The Talk I Gave The Easter Sunday Our Branch Died

Easter Sunday is the ultimate celebration of life - the glorious victory over death and Hell - the rising from the tomb and ushering in of unimaginable joy. I love speaking in church on Easter - having the opportunity to highlight the life, death and resurrection of our Savior and Redeemer, since the spirit is so strong and powerful and affirming on such a transcendent day. I spoke three years ago in the little branch my family attended on assignment - and it was the hardest, most emotionally difficult talk I have ever prepared.

You see, our branch died that day.

How do you convey to a small group of friends - people who have bonded in a way that is almost impossible in a typical large ward - that their small house of spiritual refuge (the place that they have come to bless each Fast and Testimony meeting as their anchor in the storms of life) will be locked and unavailable next week? How do you tell them that their dedication and sincere effort and sacrifice appear to have been offered for naught? Most wrenchingly, how do you do so on Easter Sunday - a day when they should leave church rejoicing in the grace and condescension of God?

Even more to the point, how do you do this when you can't do so openly? How do you address an Easter talk in Sacrament Meeting knowing that they will be weeping for a different reason in just over an hour - knowing that the joy and hope and love you pray they feel as they listen to your message will be replaced by pain and sorrow and disbelief and real, deep grief as they learn that their congregation (established only three years ago amid great joy and hope) is being dissolved? How do you preach of life and eternal happiness when you will help officiate that same day at the funeral they can't possibly anticipate? How do you kill an entire congregation on the day set aside to celebrate new life? 

The following is the talk I gave that day.  I hope it helps someone now, somehow. 
---------------------------------
By all objective measurements, Jesus of Nazareth was an abject failure. His mortal ministry lasted three short years. The hopes of a nation (nay, of God's own Chosen People) had been recorded for centuries, trumpeting a future arrival in the following words:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6)

Only thirty-three years earlier, the angel had appeared and proclaimed:

"Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:10-11)

Immediately following this announcement, the heavenly multitude exclaimed:

^"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (Luke 2:14)

Prophets extolled the importance of His birth and life; they stressed the deliverance He would bring. He would justify the brutality of their former oppression by establishing peace and mercy and power. He would reclaim their rightful place in the kingdom of their God, humbling once and for all those who had reviled and scourged and persecuted them as they awaited their great day of glory. They still wait, nearly two thousand years later, since Jesus of Nazareth failed to fulfill their expectations so utterly and completely. Easter Sunday did not bring them joy and peace and deliverance; it brought them only more oppression and misery and separation and death.

What then of Easter Sunday - of a sealed tomb and a sobbing, despondent discipleship? Amid their continuing pain and terrible turmoil, amid the persecution and upheaval that would not end, how could they possibly find peace and joy and hope? They found it in the following pronouncement - one of the simplest, most concise statements in all of recorded history:

"He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. " (Matthew 28:6)

All of us are born to die. All of us live this life knowing it will end. Every person who has ever lived - every organization that has ever been established - every group that has ever met - every family that has ever existed - everything that has ever been created has begun with an inevitable end in store. However, through the birth and life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, all of us can look forward with hope and joy and love and longing to that day when it shall be said of us, as it was of Him:

"[They] are not here; for [they are] risen."

Just as Jesus' ministry was too short for many to understand it as a glorious success, and just as the results of that ministry were too seemingly inconsequential for many to recognize their eternal significance, our own growth and success and efforts often are too short and seemingly inconsequential to recognize as the glorious successes they truly are. We celebrate Easter not just to honor the resurrection of our King, but also to pay our humble respect to the grace that transfers his victory to us - that allows us to see and understand and feel gratitude for the successes embedded in our own apparent failures. We celebrate Easter to celebrate not just the risen Lord, but also to honor the death and suffering that had to be offered in order for the resurrection to occur. As a friend wrote: 

"Christ was suffering servant as well as glorious victor, that, like the sinners the rest of us are, he had to die [and apparently fail] before he could be resurrected [and ultimately succeed]." 

On Easter, we celebrate life and a newness of glory, but we also celebrate death and the ending of one ministry for the beginning of another.

