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.

If You Want to Be Loved and Understood By Others

My mother is a saintly woman in many ways, but she also has a rare form of schizophrenia. If she gets overwhelmed, her mind won't shut down and she has a nervous breakdown. I'd love to be able to have deep, nuanced discussions with her, but they would get her mind spinning so fast it would be extremely detrimental to her well-being. I understand that, so I keep our Gospel conversations simple and faith-promoting.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with her intellectually. She was a straight A student in school and a top-notch legal secretary before her disability surfaced. She just can't handle things that would "rock her reality", and she can't multi-task, and she can't worry about things. Her life needs to be lived on an even keel - and what my father has done to protect her leaves me in awe. [If you are interested, you can read my tribute to him here: My Niece Died This Morning.]

It might be easier for me to realize, since my mother's situation is a medically diagnosed condition, but the concept is the exact same for all: If someone can't get what you believe, and if it causes intense pain to try to make them understand, stop! Don't inflict that pain on them. Quit being selfish and be selfless. Put their emotional and spiritual well-being ahead of your own.

I learned that lesson vicariously from my father, and it is profound and life-altering. Frankly, it's probably the most important advice I can give on the topic of understanding and love and acceptance. If you want to be loved for who you are, love others for who they are - truly and sincerely, without expectation of reciprocation. Treat them truly as you would want to be treated. After all, "We love Him, because he first loved us." (I John 4:19)

Let Him In - to Your Dark, Dirty Rooms

Cleaning in the Dark - Patty (I Believe in Christ)

When the Prophet Speaks the Debate Is Over - but Not the Decision-Making for Individuals

"When the prophet speaks, the debate (for the general membership of the Church as a whole) is over."

I have no problem with that construct, especially since "debate" implies active and public arguing to most people. 

"When the prophet speaks, the decision-making process for each and every individual member is over."

I believe strongly that such a construct is incorrect.   Each of us must decide whether or not we can accept what is said individually - but, if we truly believe the words are coming from a prophet, we should be very, very careful if we decide to set it aside personally that we are confident the decision to do so is inspired by God.

I have done so myself (chosen to do something contrary to the general counsel given by the prophets), but I have done so rarely and consciously and only as an exception. Also, I think it is critical to distinguish between what is given as counsel ("can, may, should, usually, often, etc.") and what is given as command ("must, will, all, always, etc.).  I have found there is relatively little "must" and much "should" and "can" in what we are told - and a whole lot of responsibility for adapting general counsel to our own unique situations.

I still believe, however, that we carry a responsibility to not reject the words of the prophets and apostles automatically and out-of-hand, simply because we initially don't like them. I believe our first obligation is to attempt to understand exactly what is being said, without the interpretive bias inherent in emotional reactions, and do our best to find a way to understand how we can support what is asked - even if only to a relatively small degree or a certain part. If we can't do that and are confident our decision is inspired, fine; that is our right. We simply should give the prophets the benefit of the doubt and make an honest and sincere effort to understand how their words might apply to us. 

Knee-jerk, automatic, or hyperbolic rejection is never justified.

Charity Hopeth All Things

My New Year's Resolution this month is to "hope more things" - taken, like the rest of my monthly resolutions, from Paul's discourse on charity in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.  As I almost always do the first weekend of each month, I looked up and pondered the meaning (or possible meanings) of the aspect of charity that is the focus of my effort this month - in this case, "hope".

The following definitions are very similar, but I want to combine them into one comprehensive definition for the beginning of this month's contemplation:

–verb (used with object)

1.to look forward to with desire and reasonable confidence.

2.to believe, desire, or trust. 

–verb (used without object)

3.to feel that something desired may happen. 

4.Archaic. to place trust; rely (usually fol. by in). 

