Ashes & Ashes
5 days ago
Monday, December 24, 2012
Christmas Eve: Even Amid the Grief and Loss, I Am Aware of Grace
The Season - Tracy M (By Common Consent)
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Sunday School Lesson: Moroni 1-7
Since we had the new curriculum training last week, I combined two lessons today and taught Moroni 1-7.
1) We started by looking at the time line note at the bottom of the first page of Moroni. We talked about why it says 400AD-421AD and how that relates to why Moroni is one of my favorite characters in the Book of Mormon.
2) We read quickly through the headings of Chapters 1-6 and talked about how meetings still are supposed to be conducted by the influence of the Holy Ghost (that even though we use a standard format, those who conduct are supposed to have the ability and authority to alter that format when impressed to do so).
3) We spent the rest of the time on Moroni 7:1-19, verse by verse. The main points I made were:
a) verses 5-11 -- Those who do good things for bad reasons "have their reward" and, thus, are not rewarded additionally by God. To use an obvious example, if someone makes friends with someone else in order to rob that person, they will have the reward of the extra money - but it won't change them into a better person and make them closer to becoming like God.
b) verses 12-17 -- We listed things the students thought are good ways to judge if something is good or bad. There were some good suggestions, including if we would do something in front of our grandmothers or Jesus.
I mentioned that there are some things I would do in front of one of my grandmothers but not in front of the other one, so, while that might be a good general starting point, we have to be careful about defining what we should do based on others being able to see us. We then talked for about 5 minutes about how much I am concerned about the idea of doing only what we would do if Jesus was with us - not because I think it's a bad standard, but because I think we tend to focus so much on our perception of Jesus, the God, that we ignore all the evidence about Jesus, the man, and end up thinking we can't do lots of things that I believe would be perfectly fine to do.
I asked if they could think of anything we probably wouldn't do with Jesus now, given our culture, that we probably would do with him back in his time and culture. "Drink wine" was the first response (which answer impressed me, since the girl who gave it was clear that it would have been just fine to drink wine with Jesus back in the day), so we talked about the fact that he was criticized for drinking wine, unlike John, the Baptist. I mentioned that I hope he would enjoy my sense of humor, even the parts of it that I don't share with very many people in church - that I could have a really good laugh with him and just be silly at times.
We then listed the things that are mentioned in chapter 7 (invites and entices to do good, love God, serve him, persuades to believe in Christ -- and their opposites) and discussed how those things are independent of who can see us as we act.
c) Before moving on to the next verses, given the time constraints, I mentioned again the need to not pull verses out of context and in isolation and, thus, miss the "big picture" concept being taught throughout an entire chapter. I stressed that the rest of the chapter to which we wouldn't get deals with charity and how critical it is to obtain. I wrote "charity" above the two lists (good and bad) and then moved to the next verses.
d) verses 18-19 -- I stressed that the focus of these two verses is NOT on avoiding embracing the bad; rather, the focus is on avoiding rejecting the good. That is fascinating and extremely important, in my opinion.
We talked about how I don't agree with lots of things that are taught in other denominations, but that, if I was to hazard a guess about how much of what is taught in any random church is "good" vs. "bad" on any given Sunday, I would put the ratio at no lower than 90% good and 10% bad - and, in most cases, higher than that. I told them that I try really hard to allow charity to influence how I make that determination.
In practical terms, that means I see the "good list" reasons as "either/or" statements (that as long as something does at least one of the things on the list, I accept it as good and of God), while I see the "bad list" reasons generally as "and" statements (that bad things have to do more than one thing on the list or be focused exclusively on one of them). I used the example of Islam teaching lots of good things, even though it can be classified as "denying Christ" if we choose to look at it that way, as well as the example of an evangelical, anti-Mormon rant on the radio that also includes lots of teachings that really do invite and entice to do good, love God and serve him. Just because I don't like some of what is said or the actual people saying it, that doesn't mean I can reject everything that is said. Charity dictates to me that I listen for what I can learn from everything and not obsess so much over the disagreement(s) that I miss the chance to be taught and edified. I told them there is an important difference between hearing something and automatically thinking, "That's bad, so I won't listen to anything being said," and, "What good can I take from this, even if I don't agree with most of it."
