Sometimes, We (Mormons) Are Our Own Worst Enemies

With Friends Like These - Sunny (By Common Consent) 

The comments are a mixed bag, unless you want to see a good example of the point of the post in some of the comments. 

"My back was to Christ, and all I could see was the person who had hurt me."

I was part of a group a while ago that was discussing the book, "The Peacegiver" - by James L. Farrell.  One of my friends in that group made the following comment, and when I came across it again today I was moved as much as I had been when she first shared it.  I hope it touches someone else as much as it touched me:
-------------------------------------------
I wasn't a fan of the way this book was written (the narrative voice).

HOWEVER...

The most significant thing I learned came from the retelling of the story of David, Nabal, and Abigail. Abigail becomes a type of Christ in this story, interceding on behalf of Nabal but also saving David from sinning in anger. What occurred to me as I read the vivid description of this account was the physical placement of each of these characters.

Abigail was physically in between Nabal and David. For years, I had tried to forgive others without complete success because I had the characters in the wrong place. It was like my offender was before me and Christ was behind me. I received mercy from Christ so I would turn and offer it to my offender. With this positioning the weight of forgiveness rested on my shoulders alone. As I turned to forgive my offender, my back was to Christ and all I could see was the person who had hurt me.

The story of Abigail put Christ between me and my offender, so that I had to look at Christ instead of the one who'd hurt me. There in front of me, arms outstretched and exuding unconditional love, was my Savior saying "upon me let this iniquity be". I could see the love He had for my offender as well as the love He had for me, and I couldn't even look at my offender without seeing the face of the Lord. Only after applying this principle to all my relationships was I able to completely experience a change of heart toward all my fellowmen.

My Son Is Back from His Mission: When Fruit Grows in Uncultivated Ground

Rather than write a New Year's resolution post this weekend, I just want to thank the Lord that my son has returned from his mission safely.  He probably won't be with us long, since he needs to enroll in college somewhere within the next month, but it is wonderful to have him here for a short time. 

One of the best things about my current church calling is that I was able to hear him report on his mission in that official capacity.  It was amazing to listen to him and realize how much his faith and understanding of the central principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ have grown over the past two years.  He focused on seeing people as God sees them - as beloved sons and daughters - as our spiritual brothers and sisters. 

I loved one analogy he used in talking about Jacob 5.  He mentioned that the Lord had cultivated fruit in the worst part of the vineyard - the least desirable land available.  He then talked about how amazing it was to see people whose lives had been extremely difficult accept the Gospel and make mighty changes as the seed took root and grew in what appeared to be terrible soil.  It reminded me once again that we simply MUST NOT make judgments about who is ready and who is not.  Rather, we need to be willing to talk with everyone  - truly talk with and love them, not preach at them.  Those we naturally would overlook and not approach often are those who would accept it most passionately and fervently - no matter the apparent condition of their internal soil. 

I love you, Ryan - and I am so glad to see the man you have become.

A Version of Lucifer's Plan I've Heard Some LDS Members Advocate

Someone I admire greatly said something in a thread a while ago that really bothered me. It is something I've heard stated previously, and I simply couldn't disagree more. He said:

If a church leader in authority over you asks you to do something, even if you question it (and you can certainly question them or someone "higher up"), you should just do it.

My response was:

No way.

That, in a nutshell, is Lucifer's plan. ("They will do exactly what I tell them to do, and they won't be punished in any way because they just are doing what they are told to do.") It also is in direct opposition to what our own apostles and prophets tell us regularly - **especially in the temple wording to wives and in D&C 121 with regard to unrighteous dominion**.

Let me explain that as clearly as I can:

Women in the temple are told quite clearly that they have NO obligation to hearken to their husbands simply because they are their husbands - that their husbands can be wrong, and, in those cases, they are not required to agree with or accept their opinions. Men are told explicitly in D&C 121 that their authority is gone when they try to rule on the basis of "because I said so".

Now, to be just as clear, I generally accept and do what is asked of me by church leaders, even when I disagree - but I can't support an extreme "just do it no matter what it is" stance. Leaders can fall, and leaders can give terrible advice - and, at the heart, I just don't support Lucifer's plan.

One more thing:

We hear all the time, and rightly so, that little transgressions can lead to little sins and to bigger sins - until, eventually, one can be excommunicated for serious sins. I accept that fully. Conversely, I believe the same applies to imposing meaningless restrictions. The acceptance of arbitrary and relatively unimportant restrictions can lead to an acceptance of more specific and damaging restrictions - until, eventually, freedom is lost and we are enslaved. Again, the fulfillment of this idea is Lucifer's plan.