What can we take on this Easter Sunday from the first Easter Sunday so long ago? As we honor and praise and worship our Lord's victory over death, how can we "liken [even this thing] unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning?" (1 Nephi 19:23)

In all we do - in all our efforts and associations and organizations - may we recognize and accept that our meager efforts to become like Him are undertaken with failure in this mortal life as the inevitable end - but that the growth we experience in our mortal efforts and associations is all He requires. May we focus on the joy of the journey and accept the unexpected detours and heartache along the way, willing to say as He said, "Not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42) May we live so that we too may be able to say, as we draw our final breath, "It is finished. (John 19:30) Into thy hands I commend my spirit." (Luke 23:46)

May we realize that our efforts, no matter the objective outcome, are not offered and accomplished in vain - they are not viewed by our Lord as failures. Rather, let us look forward to that great and glorious day when we shall hear those gentle, soothing words,

"Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." (Matthew 25:21)

The Symbolic Power of the Garden of Gethsemane

I have no clue whatsoever the mechanics of the part of the atonement accomplished in the Garden of Gethsemane, but I really believe that the symbolism of a scapegoat (the ancient concept of figuratively loading a goat with the sins of the people and releasing that goat into the wilderness, taking the sins of the people with it) is powerful. I'm not trying to imply that the suffering in the Garden was soley symbolic, but that representation would have resonated deeply with the people of that day.

The key for us, I believe, is to take that basic idea (of truly casting our burdens upon the Lord) and finding a way for that to resonate with us. If that means someone believes He actually suffered every exact pain and sin she does, great; if someone else believes He suffered extreme representative pain (the worst of every type of pain), great; if someone else believes it all is figurative (that Jesus' sinless suffering typified pure obedience and submission regardless of the actual pain), great. All I care about at the most fundamental level is that I accept Him as the Lord and Savior and Redeemer - that whatever He did, it covers my sins and imperfection and allows me to pursue growth and eventual perfection.

I care FAR more about what we take from it than the actual mechanics of the event.

Holocast Remembrance Day: A Tribute to an Amazing Woman

Holocaust Remembrance Day April 21st - JA Benson (Millennial Star)

I so want to make a particular statement about the information at the end of this post, but Irena deserves better than that. I’m sure God has blessed this amazing woman with something much more eternally valuable than the worldly prize she should have received in mortality.

We Can't Teach "Abstinence Only"

I am a practical idealist. I want my children to remain sexually inactive prior to marriage, and that is the standard they have been taught since before they could walk. I don't EVER phrase it as "sex is bad and dirty" (since I abhor that belief and phrasing), but they know what I believe - no question about it. 

Having said that, I also teach them that they can come to me and talk about anything - and I mean anything. After my oldest son completed the process to receive his mission call, we had a very open conversation about his future after he returns. It included some advice that would surprise some who read here and assume things about me, and it is indicative of how I would approach a conversation with my daughters AND sons about birth control and pre-marital sex.  

[Post-script note: There was some misunderstanding originally as to the nature of the conversation I mentioned in the above paragraph.  It was NOT about sex and birth control.  I used it simply to illustrate what "type of conversation" I would have if one of my older / adult children came to me to talk about sex and birth control.  It was "indicative of how I would approach" such a conversation.  Thank you, R. Gary and others, who pointed out that misunderstanding of wording that wasn't as clear as it should have been.] 

My short answer:

Yes, I would encourage them to use birth control if they decided they were going to have pre-marital sex.  

They know I don't condone it, and they know I would be disappointed in that choice, but if they are going to make that choice . . . I certainly don't want them getting pregnant or getting an STD or causing that for someone else. They all know that we use birth control and that we used it to plan their own births perfectly, and even my 8-year-old has made comments that lead me to believe she is hearing stuff at school - so I have no hesitancy talking with my kids about sex and birth control. I think it's irresponsible in this day and age not to do so. 

Bottom line:

I want them to be able to talk with me about anything, no matter what their choices are about that anything. I tend to think that openness and honesty and trust and recognition of them as adults and real education is part of true parenthood.

To phrase it differently, I think what works for Mormons is that we don't teach "abstinence only" as the comprehensive answer for chastity. We teach mission and temple marriage and eternal marriage and on and on and on that ground the PURPOSE for pre-marital abstinence in something other than "mere" abstinence. We give it an eternal purpose that is absent in other theologies. It's grounding sex in the context of eternal creativity that makes it unique and literally empowering, in my opinion. If kids "get it" (even if only in simplified, outline form), they are less likely to engage in pre-marital sex; if they don't, they are more likely to engage.

Unrealistic Expectations in Marriage

The discussion thread following the post is better than the post itself:

Unrealistic Expectations - Martin (By Common Consent)

Why Should We Marry Younger than the Modern, Industrial World's Average?

Strictly from a practical standpoint, the effects of marrying at 27 - 30 include:

1) Waiting to marry decreases the available pool from which to marry. That's simple mathematics.

2) Postponing marriage to someone whom you love and want to marry increases the potential for pre-marital sex exponentially - especially if you find that someone and feel that way at 22 and have to wait for 5 years or more to get married.