4) I also stressed that I want them to let me know what they want to learn next year within the new curriculum - that absolutely no topic is off limits within the categories we will be discussing. I mentioned as an example the month that will be dedicated to Family and Marriage - telling them that there are lots of potential topics we can discuss that month and that absolutely none of them are off limits. I told them that they are old enough that we can talk about anything, no matter how controversial, awkward, difficult, etc. they think it might be.
1) We started by looking at the time line note at the bottom of the first page of Moroni. We talked about why it says 400AD-421AD and how that relates to why Moroni is one of my favorite characters in the Book of Mormon.
2) We read quickly through the headings of Chapters 1-6 and talked about how meetings still are supposed to be conducted by the influence of the Holy Ghost (that even though we use a standard format, those who conduct are supposed to have the ability and authority to alter that format when impressed to do so).
3) We spent the rest of the time on Moroni 7:1-19, verse by verse. The main points I made were:
a) verses 5-11 -- Those who do good things for bad reasons "have their reward" and, thus, are not rewarded additionally by God. To use an obvious example, if someone makes friends with someone else in order to rob that person, they will have the reward of the extra money - but it won't change them into a better person and make them closer to becoming like God.
b) verses 12-17 -- We listed things the students thought are good ways to judge if something is good or bad. There were some good suggestions, including if we would do something in front of our grandmothers or Jesus.
I mentioned that there are some things I would do in front of one of my grandmothers but not in front of the other one, so, while that might be a good general starting point, we have to be careful about defining what we should do based on others being able to see us. We then talked for about 5 minutes about how much I am concerned about the idea of doing only what we would do if Jesus was with us - not because I think it's a bad standard, but because I think we tend to focus so much on our perception of Jesus, the God, that we ignore all the evidence about Jesus, the man, and end up thinking we can't do lots of things that I believe would be perfectly fine to do.
I asked if they could think of anything we probably wouldn't do with Jesus now, given our culture, that we probably would do with him back in his time and culture. "Drink wine" was the first response (which answer impressed me, since the girl who gave it was clear that it would have been just fine to drink wine with Jesus back in the day), so we talked about the fact that he was criticized for drinking wine, unlike John, the Baptist. I mentioned that I hope he would enjoy my sense of humor, even the parts of it that I don't share with very many people in church - that I could have a really good laugh with him and just be silly at times.
We then listed the things that are mentioned in chapter 7 (invites and entices to do good, love God, serve him, persuades to believe in Christ -- and their opposites) and discussed how those things are independent of who can see us as we act.
c) Before moving on to the next verses, given the time constraints, I mentioned again the need to not pull verses out of context and in isolation and, thus, miss the "big picture" concept being taught throughout an entire chapter. I stressed that the rest of the chapter to which we wouldn't get deals with charity and how critical it is to obtain. I wrote "charity" above the two lists (good and bad) and then moved to the next verses.
d) verses 18-19 -- I stressed that the focus of these two verses is NOT on avoiding embracing the bad; rather, the focus is on avoiding rejecting the good. That is fascinating and extremely important, in my opinion.
We talked about how I don't agree with lots of things that are taught in other denominations, but that, if I was to hazard a guess about how much of what is taught in any random church is "good" vs. "bad" on any given Sunday, I would put the ratio at no lower than 90% good and 10% bad - and, in most cases, higher than that. I told them that I try really hard to allow charity to influence how I make that determination.
In practical terms, that means I see the "good list" reasons as "either/or" statements (that as long as something does at least one of the things on the list, I accept it as good and of God), while I see the "bad list" reasons generally as "and" statements (that bad things have to do more than one thing on the list or be focused exclusively on one of them). I used the example of Islam teaching lots of good things, even though it can be classified as "denying Christ" if we choose to look at it that way, as well as the example of an evangelical, anti-Mormon rant on the radio that also includes lots of teachings that really do invite and entice to do good, love God and serve him. Just because I don't like some of what is said or the actual people saying it, that doesn't mean I can reject everything that is said. Charity dictates to me that I listen for what I can learn from everything and not obsess so much over the disagreement(s) that I miss the chance to be taught and edified. I told them there is an important difference between hearing something and automatically thinking, "That's bad, so I won't listen to anything being said," and, "What good can I take from this, even if I don't agree with most of it."
