Hitler and Stalin: Do We Really Believe in "Judge Not"?

I need to emphasize right at the beginning of this post that I am inclined to believe that Hitler and Stalin will not be in the Celestial Kingdom. However, I have to leave open the possibility that they will - simply because I believe deeply in the concept of, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." It's much less about their eventual fate and much more about my current condition. It's not what becomes of them; it's what "I am and become". It's staying open to accepting that which I can't see - and, in some cases, what I can't imagine.

I don't know what caused people like Hitler and Stalin to be who they were - and I personally have to remember that simple fact.

We talk all the time about those who are not accountable being saved from their lack of accountability. We apply it without reservation to children and the mentally disabled, but we often are less willing to apply it to the "perceptually disabled" - those who have ears and eyes to hear and see but can't do so in the way we want. The best example I know is the psychopath.

We readily admit that there are people who appear to have been born without a conscience. If, in fact, that is true, then I include that condition in the same category as someone who is born "retarded" (the accepted term from my youth), like one of my cousins. The foundational reason why we exempt my cousin from accountability is that he lacks the ability to understand, independently and internally, the difference between right and wrong with regard to most things. In "Mormon-speak", his "obstacle to accountability" can be described as a result of "Adam's transgression"; hence, we teach that he is "redeemed" despite his inability to understand, since his limitations were not of his own choosing and are outside his ability to control and change.

Perhaps Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, et.al. were just like my cousin - except that their unchosen disabilit(ies) were manifested in evil instead of gentleness and love. Maybe they lacked the ability to feel the type of remorse that leads to repentance. Maybe they are examples of the need for opposition in all things - and, as opposite ends of the same condition, merely represent the touching points of an eternal round.

I have no idea about each individual person, but I like the idea that all of us are on the same circle when it comes to accountability (that all of us are sinners and fall short of the glory of God and, thus, need salvation and redemption) - since it means all of us are more alike than different when all is said and done. That belief helps blunt my natural pride and helps remind me that I'm not really "all that" - except in the eyes of a loving Father.

We Should Never Trample upon the Feelings or Rights of Our Neighbors

"We have got to know that it is our business to learn to secure the peace and happiness of those that are around us, and never take a course to trample upon the feelings or rights of our neighbors. Let a man go and trample upon the rights of a brother and how long would it take him to destroy that feeling of confidence that had heretofore existed between them? And when once destroyed how long will it take to establish that feeling which once existed between them? It will take a great while. This is what we have to place our eye upon; in all our thinking, in all our movements and in our secret meditations we want to let our minds reflect upon the interests of all around; and to consider that they have rights and privileges as well as ourselves; we ought to have this firmly established in our minds." (Lorenzo Snow: "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" - Priesthood Manual)

"Another Testament of Jesus Christ" is Not a Different "Gospel"

A classic evangelical criticism of Mormonism is that the apostle Paul said not to believe anyone, even an angel of light, who teaches another gospel.  They use that statement as a way to reject Joseph Smith - and the Book of Mormon, especially since the cover says "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".  The actual passage in Galatians says:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The charge is ironic, because Paul's own converting vision and subsequent epistles fit exactly the complaint of the evangelical community that questions Joseph's account - especially since Paul's ministry, visions and epistles helped change early Christianity in MAJOR ways.

I probably should repeat that for emphasis:

Paul's visions (especially the one that stopped the requirement for circumcision among the Gentiles) and his epistles fundamentally altered Christianity in ways that people then could have termed to be "another gospel" - IF they interpreted "gospel" to be "further revelation" or "additional writings" or even "changed/additional doctrine". Thus, Paul could be rejected for the exact same reason evangelicals use that passage to reject Joseph.

Joseph's foundational account essentially is Paul's foundational account - a vision of God appearing to him that led to him becoming a prophet. Angelic visitations / visions were recorded all the time in Paul's time, even by Paul himself - but they were secondary to the appearance of God himself. In the exact same way, the claim about Moroni is secondary to the First Vision. It doesn't happen without the First Vision. It can't be attacked independent of the First Vision.

So, condemning Joseph's account of Moroni's vision and rejecting the writing that followed (The Book of Mormon) by quoting that passage of Paul's is inconsistent with Paul's own understanding of angels and visions and scripture. He had no problem with those things - it was the presentation of another "gospel" that concerned him.

