Wednesday, October 15, 2008

I Stand in Awe of Faith Like This

My wife's 5th-great-grandfather was the first native Italian convert to join the Church in Italy, baptized by Lorenzo Snow's companion. I share this only to share the power of his immigrant story.

His ancestors had been religious dissenters for hundreds of years. They had been killed and driven from their homes by the Catholic Church numerous times, and each time they waited until their ancestral valley was unoccupied and quietly "moved back home". Due to this intense persecution, their writings are full of sacred oaths to never leave that valley and settle permanently somewhere else.

When this particular man joined the Church, he had no idea he would not die in that valley. When the call was made to join the Saints in America, he packed his belongings without a word of complaint, said good-bye to his extended family and left his sacred valley for good - simply because a man whom he had never met but whom he believed to be a prophet of God asked him to do so. ("For the Strength of the Hills" was written not only about the Rocky Mountains but also about the hills surrounding his ancestral home - a hope that the hills within which the Saints settled would be for them what the Italian hills had been for his ancestors.)

I stand in awe of that kind of testimony and conviction and dedication.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Monday, October 13, 2008

My Spiritual Experiences are Uniquely Mine

In my various callings, I have told the full-time missionaries in my wards and stakes for the past 15 years to stop telling people exactly how they will receive an answer to a prayer or a testimony. I also have told everyone who will listen to stop telling people they can "know" whatever they want to know. Those two claims simply don't match our scriptures.

First, just like teachers tend to teach with their own learning modality, members and missionaries tend to think everyone will feel and experience the same way they do. To complicate it further, we tend to think if one person was told they will feel the Spirit in a certain way (e.g., Oliver Cowdery's burning in the bosom and stupor of thought), then everyone should be able to feel it in the same way. We need to recognize that the "fruits of the Spirit" are wide and varied, and any one of them can signal an answer to prayer or a spiritual impression. What makes it "real" to the askers is their own recognition of it, which is the tricky part.

Second, "To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful." (D&C 46:13-14)

We really need to acknowledge this belief and not hold investigators to a standard to which God does not hold us even as baptized members of the Church.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

My Word Should Be My Bond

I learned something very interesting as I studied my resolution for this month.

Matthew 5:33-37 says,

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

1) To "forswear thyself" means to "break your oath, or perjure yourself". I understood "perjury" to mean lying under oath, but I am not a lawyer, so I looked up "perjure" in the dictionary. It means, "to make (oneself) guilty of perjury by deliberately testifying falsely under oath." Therefore, the charge to "not forswear thyself" means literally to not say things "under oath" that you know are not true.

2) The charge to not forswear thyself is followed immediately by a follow-up charge to "perform unto the Lord thine oaths." It is this charge that I have misunderstood until now. I used to think it meant that we are supposed to hold our oaths (promises) sacred and perform them as if they were oaths made to the Lord, but, in the context of these verses, I've changed my mind in a significant way. I now read it as saying that when I make an oath (promise or covenant) with the Lord, I need to make sure I am able to "perform" that oath "unto (Him)". In other words, I can't forswear myself in my covenants with Him.

3) Verses 34-36 provide examples of ways that promises and covenants can be established on illegitimate foundations, then verse 27 lays out the new foundation for covenants and promises. Ultimately, this passage says that I am held accountable for my own actions - that I can't blame God (or the Devil) for anything I do.

4) Finally, my word should be good enough. If someone asks me to do something, I should be able to say, "Yes," or "No," and have that be enough.

That is a goal worth pursuing.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Be Very Grateful We Don't Get What We Deserve

"A man asked me to treat him how he deserved to be treated - how God would treat him. So, I set him on fire and sent him to Hell." - Larry Smith

I think we need to thank God every day that He doesn't give us what we deserve.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Quick Thoughts on Patriarchal Blessings

My mother's PB is incredibly short (hardly any advice or counsel at all), and this was from a man who was known for his long blessings. My mom is too humble to admit it, but, looking back at her life, she really didn't need much counsel or advice. However, the two things that were said were absolutely spot-on and described a mental condition that was undiagnosed until almost 10 years after the blessing and unknown at the time by her family.