The verse in question uses "hope" as a verb with an object ("all things"), so #1 and #2 are the most precise definitions for that verse - but I want to include #4, as well, specifically because the phrase / concept "hope in Christ" is so common to us.  Also, in the context of the overall passage, I think it is important to incorporate last month's resolution focus ("charity believeth all things"), which I am going to translate as it is listed later in the chapter as the "faith" that precedes hope.  Therefore, the definition I am proposing for my resolution this month translates the original phrase into:

Charity believes, desires and trusts, with reasonable confidence, all things - through its trust in and reliance on the promises of God (expressed as faith in Jesus, the Christ).  

I believe that distinction is critical for ME, personally, since my hope really is centered on what I believe to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ - the "Good News" he taught and lived as a replacement for the "Old News" prior to his life, ministry and death.  (I understand that such will not be the case for all people, but it is important for my own personal resolution.)  In my subsequent posts this month, I will focus on some of what I believe are the most important things for or in which I hope - but, as I did with the idea of "believing all things", I want to start by mentioning explicitly and directly that the idea of hoping ALL things is founded on the belief that we are open to a recognition and acceptance of all things.  It implies quite strongly that we must be open-minded enough to avoid NOT HOPING something out of hand, especially simply because we don't understand it or think it is impossible.  After all, there's no real power in hoping for the obvious or bland or mundane.  The "tricky" part of this definition is the part about "reasonable confidence" - since that is an individual, variable standard.

I also want to make one more observation that I believe is not as obvious upon first reading - but which I believe also is critical to the central concept of hoping all things: 

If we "hope" all things, of necessity we cannot "know" all things.  The entire orientation of believing and hoping all things rests irrevocably on the foundation of recognizing there are some things we simply don't know - both conceptually (believing) and practically (hoping).  It's easy to say we only believe and hope things until we know them, and I cannot and will not dispute that basic construct.  However, there is a strong thread throughout 1 Corinthians 13 of realizing that we do not now and never will understand "all things" fully - that, until the very end, when all is "perfect" (complete, whole, fully developed), there will remain at least some things that we will "see through a glass, darkly".  There might be individual exceptions to this rule, but I believe I am not one of them - and, therefore, it is important for me to make that point up-front and at the beginning of the month.

Also, I believe we cannot "know" something in practical terms until we have experienced it.  Much of my "hope" is in things that I will not experience until after I die - and I have no expectation that I will one of the very few in our recorded history to have experiences that will enable me to say I know through my own experiences about those particular things.

We All Experience Repentance and Forgiveness Differently

When it comes to repentance, I believe people simply experience it in varying ways - for three reasons:

1) People simply experience things differently.

Members tend to over-generalize the most common examples onto everyone (like Oliver Cowdery's burning and stupor), but we are taught that the gifts and fruits of the Spirit are various and diverse. Some experience a unique calm; others a flash of insight ("pure intelligence"); others a cessation of worry or doubt (a "settling of the issue" feeling); others a sudden burst of joy; others, like me, a sense of peace. Whatever the specific manifestation, the person generally recognizes that they feel differently about it - that they no longer feel racked or tormented or pained by it. The "suffering" has been removed. That's enough for me.

2) I also believe the intensity of the feeling of forgiveness generally is commensurate with the level or degree of unrighteousness inherent in the actual sin. ("Your joy will be as sweet as your anguish was bitter.")

Alma, for example, felt he had been involved in the spiritual murder of people; of course, his suffering was INTENSE - as was the subsequent release from that suffering. His forgiveness was distinct and intense, because his repentance ("change") was meteoric and immediate. (If you can call three days of intense suffering immediate.)

3) Most of us, however, don't go from sinning in a vile manner to sudden and full repentance. Most of us change gradually from one stage to another (line-upon-line, precept upon precept), so our recognition of the change (repentance) and the subsequent forgiveness is not nearly as intense as someone like Alma - or Zeezrom. Think about it: How many times in the entire scriptural canon do we read of experiences similar to Alma's? Very, very rarely. You almost have to start at one extreme to experience the other in a sudden and dramatic way. Otherwise, it's incremental and subtle - and, again, I'm fine with that.

