Modesty would be irrelevant if each world had only one inhabitant. The concept of modesty exists because we do not live on our own private planet. Any good definition of modesty must depend on the reality of relationships, the inevitable effect we have on each other.
Latter-day Saints are taught to be modest. Nascent solipsism in modern U.S. culture often influences North American Latter-day Saint thinking and behavior. In the prevailing culture, all questions revolve around the focal point of self—what's in it for me, how will it affect me, my, mine, etc. Hardly any attention is given to possible effects on others. We seem to join Cain in his cynical quip, "Am I my brother's keeper?" I believe such thinking has influenced LDS notions about the principle of modesty. As though we keep commandments only for our own benefit. Nevertheless, being modest benefits us as well as others.
The following definition of modest is from the Dress and Appearance section of the 2011 For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet:
"Do not use a special occasion as an excuse to be immodest. When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval.
"Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance. Young men and young women should be neat and clean and avoid being extreme or inappropriately casual in clothing, hairstyle, and behavior. They should choose appropriately modest apparel when participating in sports. The fashions of the world will change, but the Lord’s standards will not change.
"Show respect for the Lord and yourself by dressing appropriately for Church meetings and activities. This is especially important when attending sacrament services. Young men should dress with dignity when officiating in the ordinance of the sacrament.
"If you are not sure what is appropriate to wear, study the words of the prophets, pray for guidance, and ask your parents or leaders for help. Your dress and appearance now will help you prepare for the time when you will go to the temple to make sacred covenants with God. Ask yourself, 'Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?'"
The precise definition of "modesty" is not so easy to pin down. There is wiggle room for interpretation. If there were numerous exact rules, and modesty police, we would be carrying measuring tapes and yardsticks around with us everywhere like the Pharisees of Jesus' day. We would become the army of "prudes" President Hinckley wanted to avoid creating.
While definitions of immodesty vary from person to person, if we choose to define modesty in terms of "how does this affect me?" without considering "how will this affect others?" we are missing the point of modesty—that we share this world, and do have some responsibility for our effect on other people. Here is my current personal definition of modesty:
To be modest means modifying one's attitude, actions, dress, and language in the attempt to have the best possible effect on the spiritual well being of other people.
"Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God" (Moroni 7:12-13). The ways we talk, act, dress, and our attitudes, do not force anyone to do anything. But they are looming advertisements for others to think, feel, and act. What are we inviting others to do?
My definition of modesty says nothing about skirt length, etc. It presupposes a certain degree of wisdom in us. "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward" (D&C 58:26). When we are obedient, true to the light we possess, we can receive more; we will be blessed "with commandments not a few" (D&C 59:4).
Specific descriptions of how to dress modestly are found only in a publication addressed to the youth. We lack this knowledge until it is taught.
What level of responsibility will we be held to for the thoughts and resulting actions of others we influence here in mortality? It is possible to do everything right and still elicit unintended or undesirable responses from others. (It is also possible to try to pull others in the wrong direction and fail.) Scriptural verbs such as "invite," "entice," and "persuade" all imply agency in one party, and non-compulsory salesmanship in the other. They make it clear that we are to do the best we can to have a positive impact, but that others are ultimately responsible for their thoughts, choices, and acts. If we do our part and are modest, we are absolved of our responsibility.
It is possible to be immodest unwittingly. The Lord surely approaches such things with mercy and compassion and understanding, and so should we. My use of the word "attempt" in my definition was deliberate.
I was told a story about an American dignitary who visited another continent. When standing before an audience, he put his thumbs and forefingers together in circles, raised his arms, and made the "OK" signal to his audience. But it was considered an obscene gesture in that country, and they chased him out of town. I imagine our responsibility in the final judgment with regard to modesty, and our overall effect on others, will deal largely with our intent instead of the reactions we elicited.
While modern prophets have implored the youth to dress and act modestly (sometimes to no avail), direct commands in the scriptures—"thou shalt dress modestly"—are almost nonexistent. Paul expresses a wish that women would dress modestly (1Tim. 2:9). Adam and Eve are given modest clothes to cover themselves. But instead of direct commands and detailed regulations, the scriptures often teach about modesty via sad narrative warnings about the dangers of dressing and acting immodestly.
The story of the daughter of Jared is among these sad tales. She was a prototype of the liberated modern woman—cunning, intelligent, ambitious, ruthless, and physically attractive. Not fettered by the clunky, outdated social codes of the 1950s (the story is over three thousand years old), she devised a plan to restore her dethroned father to power:
"Now the daughter of Jared being exceedingly expert, and seeing the sorrows of her father, thought to devise a plan whereby she could redeem the kingdom unto her father. Now the daughter of Jared was exceedingly fair. And it came to pass that she did talk with her father, and said unto him: Whereby hath my father so much sorrow? Hath he not read the record which our fathers brought across the great deep? Behold, is there not an account concerning them of old, that they by their secret plans did obtain kingdoms and great glory? And now, therefore, let my father send for Akish, the son of Kimnor; and behold, I am fair, and I will dance before him, and I will please him, that he will desire me to wife; wherefore if he shall desire of thee that ye shall give unto him me to wife, then shall ye say: I will give her if ye will bring unto me the head of my father, the king" (Ether 8:8-10).
