Decisions prompted by selfish feelings are typically shortsighted. I heard a segment from a radio news program describing the quandary of the children of adults who had hyphenated their names at marriage. Jenny Smith-Showerhammer had married Jack Butler-VanDyke. They were befuddled as they attempted to decide what name to pass on to their own children. "Smith-Showerhammer-Butler-VanDyke" is infinitely ridiculous, yet by the nomenclature adopted by the progressive women of the 60s and 70s, this could become the actual surname of a kid begotten by their children. This consequence was unforeseen—no one considered the distant future. Women chose to forgo traditional use of the husband's surname and strike a blow for women's equality (ironically, by keeping their fathers' surnames instead). Perhaps they felt that losing a name implied second-class status in the relationship or society. Perhaps they experienced the sense of satisfaction that comes from taking a stand that lets one stand out, bucking tradition. Trying to be unique is a good feeling. Whatever the original motivation, it did not involve enough consideration of consequences for the next generation.
The modern tendency is to think of the present as an improvement on the past, and to think of our ancestors as naive. "Progress" is the watchword of our age. But too often, we tend to think of any change as being progress. As the above example demonstrates, our ancestors were not as backward and foolish as many of us suppose. Often traditions started when the need for them became obvious, and no one passed along sufficient reason to the later generations as a result. Of course you name the kids after their father—a person's maternity is easy to establish; paternity requires more complicated devices to ascertain and establish. This may not be the reasoning behind the tradition of passing on the father's surname to children in our culture, but this particular advantage of doing so occurred to me after hearing about the unlucky recipients of a break from tradition, left to sort out the confusion in the absence of those who accidentally created it.
Lately the news has been oversimplifying the Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8, announcing proudly that they have confirmed gay marriage as legal in California. After searching a bit deeper, and looking at the ruling itself, my understanding is that INaction, not action, has left the door open to gay marriage.
The two parties presenting their case before the Supreme Court were required to have "Article III standing" in order to bring their case before the highest court. While the party in favor of gay marriage was deemed to have such standing, those in support of Prop 8 and limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one women were not. The case was therefore considered unfit for trial: "That party must also have 'standing,' which requires, among other things, that [they] have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners [pro-traditional marriage] do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit" (from the Supreme Court ruling on the case, emphasis added).
"Petitioners" lacked "standing," i.e. they had no sufficient, sustained injury to complain about. Will they have "standing" if the law passed by the people is being invalidated and struck down unilaterally by one judge? And who was considered qualified to take the issue before the Supreme Court? I quote from the ruling again, with my own emphasis added:
"Respondents, two same-sex couples who wish to marry, filed suit in federal court, challenging Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The complaint named as defendants California’s Governor, attorney general, and various other state and local officials responsible for enforcing California’s marriage laws. Those officials refused to defend the law, although they have continued to enforce it throughout this litigation. The District Court allowed petitioners—the official proponents of the initiative, see Cal. Elec. Code Ann. §342 (West 2003)—to intervene to defend it. After a 12-day bench trial, the District Court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, permanently enjoining the California officials named as defendants from enforcing the law, and ‘directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision’ shall not enforce it. Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 1004 (ND Cal. 2010). Those officials elected not to appeal the District Court order. When petitioners did, the Ninth Circuit asked them to address 'why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.' Perry v. Schwarzenegger , Civ. No. 10–16696 (CA9, Aug. 16, 2010), p. 2."
The Governor and other elected officials were the only ones who could represent California in court. But they refused to represent the majority of their constituents by upholding their ballot referendum in court, and de facto annulment of the legislation was the result. Executives would not defend the law in court, and the average, unelected people could not, so the justices of the Supreme Court felt they had no power to hand down an affirmative or negative ruling. Again from the ruling: "This is an essential limit on our power: It ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives." Their inaction, whether constitutional or not, has left the judges in California free to do exactly that—engage in policymaking.
The picture created here is one of omission—the Supreme Court passed the onus of ruling on the case like a hot potato, and the governor would not move to support the legislation in court. The Supreme Court contends that they have no authority to rule on a case not properly presented. While a few officials sit on their hands and choose to do nothing to enforce the law or stand against its detractors in court, their inaction has left the door open in favor of same-sex marriage, and whatever other variation happens to be presented to a favorably disposed justice of the peace for his consideration.
The ruling discusses the issue of "standing" as follows: "One essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. This requires the litigant to prove that he has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct..." Are not the Governor and judges creating an injury by refusing to enforce the will of the majority enacted via ballot initiative?
Little wonder Captain Moroni was so vehemently opposed to the passive inactivity and crawling pace of his own government: "And now behold, we desire to know the cause of this exceedingly great neglect; yea, we desire to know the cause of your thoughtless state...Yea, will ye sit in idleness...?" (Alma 60:6, 22). Silence betokens consent, as the old legal maxim says.