4) I also stressed that I want them to let me know what they want to learn next year within the new curriculum - that absolutely no topic is off limits within the categories we will be discussing. I mentioned as an example the month that will be dedicated to Family and Marriage - telling them that there are lots of potential topics we can discuss that month and that absolutely none of them are off limits. I told them that they are old enough that we can talk about anything, no matter how controversial, awkward, difficult, etc. they think it might be.
We, as Mormons, also Can Say: "Ave, Maria."
I often have thought about Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the account we have of her in our scriptures.
It is SO sparse – and I think we romanticize it so much that we tend to forget how precarious her situation was, in multiple ways. Joseph could have had her killed; he could have “put her away” privately; she could have died in childbirth very easily; she apparently had to leave her home and spend her “growing months” with her cousin, Elizabeth – probably to avoid the shame, condemnation and judgment that would have been her lot as people learned she had conceived a child not by her betrothed; ultimately, she had to deal with the conflict between what she originally thought her son would do and be and what he actually did and was not; and, finally, she has to deal still with being adored not for who she was but “merely” for her relationship to someone else – and I don’t think it’s insignificant to point out that she had a life of her own (as a mother to other children, as a wife, perhaps in a vocation of her own, probably as a widow, as a member of a community, etc.) that gets lost completely in our records.
I also think sometimes of the difference between how we view her, with the luxury of looking back on her through eyes of faith regarding her son, and how we view young women in situations like hers in our own lives whose babies we don’t honor in the way we honor her son. The young teenager who is pregnant and whose child might or might not change the world deserves to be treated as Joseph treated Mary, not as those around him probably would have treated and did treat her.
I think of a lot of things when I think of Mary, and there is room in our Mormon theology, I believe, to honor her in ways that are non-traditional and in line with the Gospel taught by her son. So, this Christmas season, I add my own voice to those of numerous Christians throughout time:
It is SO sparse – and I think we romanticize it so much that we tend to forget how precarious her situation was, in multiple ways. Joseph could have had her killed; he could have “put her away” privately; she could have died in childbirth very easily; she apparently had to leave her home and spend her “growing months” with her cousin, Elizabeth – probably to avoid the shame, condemnation and judgment that would have been her lot as people learned she had conceived a child not by her betrothed; ultimately, she had to deal with the conflict between what she originally thought her son would do and be and what he actually did and was not; and, finally, she has to deal still with being adored not for who she was but “merely” for her relationship to someone else – and I don’t think it’s insignificant to point out that she had a life of her own (as a mother to other children, as a wife, perhaps in a vocation of her own, probably as a widow, as a member of a community, etc.) that gets lost completely in our records.
I also think sometimes of the difference between how we view her, with the luxury of looking back on her through eyes of faith regarding her son, and how we view young women in situations like hers in our own lives whose babies we don’t honor in the way we honor her son. The young teenager who is pregnant and whose child might or might not change the world deserves to be treated as Joseph treated Mary, not as those around him probably would have treated and did treat her.
I think of a lot of things when I think of Mary, and there is room in our Mormon theology, I believe, to honor her in ways that are non-traditional and in line with the Gospel taught by her son. So, this Christmas season, I add my own voice to those of numerous Christians throughout time:
Ave, Maria.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Why I Generally Don't Use the Phrase "Breaking the Sabbath"
I understand the traditional phrase "breaking the Sabbath", and I believe in keeping the Sabbath Day holy, but I try not to use the phrase "breaking the Sabbath". I just don't think the Sabbath gets "broken" when someone doesn't "keep it holy". I think we can end up breaking ourselves if we don't set aside time for rest, relaxation, sacred activities, etc. - but the phrase "breaking the Sabbath" simply doesn't resonate with me. As in most things, I try to find wording that makes sense to me, so I don't use this one unless I'm not thinking and fall back into traditional culture-speak.