There is a huge difference between another "testament" and another "gospel" - and it's a very important difference. The Book of Mormon says explicitly, multiple times, especially in 3 Nephi, that the "gospel" it teaches is faith in Jesus, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost - and there is no way, in my opinion, to see that as "another gospel" that differs from the "gospel" of the Bible. Arguments about doctrine are valid to make (as long as people admit that even the writers of the New Testament appear to disagree about some doctrine - and certainly the early Catholic theologians and modern Protestant scholars did and do, as well). However, in evangelical terms, the word "testament" means nothing more than "witness" - and "witnessing" about Jesus actually is a key aspect of evangelism. So, rejecting another "testament" or "witness" that presents the same "gospel" is ironic - to put it as charitably as I can.

That is not "proof" of the Book of Mormon or of Joseph being a prophet - but, as bluntly as I can put it, if rejection of the Book of Mormon is based on that classic evangelical attack, it's important to understand how shallow, out-of-context and twisted that particular attack is.

We Should Not Build Our Faith upon Pictures and Stories

"Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from 'pictures and stories' and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods, what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated ...might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies? ... [Some say that] because one repudiates the false he stands in danger of weakening, perhaps losing the truth. I have no fear of such results. I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony." (Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story, p. 363)

Analyzing Scripture: John 15:13 - "Greater Love . . . Lay Down His Life"

John 15:13 is quoted often throughout Christianity as the great example of Jesus’ willingness to die for his disciples and all who would accept him as their Lord and Savior, but I believe this singular perspective robs that verse of much of its power and actual message.  I think there is a huge difference between “laying down his life” and “dying” – and I think it is fundamental and deeply important difference in how people view Jesus and the concept of the Atonement.  John 15:13 says:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

There is much that might be gained by parsing this verse word-by-word, but I am going to focus strictly on one phrase (“lay down his life”) - and begin simply by pointing out that this does not say “die”.

What does it mean to “lay down one’s life”?  There are two possible meanings – the literal and the figurative.

The literal would be to die.

An example of the applicability of this particular phrase to death would be that of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, who literally “laid down” their bodies and were killed in the process of praying to their God.  An application of doing so “for his friends” would be running into a street and pushing someone out of the path of an oncoming car – or jumping in front of a bullet meant for someone else – or being killed while rescuing someone from a burning building – or any number of other scenarios I could envision.  Perhaps the most oft repeated yet overlooked example is a mother’s willingness to risk death to give life. Surely, that is “laying down one’s life for a friend.”

In this sense, Jesus certainly laid down his life for his friends when he allowed himself to be tortured and killed in the Garden and on the cross – “dying” spiritually and physically to keep us from eternal death spiritually and physically.  That is profound and important, but it isn’t the Atonement in full, in my opinion.

Psalms 55:22 says, “Cast thy burden upon the Lord.” There is a powerful symbolism in that phrasing, and I look at John 15:13 in much the same way.  In order to illustrate that more directly, I am going to focus first on the actual mortal life of Jesus.

We have very little recorded about his life – and I believe that is due mostly to the fact that is was HIS life.  The writers of the Gospels were not interested in teaching about the carpenter’s son; they wanted to teach about the Messiah.  They had no desire to teach about the man prior to his ministry; they wanted to teach about the Miracle Worker during his ministry and the God after his resurrection.  They really didn’t care about the life he crafted for himself; they cared about the life he lived for them, his friends. They cared deeply about more than His dying for them; they cared equally about His living for them.

We read about his birth, about the visit of the wise men when he was a young child living in a house, about his family’s flight to Egypt after the visit of the wise men and about their later trip to the temple in Jerusalem when he was twelve years old – then nothing for the next 18 years.  Nothing.  Not a word.  Interestingly, over the course of the next 3 years covered in the Gospels, we only get glimpses into those missing years when circumstances make it impossible to avoid those glimpses – like the wedding feast where he turns the water into wine and we learn a little of his mortal family.

(Similarly, the only reason we are aware that any of his disciples was married is that there is a very brief mention of Peter’s mother-in-law being sick.)