Seems she was also immodest in speech, a braggart.
Her plan succeeded at first, but then backfired when her husband grew jealous of her father, and had him killed, too. After Akish ascended to the throne, he became afraid that his son would try to dethrone him, and had him killed also. His remaining sons fought a war against him. There is no epilogue for Mrs. Akish, the daughter of King Jared, but I imagine even her callous heart could not help but be wrenched by the sight of her immediate family soaked in each others' blood. Her aspirations went up like a firework, enjoyed one glorious moment, and disappeared with a loud bang in a cloud of smoke.
There are accounts of modesty, too. Contrast the tragic narrative above with the story of Rebekah.
Abraham sends his servant out to look for a wife for Isaac. He causes his servant to swear not to bring an idolatrous Canaanite woman back from his wife-hunting trip. The servant arrives at a city:
"And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water. And he said, O Lord God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water: And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master."
This was no small thing. A herd of camels just finishing a trip would require hundreds of gallons of water. I am told a flight of stairs had to be traversed in order to reach water in this particular well. This would be like asking a stranger today to wash your dirty RV after a long road trip. A woman who performed this task would need athletic ability, as well as altruism and humility. Rebekah would have been a mess of mud after watering those animals.
"And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out...with her pitcher upon her shoulder. And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking. And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels" (Gen. 24:11-20).
While the account says nothing of her clothes during her initial encounter with Abraham's servant, it does say something later on. The servant brings Rebekah home to Isaac, she sees him in the distance, and "therefore she took a veil, and covered herself" (Gen. 24:65). At her home the servant told her of Abraham's wealth, and that Isaac was to inherit it, and puts expensive jewelry on her as tokens thereof. But she was already part of a wealthy household (big enough to corral a caravan of camels and provide food and lodging for the travelers). Far from ambitions of power, wealth, prestige, and ease, her actions identify her as willing to serve others. Can you imagine the shrewd daughter of Jared volunteering to join a bucket brigade and hauling hundreds of gallons of water to slop camels for a complete stranger? Rebekah's external modesty is matched by her internal virtues.
She also manifests great courage and faith. Instead of hand-picking her future husband, she simply believes that the sign given to the servant by God was correct, and agrees to leave her home forever to marry a man she has never even met.
The ripples of her choices and actions are still expanding today. We are living in their wake.
The scriptures abound in stories of modesty and immodesty, and they trace the outcomes of those choices. They teach correct principles, and we are expected to be wise enough to govern ourselves.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Friday, July 19, 2013
Investment and Value
Because we can only be in one place, and think about one thing at a time, our actions and choices show what we care most about. Nephi says, “For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and the soul, other set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words—they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels” (1Ne. 19:7). To dismiss things the Lord values is to dismiss Him as well.
How can the Lord be certain we will value what He gives us? By requiring an investment of us.
An auto mechanic recently explained that people who are poor bring their broken down cars to the shop with great care, and that most repairs are incident to normal wear and tear. They value their cars because they have made tremendous personal investments in them. But young men and women who have expensive cars given to them by wealthy parents often bring them to the shop damaged due to neglect or carelessness. When we get something for free, we tend to treat it with less care than when we pay a price for it.
Deriving revelation from scripture study seems to work on a similar principle. It is possible to read the scriptures from beginning to end without getting inspiration about them. It is the Spirit that teaches us what we need most when studying. The guidance of the Spirit in scripture study makes it relevant to our lives. Why not simply have all the knowledge we need dumped directly into our brains without study? The investment of searching the scriptures shows that we are serious about getting those nuggets of revelation, and ensures that we will not treat them lightly after we receive them.
“And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received...And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written...” (D&C 84:54-57). (It is interesting that one page after delineating the oath and covenant of the priesthood, the Lord again uses the word “covenant,” this time to describe the Book of Mormon itself.) Gifts offered and rejected become millstones around our neck instead of blessings.
It seems that the Lord will give us gifts of knowledge when our degree of regard for them is high enough that we change our behavior according to such knowledge. “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” (Matt. 7:6). Those who cannot yet appreciate the value of the gospel will not benefit from hearing it. In this sense, comfort is the enemy of progress.
