It's Not Their Church. It's Mine. (with corrected link)

Why I Still Belong to the LDS Church - Sliver Rain (The Rains Came Down)

Apparently, the link I included originally didn't link to the actual post. It is fixed now.

I have come to believe that God "heals" more often than He "cures".

My second son received an interesting baby blessing. He was born 19 days early, but there were no apparent issues with his health. He left the hospital in a normal time frame, and nobody was concerned at all for him. 

In his blessing, he was told that none of the physical trials that he would experience in life would have the power to derail him from the mission Heavenly Father had appointed to him. It surprised me when I said it, and it surprised my wife enough that she wrote it in her journal.

Fast forward 20 years:

This son has severe allergies; none of our other five do. This son's appendix burst (after leaking for about a week) when he was 11 - almost killing him. Five years ago, he was diagnosed with Type I diabetes, the only person in my extended family of whom I'm aware with that particular condition. Our kids and their friends have a mock bet about which organ will fail next.

My point? This kid has incredibly strong faith. It really is amazing to see. Especially because of his baby blessing (and subsequent blessings as he has been sick), he knows God knows of him personally, and his faith in other things is very strong. However, neither his appendix nor his pancreas was "cured".

Due to this and other experiences, I tend to look at the word "heal" and see all its possible meanings. Here is a typical list:

 

1. To restore to health or soundness; cure.
2. To set right; repair: "healed the rift between us".
3. To restore (a person) to spiritual wholeness.
v. (to be healed) To become whole and sound; return to health.

The definition most people think of when they read "healed" is "cured". The one I choose to accept in this context is "be made whole". My son isn't "whole" physically, but he is about as "whole" in the greater sense as it is possible to be at his age - and I attribute that largely to the strength and nature of his faith - aided by the recollection of God's love for him that was proven through the spoken blessings he has received in his life.

I have come to believe that God reaches down and takes an active hand in "curing" us more often than many believe, but I also have come to believe that He "heals" more often than He "cures".

To Walk the Path that Opens Before Me

As I come to the end of this month's New Year's Resolution to be more humble and less proud, I want to wrap it up with a short commentary that will be a bit more vague than normal - but as personal as pretty much anything I write.  It deals with my life right now and something I have understood through experiences previously but am relearning now.

There have been times in my life when cirucumstances have combined to make me prouder of myself than I should have been - not in the proper way that Pres. Uchtdorf highlighted recently, but in the uncharitable way that is the focus of so many scriptural verses.  Generally speaking, my own life has followed the classic scriptural cycle associated with pride: Periods of pride, followed by forced humility.  There are elements of my life currently that represent that cycle - and it has come into stark relief as I have focused on how to conclude my resolution this month. 

Therefore, as a result of this introspection, I have only one commitment that has come at the close of this month:

No matter what the Lord has in store for me in the future - whether it is what I naturally want or not, I will accept it and do the best I can to make the most I can of it.  I will do my best to forge the path I desire, but I will accept and walk any path that I feel is being directed by God. 

Seeing God in the Mirror: Part 2

Somehow, the post I wrote last night got deleted and there was a weird combination of posts and titles when I logged in this morning.  The following is something I wrote nearly three years ago, and it felt right to re-post it this morning in place of what I lost from last night.  I hope it helps someone, somehow:

-------------------------------------
I was struck by something the other day that I have been considering ever since. It is not profound, but the combination of a very common scripture (and then one more) and the effort to understand and become more pure in heart has put something into a little different perspective for me.

The Book of Mormon includes the following statement from Alma, the High Priest, to Korihor, the professed atheist :

"The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." (Alma 30:44)

Alma lays out both a scientific and mathematical argument in this verse - speaking of the complexity of the creation and its intricate, "regular" operation as proof that God exists. In essence, he says:

"This could not be without a God to make it be."