The Book of Mormon speaks to our present situation as if it were adapted to our current headlines: "And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges" (Alma 10:27).
I do not believe that any mortal responsible for rendering Prop 8 void (by direct action or passive inaction) intends to destroy America. But I do suggest that the ultimate outcomes of redefining what organizations are qualified to raise children will have a massive impact on our future as a nation. Those determined to effect that change have neglected to discuss, or consider publicly, the potential consequences.
What good will come from establishing families in which one or both of the children's biological parents are necessarily absent by definition? A diminished sense of reproductive responsibility will come to those men and women who are begetting children. As for the effects on the children, who knows? Nowhere do we read in any studies or literature that children generally fare better when raised by someone other than their biological parents. We will probably learn the answers to these, and other unconsidered questions, long after the people promoting the redefinition of marriage have shuffled off this mortal coil. Others will be left behind to deal with their shortsighted decisions. Since few, if any, are willing to get out the binoculars of imagination and look down the road to the consequences of changing the fundamental nature of marriage and family at a legal level, I will do a little of that here.
When procreation and the well being of children cease to be the driving force behind a definition of marriage, all sorts of strange avenues of inquiry open up.
Why should corporations like GE and GM not be allowed to adopt? If any two adults can raise adopted children effectively, who is to say a thousand devoted employees of a financially solvent and long-standing institution could not do a better job? Are polygamy and polyamory now considered valid bases for a family? Why should parents not be allowed to marry their own children? Will a Utah marriage license be considered valid in California anymore? Will California licenses be valid in Utah? Will that effect interstate commerce?
Once the door is opened to redefining marriage, bizarre and uncomfortable questions immediately present themselves. If they seem unrealistic, recall that twenty years ago, "gay marriage" was essentially an invisible non-issue, also considered unrealistic. What other questions will disregarding traditional marriage require us to answer? In any case, we will not have the option of answering them as comfortable hypotheticals. They will be real life scenarios playing out before us with far-reaching social consequences hard on their heels, and adequate answers may elude even the most Solomonic wisdoms.
The tangles formed by shortsighted and selfish decisions (made under the adamant assertion that such things were "no ones else's business") are already ensaring us as a nation. Social ills are devouring our time and resources as we combat the foliage of consequence, when a solution could have been offered at the roots of personal choices.
Elder Oaks explains some statistical data about America: "Most of the children born to unmarried mothers—58 percent—were born to couples who were cohabitating. Whatever we may say about these couples’ forgoing marriage, studies show that their children suffer significant comparative disadvantages. For children, the relative stability of marriage matters.
"We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender. The social science literature is controversial and politically charged on the long-term effect of this on children, principally because, as a New York Times writer observed, 'same-sex marriage is a social experiment, and like most experiments it will take time to understand its consequences'" (Protect the Children, October 2012 General Conference). That we are willing to experiment with our children's well being and development is evidence that selfishness is driving the call for abandoning the old definition of marriage.
The gospel is a message of love and hope, an invitation not just to repent, but to reap the benefits that only come through repentance. I hope that we as a nation will look down the road and consider the consequences our actions may have, rather than limiting the scope of our vision to the ends of our noses, and constantly marching to the drumbeat of "me, me, me."
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Inoculated Against Sin
Abigail Adams once had her children deliberately infected with smallpox. Effluent from pustules was put under their skin to induce the fever. Why? Was she sadistic? A bad parent? Experience had shown that intentionally infecting people with smallpox had the effect of rendering that person immune to the disease forever afterward. Yes, there was a chance that the infection could cause death, but the disease was far less virulent when it entered the body through the blood than the lungs. Abigail took the risk of exposing her children to the disease in order to inoculate them against it.
“And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God” (Moses 5:10). Why did the Lord put the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden? Why was a dangerous serpent allowed to prowl around there? Why is Satan allowed to pester and tempt us? Why are we allowed to follow him if we choose? I wonder if at least part of the reason behind putting us into a world where we will be exposed to sin is to inoculate us against it. We learn from experience to distinguish between bitter and sweet, good and evil, and we learn to despise evil and love good.
When I was in high school, the on-campus police officer came to my health class to talk about illegal drugs. He told us he was going to burn some marijuana so that we would recognize what it smelled like for future reference. Before he ignited it, he said that anyone who preferred not to be exposed could go into the hall and wait until the smoke had cleared. One girl and I were the only two who opted out of the experience. We smiled sheepishly at each other as we stood in the hallway, waiting for the cloud of death to disperse. Many times I have smelled strange odors coming from various houses, and I have wondered what was burning. Should I be worried about coming into a certain neighborhood? Because I chose not to be exposed to a controlled sample of badness, I lack the equipment to detect that particular evil.