“In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but, in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me” (D&C 101:8). When we are in pain, suddenly we pay close attention to what the Lord has to say. No wonder so many people are in so much pain. We are being given weakness that we may be humble, to drive us to the Lord in faith and humility so He can affect the change in us we actually need. We begin to value, and seek, the counsel of the Lord:
“Behold, what shall these my brethren do, for they are despised of all men because of their poverty...for they have cast us out...what shall we do? And now when Alma heard this...he beheld with great joy; for...their afflictions had truly humbled them, and they were in a preparation to hear the word” (Alma 32:5-6). Rock-bottom is a great place to start learning about the gospel.
The Lord is not stingy with His gifts; we are often not ready to receive them yet, “...because [we are] not willing to enjoy that which [we] might have received. For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift” (D&C 88:32-33).
After Jesus healed ten lepers, one returned to thank Him: “And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?” (Luke 17:17). Our gratitude, our whole attitude, is important to the Lord. “And ye cannot bear all things now; nevertheless, be of good cheer, for I will lead you along. The kingdom is yours and the blessings thereof are yours, and the riches of eternity are yours. And he who receiveth all things (trials too) with thankfulness shall be made glorious; and the things of this earth shall be added unto him, even an hundred fold, yea, more” (D&C 78:18-19). A whining child is hard to tolerate, but a child who never complains is an irresistible target for gifts.
How can we value what the Lord values? Values reflect knowledge and beliefs. When our beliefs are educated, correctly informed, our values more nearly align with the Lord’s. This is particularly pertinent to the Temple. As our understanding increases, we value it more. The investment of time increases our concern for what we learn there, too.
We sing “Count Your Many Blessings;” I wonder if we ought to catalogue them, not only to feel good or salve disappointments, but to determine which ones we are not currently using. The Lord has given us so much—patriarchal blessings, prayer, scriptures, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, relationships with others, access to the words of living Apostles and prophets, an array of talents. Are we using these gifts? I have always had a bookshelf next to my bed; how many of those books have merely gathered dust? Neglecting gifts is not far from trampling them.
John 3:16 is dilapidated from over-quoting. Usually I read it with the focus on “what’s in it for me.” But try reading it with an emphasis, not on the eventual reward of paradise, but on the Who, the “giver” of the gift: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “...eternal life...is the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7). Before we can receive the gift of eternal life, we must receive the gift of a Savior who provides a way to repent and be cleansed of sin. Great provision has been made for us. We only need to repent to access it.
God does not ask of us what He is unwilling to do Himself. For every requirement placed upon us, there is some reciprocal action on His part. We are to value Him above all else, and demonstrate this love through our personal sacrifices. We are to make Him our highest priority, and offer the very best we have. In offering His Son, Jesus Christ, He has shown that we are His highest priority by sending us the Best He had, too.
“Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me” (Isa. 49:16). I wonder if this means that in constantly viewing us, the Lord’s unlimited ability to comprehend the vastness of space is being used to examine the tiny boxes (houses) in which we live. We are constantly on His mind; we covenant to “always remember him” as well.
Often the Lord simply gives us things for free, or because we ask. There are other things He could give as easily for free, but that He requires us to sweat and exert for. That which we pay for is less likely to lose its value in our eyes. Insights into the Temple and the scriptures are among those things.
Another thing that increases the value of something is allowing us to own it, to feel we discovered it on our own. Most of the music I learned while taking piano lessons is lost to me, but everything I figured out or pursued on my own for fun is still available. I can plunk out any of those tunes. I learned them because I wanted to, not because I had to. Over-programming scripture study for youth in the Church had a similar effect on me; whatever I was compelled to read became a chore, while the things I discovered in the course of my own exploration became treasures. Agency allows learning to penetrate deeply and sink in; compulsory learning is shed like scales, as though the brain itself refuses to remember anything it was forced to ingest against its will.
When we value something, we tend to invest in it, but the reverse is also true; when we invest in something, we come to value it more.
How can the Lord be certain we will value what He gives us? By requiring an investment of us.
An auto mechanic recently explained that people who are poor bring their broken down cars to the shop with great care, and that most repairs are incident to normal wear and tear. They value their cars because they have made tremendous personal investments in them. But young men and women who have expensive cars given to them by wealthy parents often bring them to the shop damaged due to neglect or carelessness. When we get something for free, we tend to treat it with less care than when we pay a price for it.
Deriving revelation from scripture study seems to work on a similar principle. It is possible to read the scriptures from beginning to end without getting inspiration about them. It is the Spirit that teaches us what we need most when studying. The guidance of the Spirit in scripture study makes it relevant to our lives. Why not simply have all the knowledge we need dumped directly into our brains without study? The investment of searching the scriptures shows that we are serious about getting those nuggets of revelation, and ensures that we will not treat them lightly after we receive them.