Looking back on my wife's life thus far, her PB identifies every single one of her major issues - those with which she struggles continually. It's not self-fulfilling prophecy, but rather real insight into many issues of her upbringing and natural tendencies. One fascinating aspect of both of our blessings is that the focus in each section dealing with marriage is her. (She is the focus in hers, and she is the focus in mine.)

I believe the concept of Patriarchal Blessings is powerful and inspired, but I believe that they are only as infallible as the individual who gives them - meaning that none of them are completely infallible. I also believe that very few of them are inevitable. My mother's experience is an exception that proves the rule, I believe, since she herself is an exception that proves the rule. The process and the event are an amazing part of my own testimony of the Restoration, but what I make of my Patriarchal Blessing still depends on me.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

A Mother's Fears

Fears - Tracy M. (Dandelion Mama, reposted on By Common Consent)

Monday, October 6, 2008

Appearances vs. Action

My parents care about the appearance they project, but my father has gone into a bar, in his small Utah hometown where everyone who sees him knows him, to Home Teach someone who wouldn't see him anywhere else. Some members might think he was "encouraging those who drink," but there was no alternative, and he always thought the command to Home Teach was more important than what someone might have thought of him going into a bar.

I believe in acting of my own volition without having to be commanded in all things. I believe Jesus, through the life he lived, taught that people are more important than appearances - as important as appearances can be. Remember, the only people He condemned were the hypocrites who projected an appearance of righteousness while living lives full of corruption. If worrying about maintaining a good appearance keeps us from accomplishing a good action, then I think we are in danger of acting like those hypocrites.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Swear Not At All

My resolution this month is taken from Matthew 5:33-37 - an interesting part of the Sermon on the Mount. It is:

Keep my promises more diligently; make them a simple "Yes" or "No".

In many ways, it seems almost trivial compared to the obviously fundamental characteristics listed in this chapter. The Beatitudes are transcendent in their simplicity and power, while these verses seem to be almost menial and pedestrian at first glance. They aren't.

Initially, I am going to depart from my normal approach of addressing the definitions of the key words and discussing the mechanics of the actual resolution. For this post, I am going to address both what it means and what it does NOT mean.

The following is something I wrote for Mormon Momma this past April entitled "Swearing and Cursing":

The Bible provides the following admonitions regarding swearing:

“Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.” (Deut. 6:13)

“He that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth.” (Isaiah 65:16)

“But I say unto you, Swear not at all;” (Matthew 5:34)

Also, our scriptures include the following references to cursing:

“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:17)

“His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity.” (Psalms 10:7)

“Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” (James 3:9)

There are dozens of other references to swearing and cursing, and all of them deal with swearing as a way of making a solemn promise (including taking the Lord’s name in vain) and cursing as pronouncing punishment. I chose the verses quoted above because they provide an interesting insight into the way that the original, scriptural meaning of these words has mutated radically since the initial pronouncements - coming to mean something now that simply was not included or intended in the scriptural admonitions.

It is interesting that neither term ("swear" or "curse") is defined in the Bible Dictionary. Given that situation, the following definitions come straight from the dictionary:

“to swear” = “to make a solemn declaration or affirmation by some sacred being or object, as a deity or the Bible - to bind oneself by oath.” (There are 10 definitions; 9 fit this general meaning.)

“to swear” = “to use profane oaths or language” (This is the only exception to the general rule.)

“to curse” = “to express a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., befall a person, group, etc. - to invoke a formula or charm intended to cause such misfortune to another.” (again, the majority of definitions)

“to curse” = “to use a profane oath or curse word; to swear at” (one definition)

It is interesting and instructive to note that the second definitions (profane language and profane oaths) do NOT appear in our scriptures. Every instance of “swearing” and “cursing” throughout our canon involves the first definitions. What does this mean?

First, it is apparent that “swearing” means making a solemn oath or promise. ("I swear it shall be done.") In the OT, as a token of their status as The Chosen People, Israel was allowed (even encouraged) to make these sacred promises in the name of God - to swear by His name. However, one of the aspects of the Law of Moses that was fulfilled by Jesus was this practice. In its place, Jesus commanded to "swear not at all".

