A Fascinating Comment By a Gay LDS Member About Same-Sex Attraction

Marriage, Dating and SSA Men - Kevin L, author of the blog "Reaching Upward".

Certain About Uncertainty - Uncertain About Certainty

I believe strongly in both certainty and uncertainty - in the need for both in each individual life. I hope I can explain succinctly, since that’s not my default - as you all know.

My favorite definition of faith is the one that combines “the substance of things hoped for” with the motivation to pursue those unseen things. Next, as I’ve said here before, I believe that life is about becoming, not just understanding - and that becoming trumps understanding if only one must be pursued. So, I see a need for balance in this discussion of certainty vs. uncertainty.

In practical terms, this means I believe in the certainty of hope that motivates me to move forward and “plant and nurture the seed” - believing that if I do so I will understand more fully and gain more certainty. However, the real problem occurs when certainty closes off any desire to continue to learn more - about a particular concept or about all concepts.

Without a measurable degree of certainty, growth just won’t occur - since time will be spent “trying to understand better” rather than “trying to live better”. Personally, I would rather try something and learn at a very practical level by my success OR failure than not try something and never learn except in theory.

In summary, I want to be more and more certain of the details about which I care deeply, even if I never am certain of everything. I just don’t think there is time in this life to learn enough to be certain of everything - and I think that is a central concept of the Restoration. Think about continuing revelation in that light: Protestantism essentially said, “We know enough to get what we want;” Joseph Smith said, “I don’t, and you don’t know enough to get what I want.”

Finally, it bothers me greatly when someone says with certainty that I can't know something with certainty. *grin*

Men Are That They Might Have Joy - Not Just Kids

Apple Flesh is More Important than Apple Seeds - Nathan Richardson (ldsphilosopher)

Is the Mormon Church a Cult? ("Lord, Is It I?")

I saw a very generic question a while ago that I have seen over and over and over again in my life: "Is the Mormon Church a cult?"

My response was immediate and almost thoughtless, since I have had years to construct a simple answer:

No, the LDS Church is not a cult - except when "cult" is defined very broadly. When that is done, EVERY religious denomination is a cult.

It really is that simple.

Someone I respect greatly took issue with my answer. He was correct, and his response is the best answer I've ever read as to the question of whether the LDS Church is a cult:

While mainstream journalists and news sources don't tend to refer to the Mormon Church as a cult, I am not comfortable that we try to close the discussion with a clear "no" (about any religion). That disenfranchises some sincere people with real grievances (in their individual experiences).

I think "cult" is personal and local. Your LDS experience may be "culty". Mine may not be. Or vice versa.

As with most things, I feel it's best to leave the question open-ended, and perhaps unanswered.

"What is culty about my religion?"

"What can I do better (not to contribute to an atmosphere of cultiness)?"

"Lord, is it I?"

Not Being Easily Provoked Does Not Mean Never Being Provoked

So far this month, my New Year's Resolution posts have focused on what it means to be provoked, how easy it is to be provoked and how easy it is to be provoked toward God. However, in looking at the aspect of charity that Paul encapsulates as being "not easily provoked", I think it is important to consider what this does NOT say about provocation(s) and charity.

1) This statement assumes that provocation will occur - and it will do so in ways that will cause improper reaction to occur easily.

As I said two weeks ago, provocation is not something I have to seek in order to become stronger as a result of finding it. In fact, I think it is obvious upon initial consideration that seeking or causing provocation is opposed to everything else related to charity - and it also is opposed to the characteristics listed in the Sermon on the Mount as leading to being blessed by their acquisition and internalization. Therefore, it is important to point out that my effort to be less easily provoked CANNOT be accomplished by seeking provocation. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

2) This phrase does not label provocation as universally bad.

One of the definitions of "provoke" is:

to incite or stimulate to action; to give rise to, induce or bring about

When looked at fully, provocation is not a bad thing - in and of itself, in isolation. Often, we talk of being provoked by something in such a way that we are inspired to do good, to uplift, to support a good cause, to reach outside our natural comfort zone, etc. Many of the most powerful social reforms in history, for example, came about as a direct result of someone being provoked by a disturbing event or situation. Conditions in the meat packing industry caused provocation within individuals who led the effort to enact badly needed quality control regulations for food; exposure to sweat shops provoked the establishment of child labor laws; confusion and anxiety over religion provoked a young man to a grove of trees to pray; repentance is understood to rely on provocation, whether internal or external.

3) How we react to provocation is more important than the nature of the provocation itself.

Perhaps the best indicator of charity is not even "how" we react, but "how quickly" we react. As I mentioned in the first post this month, it is not that we "react" automatically to provocation - but that, instead, we take the time to "act" in the face of provocation. In this sense, it is more important that we not be "EASILY" provoked - not that we be "NOT" provoked. I dare say that this injunction will not excuse overly-quick action in the face of provocation - that doing the right things too quickly is not only possible but can cause terrible consequences and be the wrong thing in the long run. That is worth a post all on its own.

4) The exact same objective provocation might not require the exact same action in each instance.

I believe, upon reflection, most people can understand that not every situation that includes provocation - even provocation that is objectively equal - should result in the exact same action. After all, the heart of our legal system is that there can be mitigating circumstances that need to be taken into consideration in order for any of various responses to be correct, just, fair, appropriate, etc. The objective provocation might be someone being killed - but the mitigating circumstances might be so different that one person is excused without punishment of any kind, while another person might be sentenced to death. Similarly, when dealing with personal affront, insult, harm, anxiety or conflict one person who is the catalyst might be forgiven quite easily - while another person who says or does the exact same thing might be condemned harshly. Much of this depends on the provoker, but much of it depends on the timing.