One third of the hosts of heaven were so afraid to come to earth that they rebelled against God and lost their first estate, rather than risk coming here. Why were the rest of us courageous enough to risk eternal damnation and be born into a world of sin with no memory of heaven? There must have been some humility in us—being willing to come here and make idiots of ourselves, having all our weaknesses and flaws and true nature exposed before God and anyone else who happened to be watching us through the veil. Speaking of us premortally, John says, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (They ended up on earth, whether they agreed to the plan or not!) “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” (“Devil” means “accuser” or “slanderer,” maybe “gossip.” Judgmentalism, prudery, pointed fingers, backbiting—these are part of Satan’s job description. They are not attributes of sainthood.) “And they overcame him (Satan) by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death” (Rev. 12:9-11).
In short, we were willing to brave the perils of earth life, not because we were confident of our ability to come into this filthy world without getting stained, but because we were confident the Savior could rescue us from sin, clean us up, and bring us back to spiritual life through His atoning sacrifice. The pain and misery attending sin can be washed away, we may be cleansed of our desires for evil, and we are better for having braved the journey.
What about those who are exposed to sin, and seem unable to get enough of it? The appetite for sin can expand despite the pangs of conscience because there is always more sin (“a hair of the dog that bit me,” the alcoholic would say) to mask the pain that comes from sin. True, the candle eventually runs out of wax: “But behold this my joy was vain, for their sorrowing was not unto repentance, because of the goodness of God; but it was rather the sorrowing of the damned, because the Lord would not always suffer them to take happiness in sin” (Morm. 2:13). But many people, like Mormon’s Nephites, manage to die in their sins without getting tired of the bitter aftertaste of sin. What about them?
There is a failsafe built into the plan of salvation. Either we lose our desire for sin because of repentance and the process of rebirth, a change of heart, or we have the tangles brushed harshly out of our hair by the Lord in the next life: “Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink...” (D&C 19:15-18).
Most terrible experiences in life are not as bad as we anticipate them to be. Some people are happier after horrible accidents and disfiguring, incapacitating illness than before. But Jesus is warning us here of something worse than we can imagine. If we do not escape from this life free from the desire for sin, I feel certain that it will be burned out of us in a less agreeable way in the next life. Either way, we will leave with a greatly diminished desire for anything evil. Repentance is far easier than the alternative.
“And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11). No one makes it out of life without breaking the commandments to at least some degree, but I am also certain that some learn to abhor sin through second hand exposure. We need not commit sin to be exposed to it, or to suffer for it. “...your wives and your children...whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate...For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women...I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people...because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands...Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you.” (Jacob 2:7, 28, 31, 35). Jesus experienced the full weight of sin vicariously, never committing a sin.
While nothing I have said should be construed as an invitation to sin, we should not waste time punishing or denigrating ourselves for sinning. Like the loss of the 116 pages by Joseph Smith and Martin Harris, the Lord has made ample provision for this inevitable problem. The Atonement of Christ cushions us against the effects of our sins, and allows us to learn from them instead of being utterly destroyed by them. We can repent because of the Atonement (without it, our repentance would not avail us salvation). In one sense, the Atonement is the tuition paid for our mortal education.
Abigail’s children survived, despite, possibly because of, her choice to expose them to the pox. They are currently no longer in danger. However, the spiritual peril is real for us here in mortality. Unlike the lottery of infectious diseases, our agency plays a major role in our safety. The choice is ultimately ours. Fortunately, we can receive strength to deal with exposure to temptations, as well as forgiveness for failure to live up to the commandments. The same faith in Christ that enabled us to plunge ourselves into this predicament can bear us out of it. Nephi is optimistic: “I have charity for my people, and great faith in Christ that I shall meet many souls spotless at this judgment-seat” (2Ne. 33:7). He has faith in Christ's ability to get us out of this life unscathed.
“And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God” (Moses 5:10). Why did the Lord put the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden? Why was a dangerous serpent allowed to prowl around there? Why is Satan allowed to pester and tempt us? Why are we allowed to follow him if we choose? I wonder if at least part of the reason behind putting us into a world where we will be exposed to sin is to inoculate us against it. We learn from experience to distinguish between bitter and sweet, good and evil, and we learn to despise evil and love good.
When I was in high school, the on-campus police officer came to my health class to talk about illegal drugs. He told us he was going to burn some marijuana so that we would recognize what it smelled like for future reference. Before he ignited it, he said that anyone who preferred not to be exposed could go into the hall and wait until the smoke had cleared. One girl and I were the only two who opted out of the experience. We smiled sheepishly at each other as we stood in the hallway, waiting for the cloud of death to disperse. Many times I have smelled strange odors coming from various houses, and I have wondered what was burning. Should I be worried about coming into a certain neighborhood? Because I chose not to be exposed to a controlled sample of badness, I lack the equipment to detect that particular evil.