The real irony of this is that those who advocate most vociferously for total obedience regardless in church generally are the same people who argue most vociferously AGAINST such a standard in politics. Take the quote I excerpted and apply it to political leaders . . .

Why Can't Sister Missionaries Serve in Leadership Positions?

Female Leadership in LDS Missions - Aaron R. (By Common Consent) 

As is the case in many comment threads, not all of the comments in this thread are worth reading - but some are insightful.  Read the comment thread or not, but I think the central question of the post and the way it is structured are worth reading and considering.  I've had the same general thought as I've served in missionary leadership positions in my life. 

Joseph Smith History 1:19 - Summarizing and Quoting Deity

As a natural parser, I have looked closely (minutely, with dictionary in hand) at JSH 1:19 to try to understand what it actually says, and I can say with confidence that I have never read a more concise yet comprehensive description of the apostasy and its practical effects than that verse. Contrary to what many have claimed, both inside and outside the Church, it is quite measured and focused - and brilliantly precise. I have read lengthy treatises on the topic, by Mormon scholars and by Protestant theologians (though the Protestant theologians obviously didn't use the word "apostasy"), and in all their writings I have not once read as powerful and comprehensive a treatise as I see in that one small verse.

He who wrote it was an intelligent and articulate but not classically educated man, so I choose to believe he was summarizing and quoting deity.

Perhaps the Most Poignant Post on Begging I Have Read

Am I Not a Beggar - Donnell Allan (Feminist Mormon Housewives)

Who Gave Birth to God's Spirit Children?

The following is a question I received from someone who is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My answer follows: 

Question: Who gave birth to God's spirit children, and if it wasn’t God, the Father, where did the women come from?

Answer: "Gave birth to" is something we don't say with regard to spirit children, since it is not taught that way in any of our scriptures. In my decades as a Mormon, I have never once heard it phrased that way; rather, we speak of spirit children being "created". We have no idea whatsoever how we were created as spirit children, again since that is not explained to us in any detail, at all.

"Created" does not necessarily mean anything remotely related to "giving birth" - and there is no official doctrine of sexual relationships (in the way that they occur here in mortality) in heaven - either prior to the creation of this world or after the resurrection. Unfortunately, that is a common misapplication - among some members (including prior leaders) and nearly all critics, but it is not doctrine. There is no doctrine whatsoever on the process of spiritual creation. This is one case where the proper answer, in my mind, is, "We don't know."

Having said that, I will speculate here.  (*grin*)

Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." We aren't told what that means or how God created male and female in "His" image. Given the totality of the imagery and the familial terminology that is used throughout the Bible to describe our relationships (before our birth, during mortality and after death), we speak of a Heavenly Mother - but there is no obvious, canonized scriptural, unmistakable basis for that belief. (For example, the hymn, "Oh, My Father", includes the following statement: "Truth is reason; truth eternal tells me I've a mother there.")

Personally, I believe that women are created in the image of God, the Mother (my own phrasing and not a title I've heard used in the LDS Church - ever), mostly because of what the Bible says about marriage and our intended end as "one" - as well as statements by our prophets and apostles. Frankly, I believe it is the only way to stay within the Biblical concept of heavenly family and validate women as women - to believe that sex / gender identity has eternal meaning and that women are not simply bastardized, sub-standard men (as has been implied or stated blatantly in many statements by Christian leaders throughout history and as is the natural interpretation of many when the only reference to God is in masculine form). However, I personally do not believe that Heavenly Mother "gave birth" to spirit children, and I personally do not believe that the creation of spirit children involves anything like pregnancy and gestation - in ANY way, shape or form as we know it here on earth. 


So, in summary, my own response is that I believe nobody "gave birth to God's spirit children" - that our Heavenly Parents created us in some way, but that it was not in the way children are created here on earth.

To Be Less Mocking of Others

My New Year's Resolution for this month is to be less mocking of others, taken from Alma 5:30-31 - which says: 

And again I say unto you, is there one among you that doth make a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions? Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved! 

As I generally do, I want to define "make a mock" and "heapeth upon him persecutions" - especially since I am struck by the peculiar phrasing of both of these statements. When we consider the word "mock", we always use it as a verb - as in "to mock" I'm not sure I have heard, ever, it used as a noun in the way it is used in this verse - to "make a mock".  Also, I think few people consider mocking someone to be such a heinous action that it risks one's very salvation.  Thus, I turn to the dictionary first - and, interestingly, there are three definitions that are slightly different but apply to the usage of the verse. I want to discuss each one separately to begin my resolution posts this month.  