“And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received...And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written...” (D&C 84:54-57). (It is interesting that one page after delineating the oath and covenant of the priesthood, the Lord again uses the word “covenant,” this time to describe the Book of Mormon itself.) Gifts offered and rejected become millstones around our neck instead of blessings.
It seems that the Lord will give us gifts of knowledge when our degree of regard for them is high enough that we change our behavior according to such knowledge. “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” (Matt. 7:6). Those who cannot yet appreciate the value of the gospel will not benefit from hearing it. In this sense, comfort is the enemy of progress.
“In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but, in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me” (D&C 101:8). When we are in pain, suddenly we pay close attention to what the Lord has to say. No wonder so many people are in so much pain. We are being given weakness that we may be humble, to drive us to the Lord in faith and humility so He can affect the change in us we actually need. We begin to value, and seek, the counsel of the Lord:
“Behold, what shall these my brethren do, for they are despised of all men because of their poverty...for they have cast us out...what shall we do? And now when Alma heard this...he beheld with great joy; for...their afflictions had truly humbled them, and they were in a preparation to hear the word” (Alma 32:5-6). Rock-bottom is a great place to start learning about the gospel.
The Lord is not stingy with His gifts; we are often not ready to receive them yet, “...because [we are] not willing to enjoy that which [we] might have received. For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift” (D&C 88:32-33).
After Jesus healed ten lepers, one returned to thank Him: “And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?” (Luke 17:17). Our gratitude, our whole attitude, is important to the Lord. “And ye cannot bear all things now; nevertheless, be of good cheer, for I will lead you along. The kingdom is yours and the blessings thereof are yours, and the riches of eternity are yours. And he who receiveth all things (trials too) with thankfulness shall be made glorious; and the things of this earth shall be added unto him, even an hundred fold, yea, more” (D&C 78:18-19). A whining child is hard to tolerate, but a child who never complains is an irresistible target for gifts.
How can we value what the Lord values? Values reflect knowledge and beliefs. When our beliefs are educated, correctly informed, our values more nearly align with the Lord’s. This is particularly pertinent to the Temple. As our understanding increases, we value it more. The investment of time increases our concern for what we learn there, too.
We sing “Count Your Many Blessings;” I wonder if we ought to catalogue them, not only to feel good or salve disappointments, but to determine which ones we are not currently using. The Lord has given us so much—patriarchal blessings, prayer, scriptures, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, relationships with others, access to the words of living Apostles and prophets, an array of talents. Are we using these gifts? I have always had a bookshelf next to my bed; how many of those books have merely gathered dust? Neglecting gifts is not far from trampling them.
John 3:16 is dilapidated from over-quoting. Usually I read it with the focus on “what’s in it for me.” But try reading it with an emphasis, not on the eventual reward of paradise, but on the Who, the “giver” of the gift: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “...eternal life...is the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7). Before we can receive the gift of eternal life, we must receive the gift of a Savior who provides a way to repent and be cleansed of sin. Great provision has been made for us. We only need to repent to access it.
God does not ask of us what He is unwilling to do Himself. For every requirement placed upon us, there is some reciprocal action on His part. We are to value Him above all else, and demonstrate this love through our personal sacrifices. We are to make Him our highest priority, and offer the very best we have. In offering His Son, Jesus Christ, He has shown that we are His highest priority by sending us the Best He had, too.
“Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me” (Isa. 49:16). I wonder if this means that in constantly viewing us, the Lord’s unlimited ability to comprehend the vastness of space is being used to examine the tiny boxes (houses) in which we live. We are constantly on His mind; we covenant to “always remember him” as well.
Often the Lord simply gives us things for free, or because we ask. There are other things He could give as easily for free, but that He requires us to sweat and exert for. That which we pay for is less likely to lose its value in our eyes. Insights into the Temple and the scriptures are among those things.
Another thing that increases the value of something is allowing us to own it, to feel we discovered it on our own. Most of the music I learned while taking piano lessons is lost to me, but everything I figured out or pursued on my own for fun is still available. I can plunk out any of those tunes. I learned them because I wanted to, not because I had to. Over-programming scripture study for youth in the Church had a similar effect on me; whatever I was compelled to read became a chore, while the things I discovered in the course of my own exploration became treasures. Agency allows learning to penetrate deeply and sink in; compulsory learning is shed like scales, as though the brain itself refuses to remember anything it was forced to ingest against its will.
When we value something, we tend to invest in it, but the reverse is also true; when we invest in something, we come to value it more.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Charity Respects Agency
Charity is a gift from God, a special kind of love that He “[bestows] upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ” (Moroni 7:48). It cannot be added to our list of virtues the way we learn to play the piano through constant practice; it is “bestowed.” There are forms of love that are native to the human heart that can be developed through our efforts, but charity originates from above. Likewise, pride, contention, and malice can come from human hearts, but they are intensified and promoted by Satan.