When I explained this to a friend of mine a few years ago, he responded with the following:
When I explained this to a friend of mine a few years ago, he responded with the following:
Most of the "commandments," beliefs and practices we have work really great in the positive.
-Keep the Sabbath Day holy, and you will find benefit in it.
-Obey the guidance of God, and you will see Him again someday.
-Families can be forever.
-Following the Gospel will make you a better person
Most of these same things break down quickly with problems when you use them in the negative.
-Break the Sabbath Day and you will be punished.
-You won't ever see God again if you don't obey.
-You will be separated from your family and never see them again if you are not married in the temple, one chance and it's over.
-People who don't follow the Gospel are unhappy and are bad people.
So ...
"Keep a Sabbath and make it Holy. It will bring you benefits."
is much better than:
"Don't dare break the Sabbath!!"
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Sexual Transgression and Living Together in Love
Sexual Transgression and Dwelling Together in Love - Jacob Baker (By Common Consent)
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
How Actively Involved Is God in Our Lives?
I was asked once if I believed in a God who is intimately involved in all aspects of our lives or a God who creates and steps back to let things happen.
I have experienced directly a few cases of truly miraculous healing. I also have experienced instances of piercing insight regarding things of which I literally was not and could not have been aware. I also have experienced a couple of things that were truly miraculous about which I almost never talk.
Having said that, I have no idea how much God works actively in our lives, but I do believe we can connect to the divine in us much more than most of us do. I see GOD as a big "G" god - and I see us as little "g" gods. I think we fail to understand gods every bit as much as we fail to understand God.
I have experienced directly a few cases of truly miraculous healing. I also have experienced instances of piercing insight regarding things of which I literally was not and could not have been aware. I also have experienced a couple of things that were truly miraculous about which I almost never talk.
Having said that, I have no idea how much God works actively in our lives, but I do believe we can connect to the divine in us much more than most of us do. I see GOD as a big "G" god - and I see us as little "g" gods. I think we fail to understand gods every bit as much as we fail to understand God.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
What the Bible Really Says about Marriage and the Resurrection
Today is my 26th anniversary. I still have a hard time believing Mama agreed to marry me, but today I want to share a link that addresses the idea of eternal marriage in light of a common Biblical objection to that idea.
I have no doubt Mama and I will continue to be "one" after death, and this post does the best job I have read answering the concerns I have heard from many people in my life.
Matthew 22:30 - Kevin Barney (By Common Consent)
I have no doubt Mama and I will continue to be "one" after death, and this post does the best job I have read answering the concerns I have heard from many people in my life.
Matthew 22:30 - Kevin Barney (By Common Consent)
Monday, December 17, 2012
Some Protestant Complaints about Mormonism Actually Are Protestant Doctrine - Not Mormon
It's funny to me how some of the most strident complaints Protestants have about Mormonism actually are more in line with their own doctrines than with Mormon theology.
For example, there is a fundamental difference in how Mormonism posits exaltation as a "shared" reward and how pretty much everyone else in Christianity posits the highest end as an individual reward. Too often, "others" interpret our focus as exclusionary (saying, "only married Mormons are saved"), since they don't have the vocabulary to translate temple ordinances as anything but "making everyone Mormon". They don't see the universalism of the theology - and they don't see the exclusionary nature of their own theologies, which consign innumerable children of God to burn in Hell forever because, in their theologies, only Christians are saved (and, most ironically, not even all Christians are saved, since they don't accept some Christians denominations as true Christians).
It's one of the greatest ironies of Christian theology, in my opinion - the disconnect between what people assume we teach and how those assumptions often match what they teach far more closely.