One third of the hosts of heaven were so afraid to come to earth that they rebelled against God and lost their first estate, rather than risk coming here. Why were the rest of us courageous enough to risk eternal damnation and be born into a world of sin with no memory of heaven? There must have been some humility in us—being willing to come here and make idiots of ourselves, having all our weaknesses and flaws and true nature exposed before God and anyone else who happened to be watching us through the veil. Speaking of us premortally, John says, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (They ended up on earth, whether they agreed to the plan or not!) “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” (“Devil” means “accuser” or “slanderer,” maybe “gossip.” Judgmentalism, prudery, pointed fingers, backbiting—these are part of Satan’s job description. They are not attributes of sainthood.) “And they overcame him (Satan) by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death” (Rev. 12:9-11).
In short, we were willing to brave the perils of earth life, not because we were confident of our ability to come into this filthy world without getting stained, but because we were confident the Savior could rescue us from sin, clean us up, and bring us back to spiritual life through His atoning sacrifice. The pain and misery attending sin can be washed away, we may be cleansed of our desires for evil, and we are better for having braved the journey.
What about those who are exposed to sin, and seem unable to get enough of it? The appetite for sin can expand despite the pangs of conscience because there is always more sin (“a hair of the dog that bit me,” the alcoholic would say) to mask the pain that comes from sin. True, the candle eventually runs out of wax: “But behold this my joy was vain, for their sorrowing was not unto repentance, because of the goodness of God; but it was rather the sorrowing of the damned, because the Lord would not always suffer them to take happiness in sin” (Morm. 2:13). But many people, like Mormon’s Nephites, manage to die in their sins without getting tired of the bitter aftertaste of sin. What about them?
There is a failsafe built into the plan of salvation. Either we lose our desire for sin because of repentance and the process of rebirth, a change of heart, or we have the tangles brushed harshly out of our hair by the Lord in the next life: “Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink...” (D&C 19:15-18).
Most terrible experiences in life are not as bad as we anticipate them to be. Some people are happier after horrible accidents and disfiguring, incapacitating illness than before. But Jesus is warning us here of something worse than we can imagine. If we do not escape from this life free from the desire for sin, I feel certain that it will be burned out of us in a less agreeable way in the next life. Either way, we will leave with a greatly diminished desire for anything evil. Repentance is far easier than the alternative.
“And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11). No one makes it out of life without breaking the commandments to at least some degree, but I am also certain that some learn to abhor sin through second hand exposure. We need not commit sin to be exposed to it, or to suffer for it. “...your wives and your children...whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate...For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women...I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people...because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands...Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you.” (Jacob 2:7, 28, 31, 35). Jesus experienced the full weight of sin vicariously, never committing a sin.
While nothing I have said should be construed as an invitation to sin, we should not waste time punishing or denigrating ourselves for sinning. Like the loss of the 116 pages by Joseph Smith and Martin Harris, the Lord has made ample provision for this inevitable problem. The Atonement of Christ cushions us against the effects of our sins, and allows us to learn from them instead of being utterly destroyed by them. We can repent because of the Atonement (without it, our repentance would not avail us salvation). In one sense, the Atonement is the tuition paid for our mortal education.
Abigail’s children survived, despite, possibly because of, her choice to expose them to the pox. They are currently no longer in danger. However, the spiritual peril is real for us here in mortality. Unlike the lottery of infectious diseases, our agency plays a major role in our safety. The choice is ultimately ours. Fortunately, we can receive strength to deal with exposure to temptations, as well as forgiveness for failure to live up to the commandments. The same faith in Christ that enabled us to plunge ourselves into this predicament can bear us out of it. Nephi is optimistic: “I have charity for my people, and great faith in Christ that I shall meet many souls spotless at this judgment-seat” (2Ne. 33:7). He has faith in Christ's ability to get us out of this life unscathed.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Be One
The descriptions of the pioneer trek from Nauvoo to the Rocky Mountains have been somewhat vague in my mind until recently. I had always envisioned a kind of rough camping trip taken by thousands, but this barely scratches the surface of the immense ordeal. Fourteen hundred miles of desolate country, want of food and shelter, mosquitoes and larger predators, hostile Indians, and other wagon trains on the trail, each presented their own challenges to the Saints.