“...he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (3Ne. 11:29).
Nephi laments, “...Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul? Why am I angry because of mine enemy? Awake, my soul...O, my heart...no longer give place for the enemy of my soul. Do not anger again because of mine enemies...” (2Ne. 4:27-29). He is reflecting on his misery, and recognizing where it is coming from.
The Spirit is with us when our desires are righteous, aligned with God’s will. God respects agency greatly, enough to forsake one third of His children in favor of sustaining agency. Adopting Satan's stance on agency (to destroy it) is to lose the Spirit, and hence become bereft of charity. Satan invites all to share His misery, both by wickedness, and through self-righteousness and judgmentalism in viewing others’ wickedness. Accusing others of sin, even truthfully, will invite misery. Satan is “the accuser of our brethren” (Rev. 12:10), and we can expect to feel the way he does when we attempt to take his calling upon ourselves.
D&C 121 contrasts the wrong way to lead with the right way—first it tells us about Satan's plan to thwart others' agency: “...when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God” (vs. 37-38).
If we compel people to do the right thing, the Spirit withdraws. There are no spiritual vacuums; another spirit comes to take its place. Imagine that—going from a self-appointed police officer for God to becoming His active enemy, exactly because you sought to compel His children. When is it ever right to criticize anyone? Section 121 gives us the answer when it explains the right way to lead. Notice the respect for agency under-girding these instructions:
“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost (which is the only time we can criticize others without losing the Spirit); and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.”
It reflects the original Plan of Salvation—agency is held as sacred, inviolate. Notice the connection between respect for agency and charity. One flows into the other:
“Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever” (D&C 121:35-46). Here God is teaching us how He governs—with love. And perfect love, charity, respects agency.
I believe this idea of respect for agency linked to charity explains why politics can be so dark and depressing and rage-inducing (even thinking about it). The paradigm of modern American politics is to solve all our problems by compelling other people to change their behaviors, and seeking to enact policies and laws that will force others to conform to our ideas of right and wrong. Satan could not help but reign triumphant over such a unified assault on agency. Where agency is under attack, it is evil territory. I have often come away from discussions or thoughts about politics feeling horrendous darkness, anger, and depression. Accusing, gossip, and the desire to compel give Satan power over us, over our hearts. And our accusations need not be false to generate such negative feelings. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom.12:19). We can be right while still acting or feeling in the wrong.
I recently lost thirty percent of my income because of federal legislation. This is a reality I live with. But I, like Nephi of old, am determined not to let it “destroy my peace” or “afflict my soul.” I avoid anger, even true accusations against particular politicians, because the companionship of the Spirit is worth more to me than money. What amount of my income legislators and managers slice out of my paycheck is hardly within my control; what I choose to think and feel about it is totally under my control, and I choose to let go and forgive rather than be dragged into Satan's misery.
This principle of respect for agency being a prerequisite to receiving charity from the Lord was highlighted for me recently with the news about the Prop 8 non-ruling. While my grumblings about the actions of politicians were based on truth, I felt unrighteous anger towards them and towards proponents of gay marriage because I overstepped their freedom to choose (only in my mind and heart, but that is all it took). Protecting the interests of unborn children by promoting guardianship of both biological parents is the extent of a good argument against legal status for gay marriage. Stepping beyond that is to invite the wrong spirit.
As we look out over the sea of human wickedness in high places that confronts us, I hope we will not fall into Satan’s trap of rage, tooth-gnashing, hand-wringing, and stomach acid-churning. Wicked people are doing evil things, but The Book of Mormon describes them in its pages and warns against them. Conspiracies, murder, theft, intrigues—it is all there, seemingly ripped from today’s headlines. That our scriptures describe such things should bring us hope, and turn our hearts to God, rather than make us self-righteous and accusatory. Darkness is real; so is mud, and we should not immerse our heads in either.
Rather than fight fire with fire—becoming monsters to exterminate monsters—we ought to fight fire with water. If we will repent, God will soften the hearts of our enemies, give us good leaders, prosper us as a people, and allow us to get out from under current political corruption and vice. We can focus on changing our behavior instead of trying to change others.
It is tempting to reach out and steady the ark, to tamper with others’ agency. But consequences will teach far better than we can with our scolding and self-righteous tongue-clicking. "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do...for truth will cut its own way" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 314). If the Spirit prompts us to be sharp (plain) and tell someone they are out of line, then we may correct them and keep the Spirit. If we show forth afterward an increase of love, it is evidence that the critique originated from the Lord, rather than from ourselves. If we showed love instead of bearing down in harshness, those who hit rock bottom will feel safer turning to us for help.