For example, there is a fundamental difference in how Mormonism posits exaltation as a "shared" reward and how pretty much everyone else in Christianity posits the highest end as an individual reward. Too often, "others" interpret our focus as exclusionary (saying, "only married Mormons are saved"), since they don't have the vocabulary to translate temple ordinances as anything but "making everyone Mormon". They don't see the universalism of the theology - and they don't see the exclusionary nature of their own theologies, which consign innumerable children of God to burn in Hell forever because, in their theologies, only Christians are saved (and, most ironically, not even all Christians are saved, since they don't accept some Christians denominations as true Christians).
It's one of the greatest ironies of Christian theology, in my opinion - the disconnect between what people assume we teach and how those assumptions often match what they teach far more closely.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
All Eternity Shakes: How Could God Allow Children to Die in an Elementary School Shooting?
I normally provide links to older posts that might have been unseen or forgotten. Today, in light of the elementary school shooting in Connecticut yesterday, I want to provide a link to an astounding post yesterday written about trying to make sense of that shooting.
All Eternity Shakes: Mormonism's Weeping God - Jacob (By Common Consent)
Truly, we are gods and devils. Let's do whatever we can to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth through our own actions and not blame or wait for God to do it for us - or sit and wait for a future kingdom.
All Eternity Shakes: Mormonism's Weeping God - Jacob (By Common Consent)
Truly, we are gods and devils. Let's do whatever we can to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth through our own actions and not blame or wait for God to do it for us - or sit and wait for a future kingdom.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Where the Church Fits in My Relationship with God
There's really only so far the Church can take us with regard to our personal relationship with God. To put it a different way, the Church can teach about how to love God, but it can't do it for us. We have to do it ourselves.
That is what the Church actually teaches. The leadership even goes as far as to say that the Church is secondary to the family. Individual leaders often say and do things that seem to be at odds with that principle, but the core message ever since the beginning has been that we are responsible personally for what we ultimately become (if we reach our ultimate potential) - and that is one of the core principles that is different than many Protestant theologies. It's one of my favorites aspects of the Restored Gospel.
I look at the primacy of relationship importance as an ever-expanding group of circles. I, as an individual, am at the center; once I am married, my wife and I, as two-made-one, are at the same point in the center; my immediate family is next; my extended family is next; my universal extended family is next. "The Church" is a subset of my extended family and provides the organization within which I can learn to be united with contemporary others when I "naturally" wouldn't become united with them and the theology by which I can show my commitment to be united with past others. It's the structure within which I can show symbolically that I recognize I am no better than anyone else who ever has lived - that I want to be united with all God's creations.
Since "perfect" is defined as "complete, whole, fully developed", I can't be "made perfect without them" - but the beginning of that eternal unity is my own relationship with and to God - and, again, being part of "me", my relationship with my wife. Take me (and my wife) out of that series of circles, and the rest shatters. Thus, my relationship with God and my wife is the most important relationship in my life; my relationship with "The Church", while extremely important to me, is less important than my relationship with God, my wife and our children.
That is what the Church actually teaches. The leadership even goes as far as to say that the Church is secondary to the family. Individual leaders often say and do things that seem to be at odds with that principle, but the core message ever since the beginning has been that we are responsible personally for what we ultimately become (if we reach our ultimate potential) - and that is one of the core principles that is different than many Protestant theologies. It's one of my favorites aspects of the Restored Gospel.
I look at the primacy of relationship importance as an ever-expanding group of circles. I, as an individual, am at the center; once I am married, my wife and I, as two-made-one, are at the same point in the center; my immediate family is next; my extended family is next; my universal extended family is next. "The Church" is a subset of my extended family and provides the organization within which I can learn to be united with contemporary others when I "naturally" wouldn't become united with them and the theology by which I can show my commitment to be united with past others. It's the structure within which I can show symbolically that I recognize I am no better than anyone else who ever has lived - that I want to be united with all God's creations.
Since "perfect" is defined as "complete, whole, fully developed", I can't be "made perfect without them" - but the beginning of that eternal unity is my own relationship with and to God - and, again, being part of "me", my relationship with my wife. Take me (and my wife) out of that series of circles, and the rest shatters. Thus, my relationship with God and my wife is the most important relationship in my life; my relationship with "The Church", while extremely important to me, is less important than my relationship with God, my wife and our children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