3) Waiting to have kids until after 35 radically increases the risk of lots of birth defects. Marrying at 30 leaves a window of only five years for those who want to have their kids prior to that age.

4) Having three kids in five years certainly is doable and not at all harmful for many, but it will derail the wife's career in many cases - and will be hard on anyone who has extended post-partum issues.

5) Waiting to get married at such an age that 3 or fewer kids is the only "safe" option doesn't leave any room for those who want more - especially if they want 5 or more. Our kids are 14 years apart, spaced and planned meticulously, and our oldest was born almost two years after we were married, so my wife would have been 43 years old when our youngest was born if we had married when she was 27. Our last two would have been born after the 35 year target and been subject to increased risk as a result.

6) If our youngest had been born when we were 43, she would not graduate until we were 61 - at which point I would be considering retirement. Not only do I not want to be dealing with a teenager when I am 61 and multiple times a grandfather, but I also want to have a few years left in my 50's to be alone with my wife and have some freedom BEFORE I contemplate retirement. Currently, we have 6 kids, and the youngest will graduate when I am 54. That's a BIG difference.

7) A mature 24 is much better in a marriage and family than an immature 30.

There's more I could add, but starting that much later has consequences that must be considered - especially when the data suggests marrying after 21 removes almost all increase in divorce rate that can be attributed primarily to age. 

[NOTE: I am NOT saying in this post that everyone should marry before the modern average age mentioned in the opening sentence.  That is a personal decision and each person should marry at whatever age is best for him or her.  This post is about a general societal trend and its very real implications and complications.]

To Walk Before God: Two Contrasting Images That Convey One Important Characteristic

Last weekend in my New Year's Resolution post, I highlighted the idea that we are to "walk" blamelessly before God - as opposed to running or sitting still.  This weekend, I am focusing on the idea of walking blamelessly "before God".

The phrase "before God" appears in our canonized scriptures just over 200 times - which should not have surprised me, but it did.  The following general categories are among the descriptions I compiled of what happens before God:

Things"are found" (discovered or found through examination).
We "are brought" (freely or bound).
We do or act in some way.
We confess.
We are changed or become.
We bow or worship.

As I read the references mentioned above, I was struck by something I had not considered previously:

In all of these passages and verses, there are two broad categories into which the descriptions fall.  The first is comprised of those instances where we are brought before God, while the second is comprised of those instances where we proactively, freely act before God.  What struck me quite hard as I contemplated that distinction is that the first category is said to be universal - a moment all of us will have occur as we stand to be judged; the second category, however, does not carry with it a sense of judgment or compulsion of any kind.  The instances where we freely choose to act "before God" present an image of God, in those instances, not being a "judge" but rather a father, a companion, a guide, a friend, a Lord or Master, a mentor, an example, etc.

The act of "walking" before God ALWAYS is presented as something that fits this second category - something that we CHOOSE to do outside of and prior to the formal judgment.  It is what separates the manner in which we eventually will "stand" before God at that judgment ("uprightly" or "with head bowed down in shame") - and it affects most importantly the person we "are" or "become", which, in the end, really is the actual judgment itself.

The image that came into focus for me as I pondered all of this was two-fold - and the first one turned a traditional image completely around for me.  "Before" can mean "in front of" in two very distinct and different ways: first, in front of someone who is behind you; second, in front of someone who is facing you.  I always had pictured the second image (as in standing before a judge), and there is great power in that image, but there also is symbolic power in the first image (being "ahead of" someone else) - and it is that image that was new to me. 

1) In the famous and popular poem, "Footprints in the Sand", the image is one of the Lord walking beside someone and then, during the particularly difficult periods, carrying the person instead.  What I saw as I contemplated the verses I read this week, however, was radically different.  In this image, the person was walking "before" (in front or ahead of) the Lord who walked along behind - listening for directions as to the path to take, avoiding many pitfalls as a result of those directions, stumbling and falling occasionally as obstacles got in the way but rising as a result of the encouragement and strength of the person following along behind, steadily walking and learning and experiencing and "becoming" by walking "before" (in front or ahead of) the Lord.

In "Footprints in the Sand", the person is carried through the most difficult parts of the journey, but in the journey described above the person gains far more strength and ability to navigate those difficult parts of the journey specifically as a result of the assistance he receives to be able to continue to walk and, thus, not just make it through but **overcome** those most difficult parts.

2) I also envisioned someone walking along a path, speaking on a cell phone with someone in front of her - someone who had walked the path already and had turned to face those who were walking that already-walked path.  By turning to face the other walkers, the person had placed them "before" himself - allowing them to face him and be "before him" or "approaching him".