Peter chopped off the ear of Malchus with a sword to defend the Savior; the Savior healed the servant’s ear. We often do the same thing in a figurative way, chopping with words instead of blades. The Lord is the only one fully qualified to criticize and judge, and He is the most merciful, lenient, forgiving, and indulgent of all. His pardon is dispensed when we merely ask for it. I hope we can discern when to draw the sword (probably rarely, if ever), and when to invite, entice, and persuade. Then we can enjoy the fruits of the Spirit: peace, joy, and love.
“...he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (3Ne. 11:29).
Nephi laments, “...Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul? Why am I angry because of mine enemy? Awake, my soul...O, my heart...no longer give place for the enemy of my soul. Do not anger again because of mine enemies...” (2Ne. 4:27-29). He is reflecting on his misery, and recognizing where it is coming from.
The Spirit is with us when our desires are righteous, aligned with God’s will. God respects agency greatly, enough to forsake one third of His children in favor of sustaining agency. Adopting Satan's stance on agency (to destroy it) is to lose the Spirit, and hence become bereft of charity. Satan invites all to share His misery, both by wickedness, and through self-righteousness and judgmentalism in viewing others’ wickedness. Accusing others of sin, even truthfully, will invite misery. Satan is “the accuser of our brethren” (Rev. 12:10), and we can expect to feel the way he does when we attempt to take his calling upon ourselves.
D&C 121 contrasts the wrong way to lead with the right way—first it tells us about Satan's plan to thwart others' agency: “...when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God” (vs. 37-38).
If we compel people to do the right thing, the Spirit withdraws. There are no spiritual vacuums; another spirit comes to take its place. Imagine that—going from a self-appointed police officer for God to becoming His active enemy, exactly because you sought to compel His children. When is it ever right to criticize anyone? Section 121 gives us the answer when it explains the right way to lead. Notice the respect for agency under-girding these instructions:
“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost (which is the only time we can criticize others without losing the Spirit); and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.”
It reflects the original Plan of Salvation—agency is held as sacred, inviolate. Notice the connection between respect for agency and charity. One flows into the other:
“Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever” (D&C 121:35-46). Here God is teaching us how He governs—with love. And perfect love, charity, respects agency.
I believe this idea of respect for agency linked to charity explains why politics can be so dark and depressing and rage-inducing (even thinking about it). The paradigm of modern American politics is to solve all our problems by compelling other people to change their behaviors, and seeking to enact policies and laws that will force others to conform to our ideas of right and wrong. Satan could not help but reign triumphant over such a unified assault on agency. Where agency is under attack, it is evil territory. I have often come away from discussions or thoughts about politics feeling horrendous darkness, anger, and depression. Accusing, gossip, and the desire to compel give Satan power over us, over our hearts. And our accusations need not be false to generate such negative feelings. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom.12:19). We can be right while still acting or feeling in the wrong.
I recently lost thirty percent of my income because of federal legislation. This is a reality I live with. But I, like Nephi of old, am determined not to let it “destroy my peace” or “afflict my soul.” I avoid anger, even true accusations against particular politicians, because the companionship of the Spirit is worth more to me than money. What amount of my income legislators and managers slice out of my paycheck is hardly within my control; what I choose to think and feel about it is totally under my control, and I choose to let go and forgive rather than be dragged into Satan's misery.
This principle of respect for agency being a prerequisite to receiving charity from the Lord was highlighted for me recently with the news about the Prop 8 non-ruling. While my grumblings about the actions of politicians were based on truth, I felt unrighteous anger towards them and towards proponents of gay marriage because I overstepped their freedom to choose (only in my mind and heart, but that is all it took). Protecting the interests of unborn children by promoting guardianship of both biological parents is the extent of a good argument against legal status for gay marriage. Stepping beyond that is to invite the wrong spirit.
As we look out over the sea of human wickedness in high places that confronts us, I hope we will not fall into Satan’s trap of rage, tooth-gnashing, hand-wringing, and stomach acid-churning. Wicked people are doing evil things, but The Book of Mormon describes them in its pages and warns against them. Conspiracies, murder, theft, intrigues—it is all there, seemingly ripped from today’s headlines. That our scriptures describe such things should bring us hope, and turn our hearts to God, rather than make us self-righteous and accusatory. Darkness is real; so is mud, and we should not immerse our heads in either.
Rather than fight fire with fire—becoming monsters to exterminate monsters—we ought to fight fire with water. If we will repent, God will soften the hearts of our enemies, give us good leaders, prosper us as a people, and allow us to get out from under current political corruption and vice. We can focus on changing our behavior instead of trying to change others.