5) Taking a breath and counting to ten are common approaches to avoiding acting in haste - and, as important as practices like that are, they are not utilized fully simply to avoid acting.

As I said, sometimes provocation requires action - not just letting time pass and allowing the reason for the provocation to remain unaddressed.

In light of the focus of this resolution, the key appears to be the ability to "take into consideration" the whole picture (or as close to the whole picture as is possible) and to act accordingly - which takes a degree of self-control, analysis and, most importantly, time.

Again, the command does not say, "Be not provoked." Rather, it says, "Be not easily provoked."

Gender Roles As Mortal Compromise

Any woman who has been through the temple and remains true to the covenants she accepts therein is clothed in the priesthood throughout the rest of her life.

Also, that happens prior to what we commonly term "the endowment". Thus, only those who "accept and receive the Priesthood" can be endowed with the understanding and power of God. Phrased a bit differently, it would be accurate to say that all those who accept and receive the Priesthood in this manner can be endowed thusly.

The Church in the fullness of its own ideal world is not sexist.

The relationship between Adam and Eve prior to the Fall is one of complete equality; the difference after the Fall is a compromise adapted to the lone and dreary world. The woman was given the primary responsibility to oversee the fulfillment of the first commandment in a way that would bring glory to God (nurturing the children they would bear); the man was given the primary responsibility to make sure that could happen (protecting and providing for his wife and children).

The temple recognizes the mortal compromise in what it asks of women (what is required of them to live in the lone and dreary world and multiply), but it is critical to realize that it is phrased in exactly that way - asking those who are equal up to that point (and in the temple) to accept a "role" when they "enter" (and return to) the lone and dreary world - when they leave their "symbolic immortality" and return to their everyday "mortality". The promise is that such a compromise will not last forever - that once they leave mortality the original relationship will be restored and they will live together as Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses - united equally as one.

Digging Our Own "Abraham's Wells"

Mormon Humanism - Geoff J. (New Cool Thang)

Our Children Need the Holy Ghost Desperately

I have a friend who questioned whether or not his daughter possibly could understand baptism well enough at age eight to make an informed choice. The following was my response to him:

"In this day and age, young girls need the gift of the Holy Ghost desperately, and they need it at an earlier age every decade I've lived. That doesn't address an exact age, but if you postpone it too long out of your own insecurities or concerns, you will be handicapping her in a very real way."

"Teach her why baptism is important symbolically; teach her the covenants she will be making at baptism; teach her the reality of the gift of the Holy Ghost; teach her that you will respect her agency and intelligence and desire; don't project your own concerns on her if she doesn't share them. Whatever she decides, even if you feel it is not entirely her choice, honor her by honoring her decision. Be her father."

"I have no right to tell you what you should do with your daughter. That's between you, your wife and your daughter. I simply repeat:

One of the truest gifts anyone in the church can have is the gift of the Holy Ghost and an upbringing that will help her or him understand its reality."

The Nature of Spiritual Anchors

Anchors - Patty (I Believe In Christ)

Baptism for the Dead: The Great Proof of the Atonement of Jesus Christ

The Biblical background:

In I Corinthians 15, Paul gave his great dissertation on the resurrection. He began by reiterating what he had taught about the resurrection of Jesus and what the saints in Corinth had accepted when they believed and were baptized, focusing on the witnesses who testified of that resurrection – including himself (vs. 1-11). It is important to note that these were Christians to whom he addressed this topic – that they had expressed belief in the resurrection of Jesus as the Christ (Messiah). This discourse did not attempt to convince them of the resurrection; it attempted to teach those who already believed in the resurrection something deeper that they did not understand at that point.

In vs. 12-17, Paul made it clear that those who testified of Jesus based their claims of uniqueness on the reality of “the resurrection of the dead”. Verse 14, especially, is plain and clear. In summary, "No resurrection; no Christ; faith is vain."

Paul then shifted focus in vs. 18-19, by bringing in all who are “fallen asleep in Christ” – those who died believing in Him. Verses 20-23 expand that discussion by stating unequivocally that everyone who has ever lived are resurrected through the resurrection of Jesus – verse 22 being the most explicit. (”As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”) Verses 24-28 are a description of Christ’s rule AFTER all are resurrected. Then, in verse 29, Paul puts a capstone on his dissertation thus far, by asking two rhetorical questions:

“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?”

In the context of the entire chapter, it is clear that this is a rhetorical question designed to impress upon the early saints of Corinth that the practice of baptisms for the dead was the single most powerful example or proof of the fact that the claim in verse 22 was literal and truly, universally applicable – that ALL truly will be made alive in Christ through an actual resurrection.

If you re-word verse 29 into more modern conversational language, again, keeping in mind the argument of the entire chapter, it might read thus:

“If the dead are not resurrected, what are we doing by baptizing people for them? Why are people baptized for the dead, if that has no practical effect - if those dead, in fact, are not made alive in Christ?”

I have heard other interpretations of that verse that claim baptism for the dead was not an approved practice of the early Church, but not one of them makes sense in the context of the entire chapter - not in the context of actual history, where the practice was so common it had to be banned by council vote over 300 years later.

So, we believe that all people who have ever lived will be resurrected. We also believe that baptism has been commanded of all people who have ever lived as a symbol of their acceptance of God’s Christ/Messiah. (I personally believe in an exception for those prior to the birth of Jesus who were circumcised in token of their acceptance of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but that’s not revealed, so it’s a personal opinion.) This means that we accept Paul’s rhetorical question - and its applicable inversion:

“Else what shall they do who have died and will rise in Christ, if the commandment is to be baptized but they have not had that chance in this mortal life? Why would we not baptize for the dead?”

We baptize for the dead in order to prove our belief that the Atonement of Jesus truly does cover all of God's children, just as Paul taught the saints in Corinth.