He was the carpenter’s son, but what did he do to earn his living?  Did he marry?  If so, to whom; if not, why not?  Did he have children?  If so, how many, and what happened to them; if not, why not?  If he married, was he widowed prior to his ministry?  Is that why he had no home or place to lay his head?  How often did he return to the temple – or did he live completely away from the politics and intrigue of Jerusalem?  Was he raised with or near his cousin, John – and was he taught of that twin miracle of birth?  Did he wrestle or race?  Did he attend school, or was he taught to read by his parents?  As an adolescent, did he love and face rejection?  We have no idea what occurred during those 18 years. I am left to ask:

“Why are those things missing from our record?”

Again, I believe it was because those 18 years were HIS life – the life He “laid down for his friends” in order to “take (His Father’s) yoke upon (Him)”.  I see in that example the statement that there is no greater love than this – to leave the life you have crafted for yourself and dedicate yourself to the service of others – to lose your own life and live for your friends.  I see full-time missionary service in this light, including the young men and women who serve, the retired couples who serve and the Mission Presidents (both husband and wife) who serve.  I see the concept of priests and nuns dedicating themselves to Christ and the Catholic Church in this light, even as I don’t accept many of the aspects of that service that have developed over time.  I see this foundation concept interwoven into the lives of those who walk away from prestige and power and influence in order to work for the common good and live lives of relative poverty – substituting what they could have for what they want others to have.  I see my father’s sacrifices for my mother and their children in that same light.  (My Niece Died This Morning)

I hearken back to the mother risking death for her child and see it in the decisions of those who set aside their own lives for a season to serve and raise their children – and I include in this last group those fathers who choose to stay home while their wives return to their occupations (or couples who restructure their occupational arrangements to share more equally in the time spent with their children – when that means neither of them will rise as far in their chosen field).

I believe, in the heat of the moment, it is MUCH easier to die for someone than it is truly to live for someone – to lose your life in their service.  I honor and respect and stand in awe of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, but I view the greatest expression of His LOVE for us as His willingness to lay down his own life, shoulder the yoke His father had prepared for Him, walk away from that old life and live with single-minded focus from then until His death – working only to serve and bless and uplift and teach all with whom he came in contact and, ultimately, seal that work with his sweat, blood, tears and very breath.  I believe he laid down his life by letting go of the desire to gain more for himself and live instead to give to others.

None of us are asked to pick up that exact same yoke, but all of us are asked to mourn with those who mourn, comfort those who stand in need of comfort, bless those that revile and persecute us, pray for them that despitefully use us and, in very real and practical ways, lay down our own lives and live a new life for others.  That, in my opinion, is the yoke that makes His burden light and brings abiding rest to our souls.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet

Last Sunday was the 5th Sunday, and, since I was leading the 3rd hour combined adult lesson on "Using the Internet to Share the Gospel", I decided to teach the same lesson in my Sunday School class, as well. Preaching the Gospel is framed as a priesthood duty, and Elder Oaks had used serving missions as an example of how women are authorized to exercise priesthood authority (meaning that sharing the Gospel online can be seen as a priesthood duty for both men and women), so I figured it was okay to teach this lesson in a month focused on the priesthood.

I read (and we discussed briefly) the following sentences from Elder Ballard's commencement speech at BYU-Hawaii in Dec 2007 ("Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet") that was reprinted in the July 2008 Ensign:

I am in my 80th year. By some accounts that makes me pretty old. Actually, some folks think some of the Brethren may be too old to know what’s going on in your world. Let me assure you we are very much aware.

Ours is the world of cyberspace, cell phones that capture video, video and music downloads, social networks, text messaging and blogs, handhelds and podcasts. This is the world of the future, with inventions undreamed of that will come in your lifetime as they have in mine. How will you use these marvelous inventions? More to the point, how will you use them to further the work of the Lord?

There is truth in the old adage that “the pen is mightier than the sword.” In many cases it is with words that you will accomplish the great things that you set out to do. And it’s principally about ways to share those words that I want to talk to you.

The emergence of new media is facilitating a worldwide conversation on almost every subject, including religion, and nearly everyone can participate. This modern equivalent of the printing press is not reserved only for the elite.

There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches . . . Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time.

All of you know that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are reminded and encouraged continually to share the gospel with others. The Church is always looking for the most effective ways to declare its message.

Now, may I ask that you join the conversation by participating on the Internet to share the gospel and to explain in simple and clear terms the message of the Restoration.

