ANY real depth of understanding at the personal level, kept me from seeing any redeeming qualities in someone I labeled an "adversary".  Hence, right up until this evening, my hackles rose in this person's figurative presence - and I simply couldn't see that, in a very real way, I was denying the power of the redemption of Jesus Christ as it applies to all.  I was making an exception at the practical, personal level - even though my brain would have said that, of course, I believed this person could be redeemed. 

I am sorry that it took so long for me to realize this, but it has been a real eye-opener for me.  I realized very clearly that I need to change MYSELF - not the other person or the circumstances in which we interact. 

2) Conversely, I have come to realize that the difficult situation with which I have been struggling just might be fundamentally irredeemable for me - that I actually might have to remove myself from it in order for it to be resolved.  This realization has brought its own kind of angst and concern, but what struck me hard this week, in relation to my New Year's Resolution, is that there is a HUGE difference between an inter-personal conflict and a situational conflict that merely involves other people. 

I have no right to judge a person as irredeemable, even with people who might be much worse than my initial perception of the person I described above.  However, in some situations, even as I cannot judge the person to be irredeemable, I can (and sometimes must) be willing and able to judge a situation as irredeemable.  In those cases, even as I refuse to condemn the person (leaving that judgment to the one who truly can see the ability of the soul and the intent of the heart), I must separate myself from the situational aspects that cause it to be irredeemable. 

In summary, although I can and should "give up on" some situations, I can never "give up on" people - at least from an eternal perspective.  I learned this evening the folly of doing that, since I discovered the person I had been writing off really isn't nearly as bad as I had assumed - and certainly not irredeemable. 

Exercising Faith in Jesus as Redeemer: God Will Save Us, as Well

As I contemplated the comments from my last New Year's Resolution post ("Request for Thoughts about the Redemption of Jesus Christ"), my mind was drawn to perhaps the group in all of our scriptures who exemplified best a belief in their Redeemer.  I am speaking of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis - and I want to use the record we have of them to illustrate the core of what I have come to believe about how we can exercise faith in Jesus Christ as a "Redeemer".  I have written of them previously on this blog, but I want to focus more intently now on how I believe they saw "redemption" - differently, perhaps, than is taught typically. 

In Alma 56:47-48, all we are told is that the mothers of the Stripling Warriors (the "sons of Helaman") “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 (war and their preservation from death in it) that caused them to relate it to Helaman. However, the first two-thirds of verse 47 make it clear that they were willing to die. I believe it is important that they appear to have accepted the possibility that they might die in combat.  Given that, it is legitimate to look at the rest of the context and realize that there might be other legitimate meanings for the promise that, “God would deliver them.”

First, "they had been taught” - which might have been a one time occurrence as they were leaving home. However, it seems like these young men "had been taught” dedication and obedience and exactness all their lives. Individuals can change in an instant, but it is unlikely that 2,000 young men suddenly would become super-righteous and completely obedient overnight. It is much more likely that they "had been taught” 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 the war.

Remember, those mothers had seen many of their friends (and perhaps some fathers and sons and husbands) slaughtered by other Lamanites - killed in the act of calling upon God even though they did not “doubt God”. They knew full well that God didn’t always deliver His faithful people from physical death, but they were convinced that He could deliver them from their natural, fallen, 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, obedience and dedication - the same reward their own “pioneers” had received, even those who had been killed for their faith, valor and lack of doubt. I think it’s fairly safe to guess, 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, God would deliver them - no matter the physical outcome.)

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. 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 to be told after the fact.

(Having said all that, I do not discount the idea that the Lord promised the parents that He would preserve their sons in battle like He had promised Mosiah and Alma to preserve their sons on their missions to convert these very parents (a promise of which Helaman would have heard from his own father and understood intimately) - that is was couched in terms of, “You’ve sacrificed enough lives to follow me. I won’t require that you sacrifice your children.” 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.)

I am not saying that my reading of this account is the correct view of the statement, "God would deliver them." It simply might have been, “Stay valiant and none of you will be killed.” All I’m saying is that when you parse the text, there is more than one possible meaning for that phrase (”God would deliver them.”) - and, to me, the more comprehensive one I describe here is much more powerful and moving and inspiring in its applicability to me and my own battles. This is because "deliver" has much the same meaning as "redeem" - especially in the context of a story like the Sons of Helaman. 

In a nutshell, this is my own testimony of exercising faith in Jesus Christ as Redeemer - that I try to live my life in such a way that it might be said of me, "God will deliver him."  I believe that has much more to do with how well I follow my conscience, my mind and my heart than how well I live a checklist of do's and don'ts - even as I believe deeply in having a core list of fundamental do's and don'ts.  I believe most, if not all, of the list focus is swallowed up in the attitude of giving one's heart to love God - and others as one's self, and that striving to do those things allows all the laws and the prophets to hang comfortably on my heart. 

I believe exercising faith in Jesus as Redeemer is more about living the type of life I believe he lived and wants me to live than about exact understanding of doctrine or philosophy or theology - as much as I absolutely love the study of those things.  To me, exercising faith in Jesus as Redeemer means becoming like him - and the biggest aspect of that, perhaps, is nothing more than learning to see every person around me as valuable, important, worthy of love and, in the best sense of the ideal, a sibling and a fellow child of God. 

At it's most awe-inspiring, it is believing him and his father when he says that they can take the weak, flawed, corrupted ME and turn me into a strong, flawless, incorruptible ME - that he loves me now just as much as he will love me then - that he sees me as redeemable and will, in actuality, "purchase" and "save" me. 

Request for Thoughts about the Redemption of Jesus Christ

My resolution for this month is to "exercise more faith in the redemption of Jesus Christ".  (Alma 5:15-18)

As I thought about this resolution, I was preparing an introductory post similar to what I normally do at the beginning of each month - a look at the actual definition of the term and a description of my initial thoughts concerning that definition, but as I sat down to write this post I had a strong feeling to take a totally different approach tonight.  So . . .

As a launching pad for the rest of my posts this month, I simply would like to ask those who read this post to share their thoughts about "the redemption".  I don't want to put ANY parameters or restrictions on the input.  I don't mind orthodox, heterodox or even non-Mormon and non-Christian perspectives.  I just want input on what "the redemption of Jesus Christ" means to you. 

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.

May My Descendants Redeem Me When I am Dead

Margaret Young wrote a moving post on By Common Consent last year entitled, "They Fought as They Were Taught". The entire post is worth reading, but in a follow-up comment (Comment #3) she said something that really struck me as profound:

In LDS theology, we talk about “redeeming the dead.” I think at least a portion of this means that we undo their errors and create a better world on the foundation–but also the ruins–of what they’ve left to us. Sometimes, we simply rearrange the ruins like a puzzle which makes a different kind of sense in a different kind of world. They bequeath both a legacy and a burden–and we are called to responsibility.

I love this perspective on redeeming the dead, and I pray that my own descendants will redeem me in exactly this manner. To do so, they will have to see me as redeemable, even if some of my beliefs seem ignorant (or even abominable) in the lens of 20/20 hindsight 150 years later. I pray they use that hindsight charitably and realize I was doing the best I could with what I know, just as they will be doing as they look back at me and forward to the judgment of their own descendants.