It is tempting to reach out and steady the ark, to tamper with others’ agency. But consequences will teach far better than we can with our scolding and self-righteous tongue-clicking. "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do...for truth will cut its own way" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 314). If the Spirit prompts us to be sharp (plain) and tell someone they are out of line, then we may correct them and keep the Spirit. If we show forth afterward an increase of love, it is evidence that the critique originated from the Lord, rather than from ourselves. If we showed love instead of bearing down in harshness, those who hit rock bottom will feel safer turning to us for help.
Peter chopped off the ear of Malchus with a sword to defend the Savior; the Savior healed the servant’s ear. We often do the same thing in a figurative way, chopping with words instead of blades. The Lord is the only one fully qualified to criticize and judge, and He is the most merciful, lenient, forgiving, and indulgent of all. His pardon is dispensed when we merely ask for it. I hope we can discern when to draw the sword (probably rarely, if ever), and when to invite, entice, and persuade. Then we can enjoy the fruits of the Spirit: peace, joy, and love.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
The Bar
Jesus Christ is our Savior. That means He does things for us that we cannot do for ourselves.
I spent a lot of time this week chasing hyperactive nieces and a nephew, 5 years or younger, around the house. I did many things for them, including cleaning up their messes, feeding them, and playing with them. Some things they could do for themselves, others not at all, but I could do anything better for them than they could for themselves. I could not help wondering as I looked at these precious little ones, is this how God sees me? Is this how it feels to be like Him?
Jesus Christ is "the light of the world." Not only does His universal influence illuminate conscience; it makes life and conscious existence possible. Lucifer wanted to be the savior instead, and lower the bar for himself by lowering it for us so that there would be no sin for him to suffer for. Instead of chasing us around cleaning up our messes when we sin, and providing succor for our mistakes and weaknesses, Lucifer proposed a plan in which no one could even choose to sin. Instead of lowering the bar for us, Jesus atones for our sins, and makes it possible to be forgiven when we repent. He also staves off justice, clears a space for mortal probation, in which we may repent.
"And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents" (2Ne. 2:21).
From creation to the final judgment at the narrow gate of heaven, Jesus is there with us every step of the way. This is true for all of His Father in Heaven's children. This is an incomprehensibly enormous responsibility. He assumed it all when He said, "Here am I, send me" (Abr. 3:27).
Even with this generous extension of our lives beyond the years of procreation, knowing what the standard is can be daunting. I have looked at high-jump bars and pole vaulting bars set high in the air, and it is intimidating to think of what skill and strength it would take to clear them. The disparity between where we are and where we know we ought be is staggering. How can we look at the bar of righteous behavior so high above our heads, and not become discouraged?
We have a chance to alter our behavior, to improve it. "Perfect" has several meanings in the scriptures. The Greek meaning in Matt. 5:48 ("be ye therefore perfect") implies completion, adulthood, full development. But the word translated as as "perfect" from Greek (teleios) can also mean that we live up to all the commandments we currently have—"keeping the whole law." This simply means our behavior conforms to the rules. A circle may be small or big, but the small one only has to be the right shape to be a perfect circle. We do not need to live up to every law that exists, just every law we have currently been given, to achieve this kind of "perfect." I believe this second kind of perfection is closer to what Moroni meant when he wrote the last few verses in the Book of Mormon:
"Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God." I believe this is an admonition about behavioral perfection rather than ultimate perfection because of the next verse: "And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot" (Moroni 10:32:33).
If we are perfect, as in flawless and fully developed, how can we be improved upon? But Moroni is saying that AFTER we become "perfect in Christ," we can then become sanctified when we do not deny His power. That indicates an improvement; how do you improve on perfection? But if he is speaking about having our behavior perfected, then the verse makes sense. I believe he is saying that first we receive strength beyond our own natural powers, grace, to live the law outwardly. Then, if we do not deny that Jesus was the one who gave us that power, we will be sanctified, or cleansed of evil inwardly. It is possible to be righteous through resisting by will power, but it is better to be righteous because we have lost the ability to be tempted, or the desire to sin at all. One by one, our evil tendencies blink out like stars disappearing before the dawn of a new day, until they are dissipated and obscured and scoured out of us. That is sanctification.
Jesus is our Savior at all stages of this process, whether recognizing pangs of guilt for our sins for the first time, or changing our behavior alone, or being strengthened to change our behavior more, or having unrighteous desires "rooted out of [our] breast" (Alma 22:15). What makes recognition of our nothingness bearable? Our trust and reliance upon the Savior, our hope through His atonement, the knowledge that He fills in the blanks we leave, and makes up the difference. Feeling the Savior's hand in our lives, feeling the sting of guilt prompting us to change and repent, is evidence that there is hope for us. Why would the Spirit prompt us to work harder if it was all meaningless? There must be hope for us, otherwise God would give up and let us go our way. In short, knowing He loves us, and will perfect us, makes weakness bearable.