Remember, as the proverb states, that “a soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). And remember that contention is of the devil (see 3 Nephi 11:29). There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs. There is no need to become defensive or belligerent . . . We simply need to have a conversation, as friends in the same room would have.

I then shared ten suggestions for internet participation taken from a post by Daria Black in February 2007 that I found when I started blogging entitled "The Blogger's Guide to Comment Etiquette", plus two more I added, and we discussed how each suggestion relates specifically to sharing the Gospel online. For this summary, I will skip the obvious applications but add an explanation for suggestions that aren't as obvious.

1. Write a comment, not spam.

Spam is the bane of all webernet existence and has caused many a blogger to resort to counterproductive measures such as closing their comment section. Even worse than spam, however, are comments that do little more than consume bandwidth. What most bloggers are looking for is feedback that continues the discussion about the topic at hand. Comments like “You don’t know what you’re talking about” or “I was here first,” are not helpful.

Take the time to read the blog entry and put some effort into writing a response that adds to the conversation and/or helps the blog writer. Your comment is your calling card. The webernet is an open rolodex and as such, how you present yourself through your words will tell people whether or not they want to look you up.

I simply mentioned that the first few comments a person writes in any comment thread (and the first few posts a person writes on a new personal blog) can establish that person's reputation and determine, to a large degree, how seriously that person will be taken by others. I emphasized that they don't have to try to write "perfect" or deeply profound comments and/or posts, but they should try to make sure they are commenting and furthering the discussion - or creating an opportunity for thought and/or conversation.

2. Stay on topic.

This policy may differ from blog to blog. Some blogmasters don’t care if the participants drift off onto tangent. Others will do a round house kick on you if you get too close to the white line. As a general rule if you find that you fall into a discussion with other visitors about something unrelated to the post, offer to email them privately.

We talked about "threadjacks" and how it is impolite to change the course of the discussion from what the author of a post intended - that when a person takes the time to write something, respect is shown best by honoring that intent. I did mention that some blogs and authors don't mind threadjacks, especially if lots of comments and good discussion have occurred prior to the threadjack.

3. Respect the rules.

Some bloggers will have an official comment policy in place. Usually because of issues they’ve run into with their feedback. Read it and respect it. Visiting someone’s blog is just like being a guest in their house. The last thing they want is you pooping all over their couch and doing so will usually result in them pushing you out the front door.

The kids got a kick out of that image. (I had to warn the adults in the 3rd hour about it and offer a quasi-apology before we started.)

4. Comments should be comprehensible.

Make an effort to use good grammar and spelling and to communicate your thoughts clearly. People cannot respond effectively to your concerns if they cannot understand what they are in the first place. Don’t forget that people cannot see your expression or hear your voice. Flame wars are often the result of a misinterpretation of the meaning of your words. This is why smilies and snark tags, such as “sarcasm”, were invented. Use them.

Also, be sure your writing reflects the level of formality of the blog. Throwing around slang terms on a blog that is highbrow may cause you to appear uneducated even though you are Mensa member. On the other hand, using language more suitable for a doctoral thesis on a blog that is very informal may come across as pretentious and snooty.

We talked about how lots of people assume Mormons are ignorant and how badly worded comments, with grammatical and spelling errors can reinforce that perception and actually hinder sharing the Gospel in a meaningful way. Again, I emphasized that comments don't have to be perfect and can include a mistake here and there, but that lots of people write a comment or post in Word first and run SpellCheck prior to copying it into a comment or post.

5. Avoid setting the whole blog ablaze when flaming a topic.

Let’s face it there are some subjects in life that, no matter how hard we try, cause us to flip out at the mere mention of them. But while you have the right to act like a jerk when the topic is raised, unless you want to be banned from the internet I suggest you refrain from doing so.

I mentioned, explicitly, that there is a reason some people refuse to talk about religion and politics - that they are highly emotionally-charged issues. We listed some religious topics that fit that description: abortion, gay marriage, morality, polygamy, witnessing/testifying, abuse by leaders, etc. I simply pointed out that we need to comment and post about these topics as carefully as we can, understanding how emotional they are.

We talked about respect for differing views and the idea that all people have the right to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences - without being called stupid, blind, idiotic, apostate, etc. for following their own consciences.

6. Follow up on comments.

Be sure to respond to comments directed at you even if just to say you don’t wish to talk about the subject. Services such as Co-Comment can help you track conversations you are involved in.