This seems simple to many people - that the creation itself, seen as encompassing all of which we are aware, testifies of a Supreme Creator. They think:

"How is it not self-apparent to all? Why can some people look around - or even study the intricacies of molecular biology and string theory and quantum physics and other astounding modern discoveries - and not see that it simply can't be the result of random mutation from an origin that still is unfathomable to scientists? Why can these people not understand this, even when many of them are very good, moral people? We haven't even scratched the surface of it all, and yet some can't recognize it as a sign of a creator. WHY?"
 

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

What struck me is that there is an element of "they shall see God" in one's ability to recognize the hand of God in His creations, but that ability is contingent on "yielding to the enticings of the Holy Spirit" - to having a heart purified by that Holy Spirit. What just hit me this instant, and is changing how this post evolves as I type, is that it is relatively easy - with even a small and comparatively weak connection to the Spirit - to see the grandeur of the universal creation and be humbled into a recognition of God in that creation.

It is more difficult to rise above the natural man and see God in His most inspiring creation - His children.

From both a religious and evolutionary perspective, we are the height of creation - but we also carry within us its depth. We are both god and devil in very practical terms, and, while it is easy for nearly everyone to see the fallen man (the chasm that separates us from God), it is very hard for many to recognize the embryonic god-child within that fallen man (the tie that will be bound in heaven). It is easy to see the caterpillar, but it is very difficult to see the butterfly within that caterpillar when it still is a caterpillar.

One of the most amazing things that happens when our hearts are purified by the power of the Holy Ghost is that, to some degree or another, we glimpse the inner butterflies around us while they still are limited by their caterpillar exteriors - and, in glimpsing those butterflies, we suddenly, in a very real and powerful way, begin to see God.

Obedience Vs. Agency: A Central Gospel Paradox

My Rebellious Heart - Tracy M (By Common Consent)

The discussion thread is fascinating, as well.

Balance in Organizational Administration

My ideal Bishopric or Stake Presidency (or any presidency) would be a Democrat, a Republican and an Independent - a BIC, a convert and someone who had been inactive for a stretch - someone with grown kids, someone with young kids and someone with no kids - etc. I believe the best decisions are the ones that include multiple perspectives - and multiple perspectives can't exist in a monolithic organization where all the "minority members" are either silent or gone.

Those who view things differently than the majority are needed desperately in the Church, and those in the majority need to value the differing views - not just tolerate them.

Ministry Sometimes Is Silence

We come over, and sit - Aaron (By Common Consent)

The comments are enlightening, as well.

Misinterpreting the Parables of Jesus

I've heard some really wacky "hidden messages" from the parables in my life, and they generally have been presented as Truth - you know, for those who "get it". Given the extremes, I tend to limit the interpreting I do of parables to the obvious stuff. I don't look for hidden meanings; I parse what actually is written.

In a nutshell, here's why:

Jesus was teaching mostly common folk, and he was using images from their lives that they would understand. I don't accept that he was "hiding" anything; I just think people who didn't (and don't) understand the image he used tend(ed) to look for ways to interpret them in ways that often aren't consistent with the intended meaning. They get twisted, for example, by urbanites who don't know crap about farming - or modernites who've never used an oil lamp with a wick that needs trimming, in an era when it was impractical to carry excess oil around on your person. The story makes absolute sense to someone who has used such a lamp in such a situation (like a hike, where every ounce you carry is planned carefully).

To Be More Humble: The Danger of Being Absolutely Certain

As I considered the idea of becoming a little more humble and a little less proud this week, I thought back on other things I have contemplated and about which I have written over the last few years.  I want to focus today on something I believe strongly - that we often focus so much on knowledge and knowing that we devalue what, in a way, is the pure heart of humility.  Sometimes we focus so much on knowing that we forget about the real power and, I believe, enduring need for faith. 

“Faith” is not “knowledge”. It is the substance of things “hoped for” - the evidence of things “not seen”. Faith is based on “hope” - a desire for something that cannot be seen or understood fully. “Certainty” is the perceived end of faith - the desired outcome most people envision. It is to be sure of something to such a degree that it is expressed most often in terms of knowledge. “I know this” and “I am certain of this” are seen generally as saying the same thing, especially within religious communities.