Obviously, He did not command that we stop making solemn promises, since His new admonition was the following:

“But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (Matthew 5:37)

By ending the Old Testament practice of swearing by God, and by shifting the responsibility to us - an individuals - to restrict our promises to “Yea, yea; Nay, nay”, He put the responsibility for keeping those promises squarely on us - as individuals. There no longer was the excuse that, “God just didn’t do it;” it was replaced by the only possible statement, “I just didn’t do it.” I see this move as one more example of the move from institutional responsibility to personal responsibility. Jesus said, essentially, “It’s up to you, so don’t even imply that it was someone else’s decision or is someone else’s responsibility.”

So, how did we get from the original pronouncements of Jesus - the great societal paradigm shift - to where we are now? The Puritan and Victorian societies of the past few hundred years simply took this basic shift and rejected it - returning to the old Law of Moses mentality and expanding the meaning of “swear” and “curse” even beyond where it had been anciently. Just as the ancient Jewish leaders expanded the original commandments by adding many prohibitions not included in the original law, modern Christians added layers of meaning to these ancient prohibitions and turned them into restrictions they never were intended to be.

Now, in our society, people have returned to “swearing by some sacred being or object”, but they also have created a completely new definition and category of swearing. Now, it includes “using unacceptable words” - words defined by the educated elite to distinguish those who are cultured and those who are not. They have changed the original meaning from “making promises for God” to "saying words that show you are more ignorant than we". That is a radical and divisive change.

These same people have taken “cursing” from a statement of malicious intent and desire to cause harm to the same generic “saying bad words” - also a radical and prideful change.

Here are just a couple of examples, using the most tame words I feel comfortable using here:

“Hell” is a proper noun that designates a location and/or condition. It is used in our scriptures hundreds of times, at least. It is sung in our hymns of worship. When used as a proper noun (”come hell or high water”), and not within a true curse, there is absolutely nothing bad or wrong with the word itself. Yet, “hell” is forbidden by many people as a “swear word”.

“Damn” is a noun meaning “something of little value”. A good example of this is, “That isn’t worth a damn” - meaning it is worthless. Otoh, “to damn” means to enact a curse - to cause someone to become of no worth, figuratively casting someone to Hell (the place where they are of no worth). Therefore, “Damn you,” is exactly what is forbidden in scriptures, for two reasons:

1) It incorrectly places the one who “curses” another in the place of God, the only one who can be the Judge and validly make such a pronouncement; and
2) it invokes that status in opposition to Jesus’ command to “swear not at all” - since invoking such a curse is, in effect, stating one’s authority to “promise in the name of God” that it will happen.

There are some examples that never were part of religion, but only came to be seen that way as a result of the elite division I mentioned earlier. Rich, educated, elite people found other ways of saying the same thing in an acceptable manner. That is an incredibly important point, but it is not understood by the vast majority of people when considering “swear words”. (What’s the difference between a one syllable word and a five syllable word if they mean exactly the same thing? Why is one forbidden and one allowed?)

Please understand, I do not advocate “swearing and cursing” as they are defined in our day and age. I try to avoid placing intentional offense in front of people, even when I feel that such offense is misguided and somewhat immature. I teach my children that “swearing and cursing”, as defined in our modern times, are not violations of religious command but, rather, violations of societal expectations - but I also advise them to follow that expectation. In this case, not putting a stumblingblock in front of others is more important than doing something just because it’s not wrong. It is a personal sacrifice for the overall harmony of the community, exactly as someone who would never abuse alcohol abstains anyway in order to help those who might. I teach them that the proper definition of “using bad words” in our time should be “using certain words out of original meaning as expletives (or words with no inherent meaning as used in the new context).” In this context, it is perfectly acceptable to use an alternate term for manure, as long as you are referring to manure, but NOT within the expression, “Oh, ____!”

I just wish people would stop telling other people they will be damned to Hell for swearing and cursing according to our modern interpretation. That simply isn’t scriptural. Remember, it is God Himself and His prophets who use the words “damn” and "hell" in our scriptures exponentially more than anyone else.