In the context of sharing the Gospel, I mentioned that I had commented recently on Facebook about a newspaper article that badly mis-characterized the recent statement from the FP and Q12 about the priesthood and apostasy. The title was, "LDS Church leadership says that only men are worthy to have the priesthood" - and my comment was simply, "That title is extremely inaccurate - and the inaccuracy is important." I told them that a high school classmate with whom I had not talked in decades responded with, "Why is that, Ray?" I then had a chance to go into more detail about what the statement actually said, as well as Elders Oaks' and Ballards' most recent statements about the priesthood.

If I hadn't looked at that thread (followed-up on my comment), I would have missed a golden opportunity to share the Gospel with that friend in that way. I also pointed out that it would have been simply disrespectful not to follow-up and answer a sincere question.

7. Keep it to a reasonable length.

Most blog topics don’t require more than a one or two paragraph response. Avoid writing a novel especially if it is your first visit to a blog. It also helps to read the other comments to make sure you are not adding to the broken record effect.

I asked the students how they respond when they realize something they want to read is multiple times longer than they thought it would be. They all agreed that they often skip it entirely. I mentioned that when the same person writes long epistles all the time, people simply see the person's name and skip all of their comments entirely. I told them they can't share the Gospel if nobody reads what they write.

I also emphasized that it is better to say, "I agree with Mary," or, "Wonderful comment, Mary," than to say exactly what Mary said in another comment.

8. Link to your sources.

When citing material to make your case, provide a link so that the participants can read it at their leisure. Be careful of linking to your own website when you first start commenting at a group site, since this can be seen as spam if you are a first time visitor.

Particularly when sharing the Gospel, if you are quoting or summarizing someone (like an apostle), sharing a link to what they actually said is important - and allows someone to go to lds.org, for example, in a non-threatening way. They might or might not read more there, but at least they have the opportunity to do so. It's also critical to make sure you quote or summarize them accurately, since it can be highly embarrassing to have the person read the linked talk and come back with, "I read your link, and the person didn't say what you claimed was said."  

(In the 3rd hour adult class, the 2nd Counselor in our Stake Presidency mentioned how important it is to make sure any quote you forward or reference is accurate.  He used an example of a friend who had forwarded a quote via Facebook that was attributed to President Kimball - but that President Kimball actually had not said what was quoted.  He mentioned how easy it is to go to lds.org and run a search for any quote to see if it is accurate.  I really appreciated that contribution, and I added Snopes.com as a good way to check the accuracy of things.)

9. Do not feed the trolls.

They’ll just follow you home and poop on your doorstep.

The students loved this, and we talked about how intentional trolls often strive to derail good conversations by being inflammatory and diverting the thread into a verbal fistfight - and how they will keep doing so if fed but leave if ignored. I also used it as a chance to talk about how we (Mormons) can be trolls, if we: 1) go to conversations about other religions and start preaching the Mormon gospel there (like commenting on baptism for the dead in a thread about Catholic communion); 2) do nothing in our comments except call people to repentance; 3) go to a liberal or conservative blog and comment from the opposite perspective simply to show them how wrong they are; etc.

I also told them that they should read each comment as if someone else was writing it to them - and that, if they wouldn't like it being said to them they probably shouldn't say it to someone else - that they might be acting as a troll if they submitted that comment.

10. A word about anonymous commenting.

For one reason or another, people feel the need to make anonymous comments. This practice is not right, wrong, good or bad. In some cases this is the only option available especially when personal safety is a concern. However, just so you know using a pseudonym is the same as talking to people with a paper bag over your head which can hurt your credibility. Even when leaving negative comments, it’s best to leave either your name or your web identity.

I told the students that I agree completely that there are times and situations when commenting anonymously is important, and I used a group blog where I am an administrator as an example (where people who are struggling with faith crises often are worried about how family, friends and church leaders might react if they used their real names), but that, generally speaking and especially when sharing the Gospel, if they don't feel comfortable attaching their real name to a comment they probably shouldn't submit the comment as written.

The last two suggestions (the ones I added) were:

11. Don't participate just to argue, correct, testify or call to repentance.

We had talked about that with a couple of the other suggestions, but I wanted to emphasize it at the end of the lesson, as well.