That last reference to the other wagon trains came as a surprise to me. The vanguard company led by Brigham encountered Missourians from the very counties the Saints had been driven from. Their common hardships allowed a kind of friendly truce to develop; the Saints repaired the Missourian wagons, while the Missourians bartered food with them in return for the use of their boat, the Revenue Cutter, to ferry supplies across a river. Wilford Woodruff records, "It looked as much of a miracle to me to see our flour and meal bags replenished in the midst of the Black Hills as it did to have the Children of Israel fed with manna in the wilderness..." His next statement is instructive: "But the Lord has truly been with us on this journey. We have had peace and union in our midst..." (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, 17 June 1847, p. 204). Though they offered him food and hospitality, he contrasts the saint's unity with the disunity found among the Missouri travelers: "I found that there was a great difference between these Missouri companies and our own, where there was no thing as cursing, swearing, quarreling, contending with other companies, etc., allowed or practiced" (Ibid., 20 June 1847, p. 210).
"The Mormons were dismayed by the cursing and brawling they could hear in the gentile camps. Brigham Young even made the contrast between the Saints and the Missourians part of the subject of a Sunday discourse. 'They curse and swear, rip and tear, and are trying to swallow up the whole earth,' he said, 'but they do not wish us to have a place on the earth.' He drew a contrast between the Missourians and the Saints, explaining that the most acceptable way to worship God 'is to do each day the very things that will bring the most good to the human family'" (Proctor & Proctor, The Gathering: Mormon Pioneers on the Trail to Zion, p. 137).
"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35). Unity is more than a sign of maturity or goodness in a group; it is evidence that the Lord Himself owns them as His. It might have been on Wilford Woodruff's list of characteristics of the true Church of Christ, derived from the Bible, before he found it. Kindness is not the only characteristic of relationships between true disciples—unity of mind is another.
Jesus was attacked for stating, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). Far from a mystical or unattainable unity, Jesus prays that His disciples may also be one with Him in exactly the same way: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me" (John 17:22-23). This unity was to be presented to the world as a credential that the disciples were actually called of God. Also, it was not to be achieved through the wrangling of a committee voting on policy; it was to be established by divine intervention, "glory." How, exactly, is this achieved?
Strangely, the answer can be found in the Pearl of Great Price, where Joseph Smith received revelation about parts of lost writings of Moses that quote Enoch, who describes the conversion of Adam: "And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever; And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen" (Moses 6:66-68).
This conversion is internal, but its effects are not private. As suggested by the Lord, the symptoms manifest themselves in appearance, attitude, actions, and interactions with others. "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18). That is a tall order to fill—one heart, one mind, one pantry, one checkbook. Have we even gotten as far as a unity of mind? Isaiah 52:8 is quoted at least seven times elsewhere in the standard works, including by the Savior in 3 Nephi: "Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion." The Lord elaborates on this idea in the Doctrine and Covenants: "...all shall know me, who remain, even from the least unto the greatest, and shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, and shall see eye to eye, and shall lift up their voice, and with the voice together sing this new song, saying:
The Lord hath brought again Zion;
The Lord hath redeemed his people, Israel,
According to the election of grace,
Which was brought to pass by the faith
And covenant of their fathers.
The Lord hath redeemed his people;
And Satan is bound and time is no longer.
The Lord hath gathered all things in one.
The Lord hath brought down Zion from above.
The Lord hath brought up Zion from beneath.
The earth hath travailed and brought forth her strength;
And truth is established in her bowels;
And the heavens have smiled upon her;
And she is clothed with the glory of her God;
For he stands in the midst of his people.
Glory, and honor, and power, and might,
Be ascribed to our God; for he is full of mercy,
Justice, grace and truth, and peace,
Forever and ever, Amen." (D&C 84:98).
To sing our firmest beliefs together in agreement and harmony may be the very antithesis of strife and debate.
You may be asking after all this, "What's your point?"
I recently read a blog in which a female member of the Church described a date she went on with a male member of the Church. In the course of their conversation, he said something to the effect of, "Since we are both members of the Church, we can assume we agree on the important, fundamental things." While she said nothing at the time, she vented vitriol online, recoiling at the suggestion, and listed her unorthodox beliefs as proof that his statement about members sharing common beliefs was an unwarranted generalization.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, wherever there is a disagreement among Latter-day Saints, it is safe to assume that the Holy Ghost is absent in at least one of the parties, if not both. The kind of oneness and unity ascribed to the Saints described above is the result of divine intervention, not intellectual exercises or disputations (see 3Ne. 11:28-30). To borrow an analogy from Truman G. Madsen, the Spirit allows ideas to jump in purity from one person to another, the way electricity can arc between two electrodes. "Both are edified and rejoice together" (D&C 50:22). Anything less is not of God.
It is not just reasonable to expect agreement between Latter-day Saints—it is mandatory. Otherwise, we are empty vessels. We have not yet received the Holy Ghost to be spiritually reborn. He is the third party in all relationships between members of the Church.