Rather than lower the bar, or hit us over the head with it, the Savior gives us one boost after another as we learn and grow and reach toward ultimate perfection. He lifts us up to His level. He puts a series of steps between us and the bar, instead of expecting us to clear it in one enormous leap to flawlessness. He asks that we keep trying via the numerous commands to repent. We can wobble at perilous altitudes with confidence because a pair of strong hands waits to catch us when we stumble, as long as we are willing to repent and try again.
I spent a lot of time this week chasing hyperactive nieces and a nephew, 5 years or younger, around the house. I did many things for them, including cleaning up their messes, feeding them, and playing with them. Some things they could do for themselves, others not at all, but I could do anything better for them than they could for themselves. I could not help wondering as I looked at these precious little ones, is this how God sees me? Is this how it feels to be like Him?
Jesus Christ is "the light of the world." Not only does His universal influence illuminate conscience; it makes life and conscious existence possible. Lucifer wanted to be the savior instead, and lower the bar for himself by lowering it for us so that there would be no sin for him to suffer for. Instead of chasing us around cleaning up our messes when we sin, and providing succor for our mistakes and weaknesses, Lucifer proposed a plan in which no one could even choose to sin. Instead of lowering the bar for us, Jesus atones for our sins, and makes it possible to be forgiven when we repent. He also staves off justice, clears a space for mortal probation, in which we may repent.
"And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents" (2Ne. 2:21).
From creation to the final judgment at the narrow gate of heaven, Jesus is there with us every step of the way. This is true for all of His Father in Heaven's children. This is an incomprehensibly enormous responsibility. He assumed it all when He said, "Here am I, send me" (Abr. 3:27).
Even with this generous extension of our lives beyond the years of procreation, knowing what the standard is can be daunting. I have looked at high-jump bars and pole vaulting bars set high in the air, and it is intimidating to think of what skill and strength it would take to clear them. The disparity between where we are and where we know we ought be is staggering. How can we look at the bar of righteous behavior so high above our heads, and not become discouraged?
We have a chance to alter our behavior, to improve it. "Perfect" has several meanings in the scriptures. The Greek meaning in Matt. 5:48 ("be ye therefore perfect") implies completion, adulthood, full development. But the word translated as as "perfect" from Greek (teleios) can also mean that we live up to all the commandments we currently have—"keeping the whole law." This simply means our behavior conforms to the rules. A circle may be small or big, but the small one only has to be the right shape to be a perfect circle. We do not need to live up to every law that exists, just every law we have currently been given, to achieve this kind of "perfect." I believe this second kind of perfection is closer to what Moroni meant when he wrote the last few verses in the Book of Mormon:
"Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God." I believe this is an admonition about behavioral perfection rather than ultimate perfection because of the next verse: "And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot" (Moroni 10:32:33).
If we are perfect, as in flawless and fully developed, how can we be improved upon? But Moroni is saying that AFTER we become "perfect in Christ," we can then become sanctified when we do not deny His power. That indicates an improvement; how do you improve on perfection? But if he is speaking about having our behavior perfected, then the verse makes sense. I believe he is saying that first we receive strength beyond our own natural powers, grace, to live the law outwardly. Then, if we do not deny that Jesus was the one who gave us that power, we will be sanctified, or cleansed of evil inwardly. It is possible to be righteous through resisting by will power, but it is better to be righteous because we have lost the ability to be tempted, or the desire to sin at all. One by one, our evil tendencies blink out like stars disappearing before the dawn of a new day, until they are dissipated and obscured and scoured out of us. That is sanctification.
Jesus is our Savior at all stages of this process, whether recognizing pangs of guilt for our sins for the first time, or changing our behavior alone, or being strengthened to change our behavior more, or having unrighteous desires "rooted out of [our] breast" (Alma 22:15). What makes recognition of our nothingness bearable? Our trust and reliance upon the Savior, our hope through His atonement, the knowledge that He fills in the blanks we leave, and makes up the difference. Feeling the Savior's hand in our lives, feeling the sting of guilt prompting us to change and repent, is evidence that there is hope for us. Why would the Spirit prompt us to work harder if it was all meaningless? There must be hope for us, otherwise God would give up and let us go our way. In short, knowing He loves us, and will perfect us, makes weakness bearable.
Rather than lower the bar, or hit us over the head with it, the Savior gives us one boost after another as we learn and grow and reach toward ultimate perfection. He lifts us up to His level. He puts a series of steps between us and the bar, instead of expecting us to clear it in one enormous leap to flawlessness. He asks that we keep trying via the numerous commands to repent. We can wobble at perilous altitudes with confidence because a pair of strong hands waits to catch us when we stumble, as long as we are willing to repent and try again.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Response to Prop 8 Ruling
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."
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."
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)