As I said in a couple of my most recent posts, I believe the core factor in our judgment will be how diligently we strive to hear God's words to us and follow them (or to ascertain God's will or path for us and act upon it, for those who struggle with the idea of hearing God's words) - no matter what those words or that will might be.  "Blame" carries a strong sense of acting differently than one knows he should act, since it is commonly understood that we can't "blame" others for things that are outside their control and/or comprehension.  Thus, the image that arose for me this week is one of someone who walks with a listening ear and attempts to walk according to what she hears as she listens.

To have a more listening ear and a more seeing eye (discussed last weekend), and to act according to what I see and hear, are my goals thus far for this month.

Accepting Differing Levels of "Faith" and "Knowledge" in the Church

Perhaps those who "reject" a religion's truth-claims should withdraw; perhaps not. I tend to believe there are reasons for many to remain affiliated with a religion (in this case, the LDS Church) even if they can't embrace the truth claims. Those reasons might include things as simple as, "It's the best I know, even if I don't believe it's exclusively true," and as complex as, "My wife (or husband) and kids are happy in it, they embrace it, and I am willing to participate as a non-believing member of record in order to maximize their peace and happiness."

What really concerns me is any exclusion of those who believe truth-claims are "unknowable" - since I believe they actually ARE unknowable to many.

Our own scriptures say that some are given the gift "to know", while others are given the gift "to believe" those who know. I think there is great selfless service that can be provided by those who either believe those who know or even don't believe those who believe or know - if they stay in the Church. I have NO problem whatsoever with members who reject exclusive truth claims retaining their membership, as long as they don't fight the Church. I have no problem with those who think things are unknowable staying the Church - with no disclaimers whatsoever. I think they belong in the Church every bit as much as someone who feels they know everything - or even as someone who actually might know everything.

Fighting the Church is one thing; simply not accepting certain claims is quite another. Simply saying certain things can't be known is at a completely different level. Personally, I would hope that NOBODY whose only "issue" is an inability to accept truth-claims or feel they are knowable would face excommunication over it or be encouraged to leave. I would feel a deep sense of loss and injustice if that were to happen.

To say it differently, I don't think accepting all truth-claims (especially the exclusive ones) even is a requirement of worthy temple attendance (or even ward or stake leadership), much less regular membership. I know a highly visible member of leadership in a stake where I have lived who doesn't like the "only true church" phrase because of how it can be and is interpreted by many - inside and outside the Church. I understand his concern, and I share it to a degree. He is a faithful member, with a truly miraculous conversion story, and to think that he should give up his membership simply because he can't accept that particular "truth claim" is abhorrent to me.

If Blogging Has Become Your (or Your Spouse's) Primary "Wholesome Recreational Activity"

An Open Plea for Marital Advice - nmiles' husband (By Common Consent)

My Foundational Advice for Investigators

If you are serious about trying to reach an understanding of Mormonism, you should be considering everything with an open heart AND mind and praying sincerely to the Father in the name of the Son to feel the confirmation of the Holy Ghost - so you have your own personal prophecy / witness from God. It really isn't much more complicated than that. If you sincerely believe God is telling you to accept Mormonism as restored Christianity (as the closest thing we can get to what Jesus himself actually taught), you have an obligation to act on that; if you sincerely believe God is telling you NOT to accept Mormonism as restored Christianity (as the closest thing we can get to what Jesus himself actually taught), you have an obligation to act on that, as well. It's between you and God, and it's up to you to act according to your own inspiration / prophecy / direction from God.

My only advice:

Try to set aside all previous interpretations and give our beliefs the benefit of the doubt. Too often, people with whom I have discussed these things can't get past what they have been taught in other denominations, even when it seems clear from a simple parsing of the Bible itself that those teachings aren't in harmony with the words of Jesus himself. That is true especially of evangelical denominations.

My standard is simple:

When dealing with the Bible, ALWAYS grant top priority to the words of Jesus. Interpret EVERYTHING else through the lens of his words. For example, if there seems to be a discrepancy between what Jesus says in the Gospels and what a prophet or apostle or disciple or early Christian father says, Jesus wins - EVERY TIME, regardless. If there is a discrepancy between what a NT prophet or apostle says and what an early Christian father says, the NT prophet or apostle wins - EVERY TIME, regardless. If you do that honestly and scrupulously, I believe you will see that the teachings of "The Restoration" are aligned very well with the original teachings of Jesus, slightly less well with the teachings of Paul, slightly less well with the teachings of some of the most influential early Christian fathers, not all that well with most of the Protestant reformers and not well at all with most 19th, 20th and 21st Century Protestant ministers.