One exercises faith when one is uncertain; one does NOT exercise faith when one is certain. When someone is absolutely certain, he stops seeking greater understanding.  Such a condition leads the person who is certain to stop exercising faith, since she believes there is nothing with regard to that particular concept she doesn't "see" - that she has sufficient "evidence" to be certain and not need "further light and knowledge".  If even a prophet (Paul) could write that he saw "through a glass, darkly" . . .

I get more than a little bit frustrated by the insistence that everyone can know everything, since even our own sciptures say that some have the gift to know while others have the gift to believe those who know. (I think there is another category of people - those who never feel like they know and can't believe those who believe they know.  I admire DEEPLY those who find themselves in that situation and still manage to exercise faith [hope in what they can't see] despite their inability to actively believe.)  My biggest concern is the idea that faith and uncertainty cannot co-exist - that if I am uncertain of something, then I lack faith. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of faith.

I would posit that we all must, by definition, exercise faith until we are certain - and then hold onto that previous faith again if we lose certainty. Since none of us can be certain about everything imaginable, every one of us needs faith in something all our lives. I believe each of us can be certain of some things, but I also believe we can be certain of many things and still be incorrect - at least partially.  If we are certain of everything, I believe we either are ignorant or delusional. If we never reach an acceptable level of certainty, then we need to accept a life of searching ("seeking after these things") - following whatever principles and people and politics and religion we feel provide us with the highest degree of certainty we can obtain OR the particular vision in which we want to have faith.

Finally, there were at least two times when I think it is safe to say that Jesus struggled mightily - because He didn’t understand and didn't want to accept something. (In the Garden, where He asked if the cup could be taken from Him and on the cross when he cried out and asked why His Father had forsaken Him.) In these cases, he seems to have been uncertain about some aspect of the Atonement and had to exercise faith: specifically, that He would be able to do it and then that He would be able to do it alone at the very end.

If the Savior and Redeemer of the world didn't understand some things right up until the end of his life - if even he had to exercise faith in at least two instances, I believe it is important for each of us to accept that we also need to accept uncertainty and not assume our visions and views and beliefs are objective truth that need no more light and knowledge. 

I think nearly everyone would agree with that, in theory, but there are SO many times when we forget it in reality - when we allow ourselves to be proud and miss amazing opportunities for spiritual growth and enlightenment by being absolutely certain.

My Faith Must Be My Own - or I am Left to be Acted Upon

My baseline stance has been and ever will be that I can construct a sound argument both for and against almost anything. (That's the whole point of debate, btw - to force people to construct sound arguments for BOTH sides of an issue.) Therefore, it is up to me to weigh both the evidence AND the implications and construct whatever argument rings truest for me - whichever argument resonates with my own soul. I can't palm that off on anyone else, and I can't blame anyone else if I am unhappy with the result.

I can act (construct my own personal view) or be acted upon (allow someone else's view to be mine). If I don't do it myself, however, I will be tossed to and fro - since I probably will encounter an even more articulate argument than my current one - then a more articulate argument than that one - then a more articulate argument than that one - ad infinitum. Until I build my own, personal faith (or, more accurately, take responsibility for my own, personal faith), I am at the mercy of others - a puppet on strings that can change hands at a moment's notice. I literally am not my own master - and, therefore, I can't turn control of my life over to the One whom I believe is qualified to be my Master.

I believe what I believe and see things the way I see things for one, simple reason: I have chosen and continue to choose to do so. I looked at the end result of all the options I could envision and chose the one that resonated the most with my own soul. I tweak the details constantly as I am exposed to others' perspectives that enlighten my own, but the core foundation doesn't change - since I built it carefully and consciously and intentionally. It belongs to me; it's what I "know" for myself; it's mine.

I live spiritually where I choose to live - and I love my house.