12. Pick compatible group blogs.

I told them that my personal blog has a section that lists multiple Mormon-themed blogs, another one that lists a few aggregators of Mormon-themed blogs and another one that is my personal blog roll of individual blogs I like to read regularly. I mentioned a few of the larger group blogs in order to illustrate just a bit how diverse the options are: By Common Consent (one I really like with lots of variety in the posts), Times & Seasons (one I like but don't read nearly as often as BCC), Millennial Star (an extremely conservative one I tend to avoid, since it can be polemic), Feminist Mormon Housewives (obviously not a conservative one, which drew some chuckles), Wheat & Tares (one that addresses a wide range of topics from multiple perspectives that I tend to like), Mormon Momma (less doctrinal with more of a "practical, everyday" slant), etc. I told them to look for a forum that fits what they want to get out of online participation - to make it a positive experience of growth and learning and not just a place to share the Gospel.

Balancing Zealousness with Concern for Others

On this day of unabashed patriotism, I want to share the following that has application to that topic, as well: 

There is a fine line between zealousness and fanaticism. I think charity is the delineator of the two - and, unfortunately, people do many things "out of love" that aren't at all charitable.

I look at the Golden Rule, and I can't help but wonder how (the collective) we would feel if our non-Mormon acquaintances acted toward us the way we sometimes act towards them - or if we learned that they talk about us the way we sometimes talk about them. I look at how some people interact with their "wayward" children and wonder how they would react if their parents weren't members and interacted that same way with them (their own "wayward children").

I believe in zealousness when it is manifested in a righteous manner, but I also have to be able to look at my own actions (and the actions of others as examples) and see the difference between righteous zealousness and something else. For example, I am concerned whenever I hear or read anything like the following - which I read in a comment a couple of years ago:

(In order to be zealous,) we have to stop worrying about “the other guy” and worry about how God views us.

Frankly, I think we have to be concerned about the other guy AND about how God sees us, specifically because if there is one lesson in all of our scriptures I believe it is that "concern for the other" is absolutely central to the Gospel and mission of Jesus Christ. I agree completely that concern for how others see us can't get in the way of doing the right thing, but I also believe that "doing the right thing" without regard for "the other guy" often (and I mean very often) leads to doing the wrong thing in the name of righteousness. I don't need to use extreme examples of that principle; regular, daily examples are all around us.

I believe that being righteously zealous is not a simple thing that can be measured by a universal checklist. I need to be concerned with my own zealousness and whether my own zealousness is acceptable to God - and, for me, that absolutely must include a deep, central, strong element of how my actions in the name of God impact "the other guy" - since charity is the heart of my own measure of my own righteous zealousness.

One example to illustrate my point:

I love and admire Captain Moroni, but he was wrong - 100% dead wrong - in his chastisement of Pahoran during the war he was fighting. He didn't write that letter out of righteous zealousness; he wrote it out of frustration over seeing his soldiers die unnecessarily. (Those are his own words, not my assumption.)  He wrote it in anger - and the condemnation in it of Pahoran was unfounded. Captain Moroni was described by Mormon in the abridgment as a "perfect man", but he erred in that instance when he wrote that letter (which does not contradict Mormon's assessment of him). The letter was not charitable; it was not accurate; it was not in line with the standard articulated in D&C 121; it was not sensitive to the plight of a friend, supporter and fully righteous man; it was not a righteous judgment; it was not an example of "being moved upon by the Holy Ghost"; it was not an example of righteous zealousness.

Again, I admire Captain Moroni deeply, but I admire Pahoran even more deeply in that example - since he easily could have reacted very differently. It was Pahoran, not Captain Moroni, in that situation who "saved the day" - and he did it explicitly by remembering, in a time of great stress and distress, to "think of the other guy" and not return threat for threat. He did it by remembering the pure heart behind the mistaken accusations and not holding Moroni's mistake against him. He did it by loving the man even though the man's words must have cut him deeply. He did it by not being zealous in the traditional, stereotypical manner but by being zealous in love and meekness.

I believe in zealousness, but I also believe it is manifested differently in different situations and that, for me, at the very core, it absolutely involves "worrying about the other guy" in a very real and important way. I believe charity is the balancing agent between righteous zealousness and unrighteous fanaticism - and, if I have to choose between one extreme or the other, I try to choose to be overly charitable rather than overly fanatical.