In popular Latter-day Saint parlance, "Atonement" refers to the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. This is correct, but the sense of the word includes more. This first half of the definition refers to building a bridge; the other half refers to things achieved through them, by crossing that bridge. Our spirits and dead bodies are reunited in the resurrection, made "at one." Disparate Male and Female are united for time and eternity, "at one." Families, scattered across time and space, are reunited in heaven, eternally "at one." Parties rent with disagreement and strife are brought to sweet forgiveness, softness of heart by the Savior, until they become "at one." Justice and mercy are both allowed to function because Jesus Christ acts as a mediator to pay debt; both virtuous principles can therefore operate without contradiction, "at one." Sin that separates us from God is wiped clean, and we can return to His presence to be with Him forever, "at one." This is the fuller sense of the word "Atonement." Suffering, death, and resurrection built the bridge; full atonement happens when we cross that bridge.
No, it is not unreasonable to expect Latter-day Saints to agree on fundamental issues. We can see eye to eye because of the power of the Atonement, and become of one mind. Individuals may have more or less knowledge than each other, but what little we each have in our cups of knowledge should have been poured from the same pitcher—knowledge comes through the Spirit. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26). "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things" (Moroni 10:5).
As a very young child, I remember being in a sacrament meeting when new callings were being announced by the Bishop for a sustaining vote. When he asked if there were any opposed to those callings, I raised my hand. (Fortunately my dissent was ignored by the authorities on the stand.) When my mother asked me why I had voted against sustaining and appointing whoever to whatever calling, my response was as follows: "Because no one ever votes against them." In my childish mind, I had conflated callings via revelation through established channels with the tug-of-war of opinions characterizing politics. It seemed aesthetically pleasing to me to spice the placid tranquility of sacrament meeting with the sport of debate and dissent.
Sustainings are not our chance to put our two cents in. It is our opportunity to support those who have been called "by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority" (A of F 5). It also conforms to the instruction that all callings are to be made public. No one receives position or responsibility in the Church in secret. D&C 26:2: "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen." D&C 28:13: "For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." Notice the unity here presupposes that all parties involved have direct access to revelation. It is not sheepish conformity that breeds this unity; it is "much prayer and faith."
"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not" (Journal of Discourses, 9:150).
I remember after President Hinckley's death, I determined to simply accept President Monson as the new leader of the Church without question. But the prompting came that, no, I should rather get a testimony that he was actually called of God, not simply the default inheritor of the calling due to seniority in the Twelve. (This testimony came as I read his First Presidency Message article in the Ensign printed shortly after President Hinckley's death—President Monson addressed concerns I had mulled over and sweated about, and the Spirit brought quiet assurance and peace about his calling as the new president.)
"A good many people, and those professing Christians, will sneer a good deal at the idea of present revelation. Whoever heard of true religion without communication with God? To me the thing is the most absurd that the human mind could conceive. I do not wonder, when the people generally reject the principle of present revelation, that skepticism and infidelity prevail to such an alarming extent. I do not wonder that so many men treat religion with contempt, and regard it as something not worth the attention of intelligent beings, for without revelation religion is a mockery and a farce" (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 16:371).
The unity I hope for, of seeing "eye to eye" among members of the Church, requires several difficult things. First, it requires minds that are more interested in the truth, however inconvenient to themselves, than in convenience or self-serving ideas. The restored gospel is not a cafeteria or buffet, from which we can choose a few principles and disregard whatever lacks personal appeal. Second, it requires us to have our brains turned on—revelation is dispensed after we have considered and mulled and pondered. Third, it requires Latter-day Saints who are actually saints, sanctified (the words are cognate) by the Spirit. None of these are easy; all require enormous effort. But these are part of the standard implicit in the Savior's command that we be "one."
Elder Holland states: "Since it is clear that there were Christians long before there was a New Testament or even an accumulation of the sayings of Jesus, it cannot therefore be maintained that the Bible is what makes one a Christian. In the words of esteemed New Testament scholar N. T. Wright, 'The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, does not say, "All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write," but [rather] "All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me."' In other words, 'Scripture itself points … away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself.' So the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter-day Saint is the living God. The communication of those gifts comes from God as living, vibrant, divine revelation" ("My Words...Never Cease," April 2008 General Conference).
The Pharisees at the time of Jesus were intimately acquainted with the scriptures, but estranged from God. Being familiar with both is required if we are not to go spiraling off into apostasy or false ideas. We are to treasure up the word of life, and learn to discern the source of revelations we receive. When interpretations of doctrine disagree, we are not to dispute with one another, but it is evidence that one or both parties need to reexamine their beliefs, pray for guidance, and get the real doctrine firmly in their minds and hearts.