I really would rather not descend to the point where such a conversion and intense forgiveness would be possible, since I don't want to risk not being able to change. God had a specific mission for Alma that required he be raked over the coals in that manner; I kind of hope he doesn't have that in store for me.

How Could This Happen? How Could God Do This to Me?

Seeing With a Blind Eye - Steve Evans (By Common Consent)

Different Interpretations of the Atonement Can Be Equally Compelling

I'm not sure the concept of the suffering aspect of the Atonement isn't just as figurative as the Garden of Eden account. I don't mean that Christ didn't suffer, because I believe He did, but I mean that the actual transference of the result of sin doesn't have to be literal to make the concept of a vicarious sacrifice a reality. Vicarious suffering doesn't have to be "eye for an eye" suffering, especially in a culture that used scapegoats as a symbol of forgiveness that was highly symbolic. I think it needs to be presented as a literal transference in order to be powerful in the lives of many people who are literalists (just like the Garden of Eden needs to be seen as literal by many people), but I believe the "presentation of the symbolism" and the "actual event" can be different things.

What I mean is that as long as He suffered beyond what any human could suffer, as long as it was deep anguish and emotional/spiritual torment that would drop even the strongest of all to His knees and cause him to beg for it to end (exactly like what Alma described), then that symbolically would qualify as "godly suffering". As long as He was overwhelmed and couldn't continue on His own (needed the additional,angelic strength to get through it), then it would qualify as "a surrogate lamb (the Son) being sacrificed by another (the Father)" symbolically for the sins of the people. Remember, in that culture, just as in ours, in many cases the alternate payment doesn't have to be exactly what is owed; it can be a payment of "everything one possesses" or "one's all". If Jesus gave His all, that "all" symbolically would wipe out the debts of our "all".

There is MUCH of the application of the Plan of Salvation into our mortal existence that can be figurative without losing an ounce of power and "reality" - since symbols are "living" and "real" and "powerful" in every sense of the word.

How Do You Define a Christian?

How Do You Define a Christian? - Clean Cut

Ful Testimony Is Not Possible Without Full Involvement

An acquaintance once asked me the following question in an on-line conversation:

“When you tell (your children) about stuff like the priesthood, do you also give them the option to not participate, or to postpone involvement until they receive their own testimony of it? I'm just curious because you seem to be fairly tolerant of unbelievers, and you have a lot of parenting years under your belt (much more than me.)”

I look at things like the Priesthood pretty directly: I believe, and I teach my kids that I believe. For example, all of them have seen the effects of blessings, more than once in undeniably miraculous ways - and I have shared with them experiences with blessings where they weren't involved. I believe they can't gain a real testimony of something unless they experience it, so I encourage them to experience it. When it comes to the Priesthood, I don't want them to "postpone involvement until they receive their own testimony of it", because I don't believe they can gain a real testimony without involvement in it. They might gain an intellectual or vicarious testimony (a belief of some sort), but that's not a real testimony, in my opinion. They have gained as much of a testimony as is possible as a recipient of ordinances (the boys and the girls), but the boys need to be involved on the other end to really understand it fully - just as the girls need to understand their own power through prayer and being in tune enough with the Spirit to give the same type of advice (verbal blessing) that the boys would give in a formal, Priesthood blessing.

Of course, if they don't feel ready for something, I won't push or pressure them into it. My oldest son postponed his mission two years in order to reach a natural break in his schooling, and I wasn't sure for a while if he really would go. It was his decision, and, looking back, the overall timing couldn't have been better.

Finally, as to the "exclusivity" of the Priesthood, I believe it is limited (pun intended) to the areas where the Article of Faith says it's necessary - to preach the Restored Gospel and administer the ordinances thereof. Outside of those specific responsibilities, I don't believe there's one bit of difference in the prayer of the righteous - no matter the religion or denomination or gender of the one offering the prayer. The prayer of faith is the prayer of faith, and God is no respecter of persons.