1) a contemptuous or derisive imitative action or speech; mockery or derision 

One way to "make a mock" of someone is to imitate that person in a contemptuous or derisive manner.  This is the most obvious way, since the tone and visual expression used is blatant and undeniable.  However, it is the mocker who uses this action - who expresses mockery or derision toward someone else; this definition does not equate precisely to "making a mock" of another.  This first and most common definition - the one that everyone understands instinctively - does lead to the second definition, and the second definition fits more fully the scriptural usage in Alma 5:30. 

2) something mocked or derided; an object of derision

Actively mocking or deriding someone turns them into an "object of derision", which leads to the third and most interesting definition in the dictionary - one I honestly have not considered prior to my contemplation this week. 

3) an imitation; counterfeit; fake 

 

 

The thought that struck me is that turning someone into an "object" robs them of their individual worth - and it also robs them, in a real way, of their ability to act and not be acted upon.  Thus, making someone "a mock" turns a real person into a caricature - and it's always easier to deride an imitation, a counterfeit or a fake than it is to deride a fully complex person.  Turning someone into an object, therefore, is the first step to dehumanizing him - and dehumanization is perhaps the worst thing that can be done to someone, since taking away one's divinely given individuality and turning them into merely an "object" (and, specifically, an "object of derision") denies the very purpose of creation, the Fall and the Atonement.  It also provides justification for "heap(ing) upon him persecutions".  

 

Thus, the warning: 

Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved! 

As I contemplate this new definition, I realize I am not immune to the tendency to mock - and I immediately think of at least two situations where I have overlooked the complexity of someone's situation, reduced each of these people to a caricature and used that simplification to complain about them in such a way that I have made a mock of them and heaped persecution upon them.  I have allowed my frustration about certain circumstances to move me to something of which I need to repent, so much of my focus for the upcoming week will be on seeing, admitting and acknowledging the complexity of the people and their circumstances and, thus, fully humanizing them once again in my own sight. 

Concealing vs. Choosing: Applying Mormon's Standard to the Mormon Church

Some people accuse the Church of concealing or even hiding certain aspects of its history. Sometimes they point to our scriptures as an example of how even embarrassing and controversial things should be included in any records of religious history. I just don't buy it.

For example, how in the world can we assert that Nephi, Mormon and Moroni included all potentially embarrassing or problematic historical facts in the Book of Mormon? No matter how we view it, Mormon probably viewed the headless Laban as a good thing, but it was Nephi who included the story - and, in many ways, he was the most introspective and open of all the prophets. I don't see much "critical introspection" on the personal level from the other prophets; usually, they were too busy pointing out the sins and failures (and successes) of the people. They were chronicling the broad effects of societal trends and communal faithfulness, so rarely do we get a glimpse of the individual weaknesses of the prophets. In fact, from Jacob to Mosiah we get almost no look at the entire civilization - essentially just, "I'm not a prophet like Nephi was," "I know of no other prophecies," and "We fought a lot and killed Lamanites." I'm 100% positive that the Book of Mormon could have looked much more like the D&C and our church histories than it does if Mormon had felt like compiling a "nuanced abridgment" instead of an inspirational tool to bring souls to Christ. To use him as an example of "not concealing" just isn't defensible, imo.

After all, he continually stated that not one-hundredth part of what was available was included in his final record. If that is the case, he simply had to have chosen what to include - meaning he chose what to "conceal" (or not disclose). It is exactly this dilemma that faces the Church every time it publishes a manual of any kind.

One of the biggest problems with many members' perception of the modern church's warts is that they don't have an ancient record that details many of the ancient warts - except the Old Testament, and it gets ignored far too much. Ironically, and directly opposed to the view of institutional concealment, the D&C is packed full of chastisements and recorded failures and weaknesses and humanity at its most basic and natural. It is our modern Old Testament - chronicling a time full of warts and wars and grandiose pronouncements and hellfire and damnation and all the stuff that makes the Old Testament such a blast to read.

We don't accuse modern Christians of "concealing" the Old Testament simply because many of them don't read or teach it - or, in some cases, even bother including it with the New Testment in the versions of the Bible that they use regularly; we understand they simply prioritize the New Testament (and generally the Pauline Epistles) to the exclusion of the Old Testament - that they just don't see it as important enough to spend time studying. As a lover of history, I disagree with that approach; however, I don't assign nefarious motivations to those who ignore the messy stuff to focus on the simple and inspirational when they really believe the simple and inspirational - especially in an organization that is being accused of concealment specifically because it has done such a good job of publishing and preserving the messy stuff.