That last reference to the other wagon trains came as a surprise to me. The vanguard company led by Brigham encountered Missourians from the very counties the Saints had been driven from. Their common hardships allowed a kind of friendly truce to develop; the Saints repaired the Missourian wagons, while the Missourians bartered food with them in return for the use of their boat, the Revenue Cutter, to ferry supplies across a river. Wilford Woodruff records, "It looked as much of a miracle to me to see our flour and meal bags replenished in the midst of the Black Hills as it did to have the Children of Israel fed with manna in the wilderness..." His next statement is instructive: "But the Lord has truly been with us on this journey. We have had peace and union in our midst..." (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, 17 June 1847, p. 204). Though they offered him food and hospitality, he contrasts the saint's unity with the disunity found among the Missouri travelers: "I found that there was a great difference between these Missouri companies and our own, where there was no thing as cursing, swearing, quarreling, contending with other companies, etc., allowed or practiced" (Ibid., 20 June 1847, p. 210).
"The Mormons were dismayed by the cursing and brawling they could hear in the gentile camps. Brigham Young even made the contrast between the Saints and the Missourians part of the subject of a Sunday discourse. 'They curse and swear, rip and tear, and are trying to swallow up the whole earth,' he said, 'but they do not wish us to have a place on the earth.' He drew a contrast between the Missourians and the Saints, explaining that the most acceptable way to worship God 'is to do each day the very things that will bring the most good to the human family'" (Proctor & Proctor, The Gathering: Mormon Pioneers on the Trail to Zion, p. 137).
"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35). Unity is more than a sign of maturity or goodness in a group; it is evidence that the Lord Himself owns them as His. It might have been on Wilford Woodruff's list of characteristics of the true Church of Christ, derived from the Bible, before he found it. Kindness is not the only characteristic of relationships between true disciples—unity of mind is another.
Jesus was attacked for stating, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). Far from a mystical or unattainable unity, Jesus prays that His disciples may also be one with Him in exactly the same way: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me" (John 17:22-23). This unity was to be presented to the world as a credential that the disciples were actually called of God. Also, it was not to be achieved through the wrangling of a committee voting on policy; it was to be established by divine intervention, "glory." How, exactly, is this achieved?
Strangely, the answer can be found in the Pearl of Great Price, where Joseph Smith received revelation about parts of lost writings of Moses that quote Enoch, who describes the conversion of Adam: "And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever; And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen" (Moses 6:66-68).
This conversion is internal, but its effects are not private. As suggested by the Lord, the symptoms manifest themselves in appearance, attitude, actions, and interactions with others. "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18). That is a tall order to fill—one heart, one mind, one pantry, one checkbook. Have we even gotten as far as a unity of mind? Isaiah 52:8 is quoted at least seven times elsewhere in the standard works, including by the Savior in 3 Nephi: "Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion." The Lord elaborates on this idea in the Doctrine and Covenants: "...all shall know me, who remain, even from the least unto the greatest, and shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, and shall see eye to eye, and shall lift up their voice, and with the voice together sing this new song, saying:
The Lord hath brought again Zion;
The Lord hath redeemed his people, Israel,
According to the election of grace,
Which was brought to pass by the faith
And covenant of their fathers.
The Lord hath redeemed his people;
And Satan is bound and time is no longer.
The Lord hath gathered all things in one.
The Lord hath brought down Zion from above.
The Lord hath brought up Zion from beneath.
The earth hath travailed and brought forth her strength;
And truth is established in her bowels;
And the heavens have smiled upon her;
And she is clothed with the glory of her God;
For he stands in the midst of his people.
Glory, and honor, and power, and might,
Be ascribed to our God; for he is full of mercy,
Justice, grace and truth, and peace,
Forever and ever, Amen." (D&C 84:98).
To sing our firmest beliefs together in agreement and harmony may be the very antithesis of strife and debate.
You may be asking after all this, "What's your point?"
I recently read a blog in which a female member of the Church described a date she went on with a male member of the Church. In the course of their conversation, he said something to the effect of, "Since we are both members of the Church, we can assume we agree on the important, fundamental things." While she said nothing at the time, she vented vitriol online, recoiling at the suggestion, and listed her unorthodox beliefs as proof that his statement about members sharing common beliefs was an unwarranted generalization.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, wherever there is a disagreement among Latter-day Saints, it is safe to assume that the Holy Ghost is absent in at least one of the parties, if not both. The kind of oneness and unity ascribed to the Saints described above is the result of divine intervention, not intellectual exercises or disputations (see 3Ne. 11:28-30). To borrow an analogy from Truman G. Madsen, the Spirit allows ideas to jump in purity from one person to another, the way electricity can arc between two electrodes. "Both are edified and rejoice together" (D&C 50:22). Anything less is not of God.
It is not just reasonable to expect agreement between Latter-day Saints—it is mandatory. Otherwise, we are empty vessels. We have not yet received the Holy Ghost to be spiritually reborn. He is the third party in all relationships between members of the Church.