Leaders Shouldn't Manage So Much that They Forget to Minister

"I do not worry about members of the Church being unresponsive when they learn of the needy as much as I worry about our being unaware of such needs. … Please, priesthood leaders, do not get so busy trying to manage Church programs that you forget about basic duties in what the Apostle James described as ‘pure religion, undefiled’ (James 1:27)." (Spencer W. Kimball. at a seminar for Regional Representatives in 1979)

Mis-Using the Book of Mormon

Note: This is a long post.   I want to make a point as comprehensively as I possibly can, so please pardon the length.

I don't draw the straight-line connection between a testimony of the Book of Mormon and an automatic acceptance of all other truth claims of the LDS Church that some members of the Church do, especially onward in time all the way to our day.  There are way too many other factors that theoretically could come into play and break such a chain of logic.  I think there is a direct link to the Book of Mormon being an inspired recording of the word of God, exactly as we view the Bible in that regard (where inerrancy of the text is not required) and Joseph Smith being a prophet of God, exactly as we view Biblical prophets - but everything else doesn't have that direct correlation, imo.  After all, there are prophets who recorded the word of God but didn't establish new churches.  In fact, those that did were the very small minority, especially within Judeo-Christian history.  Most prophets are more like our modern prophets - caretakers more than radically innovative establishers.

However, I think we miss the real power of the Book of Mormon (the reason it is the keystone of our religion) when we have people read selected verses and passages to prove doctrine and fail to ask them to approach it as it asks to be approached - even if we insert the First Vision as the new keystone of our religion.  I don't see anywhere in the Book of Mormon that says, internally, in the words of the authors and abridgers, to use it as a doctrinal proof-text - especially by isolating and emphasizing specific verses and doctrines.  What it asks internally - what the words themselves ask - is that the book be read in its entirety in order to open the reader's mind to the reality that God has worked with people throughout history and, therefore, will speak directly to her and manifest truth to her.

When I attended Seminary, one of our Scripture Mastery passages was Moroni 10:3-5.  Now, as my children go through Seminary, the passage is only Moroni 10:4-5.  I think that is a shame, since it is 10:3 that sets the stage for 10:4-5.  Teaching Moroni 10:4-5 without 10:3 is an example of the proof-texting I'm addressing.

Moroni 10:4-5 reads:

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."  

That is Moroni's invitation (not a "challenge", which is another personal soapbox) - the "doctrine" of prayer and personal revelation, if you will.  It's fine to use that text to teach that doctrine.  However, leaving out Moroni 10:3 eliminates entirely a key part of the actual method Moroni is trying to encourage readers to use to go beyond proving doctrine and encounter really deep, meaningful understanding of and communication with God.

Moroni 10:3 reads:

"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts." 

The proof-text approach "challenges" someone to pray about the Book of Mormon - or, in many cases, to pray about some specific passages from the Book of Mormon - or, in many cases, to pray about everything else the missionaries are teaching.  It becomes a very generic:

"Pray about what we are teaching you, including the parts of this book we're quoting as we teach these things".  

**That's not what Moroni's actual words exhort people to do.**

Moroni says, "when you shall read these things" - which can be while reading or upon finishing reading the multiple records he and his father abridged into one volume, not a few proof-text passages.  Furthermore, 10:3 includes the following prior to 10:4 even asking people to pray:

1) Remember the Lord's mercy throughout time (described for those of Israelite descent explicitly throughout the Book of Mormon and the Bible but, interestingly, also applicable to a Buddhist in Japan or a Muslim in Iraq with regard to their own understanding of God's mercy to their own ancestors);
2) Ponder that mercy.

Moroni 10:3 does NOT say to ponder "these things" (doctrines) in "your mind" (by thinking about them).  It says to ponder "it" (God's mercy) in "your heart" (by feeling that mercy settle inside you).

A reader of the Book of Mormon can't have the experience Moroni is urging if the Book of Mormon isn't used as he's urging it to be used.  That reader might gain a converting testimony, but it won't be what Moroni is exhorting her to experience in her heart.  That is important to me.

A testimony of the First Vision can't provide the experience Moroni is exhorting people to have, either.  It is wonderful and a necessary part of the Restoration, but it is fundamentally different than the Book of Mormon.

Serving with Others: "Tenderhearted"

Serving With Others - Patty (I Believe in Christ)