In popular Latter-day Saint parlance, "Atonement" refers to the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. This is correct, but the sense of the word includes more. This first half of the definition refers to building a bridge; the other half refers to things achieved through them, by crossing that bridge. Our spirits and dead bodies are reunited in the resurrection, made "at one." Disparate Male and Female are united for time and eternity, "at one." Families, scattered across time and space, are reunited in heaven, eternally "at one." Parties rent with disagreement and strife are brought to sweet forgiveness, softness of heart by the Savior, until they become "at one." Justice and mercy are both allowed to function because Jesus Christ acts as a mediator to pay debt; both virtuous principles can therefore operate without contradiction, "at one." Sin that separates us from God is wiped clean, and we can return to His presence to be with Him forever, "at one." This is the fuller sense of the word "Atonement." Suffering, death, and resurrection built the bridge; full atonement happens when we cross that bridge.
No, it is not unreasonable to expect Latter-day Saints to agree on fundamental issues. We can see eye to eye because of the power of the Atonement, and become of one mind. Individuals may have more or less knowledge than each other, but what little we each have in our cups of knowledge should have been poured from the same pitcher—knowledge comes through the Spirit. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26). "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things" (Moroni 10:5).
As a very young child, I remember being in a sacrament meeting when new callings were being announced by the Bishop for a sustaining vote. When he asked if there were any opposed to those callings, I raised my hand. (Fortunately my dissent was ignored by the authorities on the stand.) When my mother asked me why I had voted against sustaining and appointing whoever to whatever calling, my response was as follows: "Because no one ever votes against them." In my childish mind, I had conflated callings via revelation through established channels with the tug-of-war of opinions characterizing politics. It seemed aesthetically pleasing to me to spice the placid tranquility of sacrament meeting with the sport of debate and dissent.
Sustainings are not our chance to put our two cents in. It is our opportunity to support those who have been called "by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority" (A of F 5). It also conforms to the instruction that all callings are to be made public. No one receives position or responsibility in the Church in secret. D&C 26:2: "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen." D&C 28:13: "For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." Notice the unity here presupposes that all parties involved have direct access to revelation. It is not sheepish conformity that breeds this unity; it is "much prayer and faith."
"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not" (Journal of Discourses, 9:150).
I remember after President Hinckley's death, I determined to simply accept President Monson as the new leader of the Church without question. But the prompting came that, no, I should rather get a testimony that he was actually called of God, not simply the default inheritor of the calling due to seniority in the Twelve. (This testimony came as I read his First Presidency Message article in the Ensign printed shortly after President Hinckley's death—President Monson addressed concerns I had mulled over and sweated about, and the Spirit brought quiet assurance and peace about his calling as the new president.)
"A good many people, and those professing Christians, will sneer a good deal at the idea of present revelation. Whoever heard of true religion without communication with God? To me the thing is the most absurd that the human mind could conceive. I do not wonder, when the people generally reject the principle of present revelation, that skepticism and infidelity prevail to such an alarming extent. I do not wonder that so many men treat religion with contempt, and regard it as something not worth the attention of intelligent beings, for without revelation religion is a mockery and a farce" (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 16:371).
The unity I hope for, of seeing "eye to eye" among members of the Church, requires several difficult things. First, it requires minds that are more interested in the truth, however inconvenient to themselves, than in convenience or self-serving ideas. The restored gospel is not a cafeteria or buffet, from which we can choose a few principles and disregard whatever lacks personal appeal. Second, it requires us to have our brains turned on—revelation is dispensed after we have considered and mulled and pondered. Third, it requires Latter-day Saints who are actually saints, sanctified (the words are cognate) by the Spirit. None of these are easy; all require enormous effort. But these are part of the standard implicit in the Savior's command that we be "one."
Elder Holland states: "Since it is clear that there were Christians long before there was a New Testament or even an accumulation of the sayings of Jesus, it cannot therefore be maintained that the Bible is what makes one a Christian. In the words of esteemed New Testament scholar N. T. Wright, 'The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, does not say, "All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write," but [rather] "All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me."' In other words, 'Scripture itself points … away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself.' So the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter-day Saint is the living God. The communication of those gifts comes from God as living, vibrant, divine revelation" ("My Words...Never Cease," April 2008 General Conference).
The Pharisees at the time of Jesus were intimately acquainted with the scriptures, but estranged from God. Being familiar with both is required if we are not to go spiraling off into apostasy or false ideas. We are to treasure up the word of life, and learn to discern the source of revelations we receive. When interpretations of doctrine disagree, we are not to dispute with one another, but it is evidence that one or both parties need to reexamine their beliefs, pray for guidance, and get the real doctrine firmly in their minds and hearts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)