The tragic massacre in Connecticut this past week has inflicted horrible pain on the families and friends of those directly involved. It has also produced shock and anger in Americans everywhere else. It is difficult to imagine the feelings that I would have if one of my children were to have become a victim of such a tragedy. Unfortunately it seems that there are a number of people that find ways to react inappropriately with respect to this event. In thinking about this, the purpose of this post is to identify how not to react to tragedy.
One of the first reactions that spread was that gun control laws would have prevented this. Of course, these comments almost always come from those that favored gun control laws before the tragedy occurred. Unfortunately, some people do not see that in expressing their well-meaning desire to prevent gun-related crime, they are being insensitive. When someone experiences pain, the last thing that they want to hear is the equivalent of "I told you so." Gun advocates may mean well when they talk about their desire to restrict access to firearms, but claiming that legal restrictions would have saved the lives of victims is disrespectful.
Of course some people in reading this might be saying "that right-wing nut job ward preacher is probably just worried about his guns." I do not deny that I am a gun owner, and I confess that I find people blaming weapons instead of perpetrators to be incredibly short-sighted. If laws against murder have not protected people from being murdered, then why would laws against weapons protect people against weapons? Also, mass killings did not begin with the invention of gunpowder.
On the other side of the political spectrum, there have been individuals that want to blame video games for shootings. Just as those on the left are quick to find something to blame, so too are those on the right that believe that if only video games had not been invented, perhaps the tragedies that have affected schools and theaters would not have occurred. Such individuals point out how killing can be glorified in these games. Of course, the problem is that murder pre-dates video games, and has been glorified in other forms of media and literature (including the Bible) for longer than English has been a language. Though it is true that violence has been wrongfully glorified in many forms of media, there are many people who enjoy James Bond films or games without feeling the urge to shoot up a school. The motivations and causes behind those that do feel such urges are likely more complex than any one explanation.
Even among the most religious individuals, there exist some who claim that if only people were more accepting of God in society and in our education systems that he would have protected those who became victims. As well-meaning as these individuals may be, and as important as it is for individuals and societies to accept God, this is simply another form of "I told you so." Just as gun control advocates are misguided, so to are religious persons who think that citizens will be guaranteed protection with greater religious piety. Being a devout Christian can never be considered a 'get out of problems free card' or a path to life on easy street. Bad things happen to good people all the time.
How many good deeds do such individuals believe are enough to entitle them to unlimited divine intervention? Religiously speaking, almost no one has lived well enough to actually deserve protection from all harm or misfortune. The one person who did live flawlessly, and could claim that he deserved a life free from harm was the one who suffered more than any one else... That was Jesus Christ, and he in fact suffered because of every one else! There has never been a greater injustice than this, and it is fundamental to Christian faith.
As well as anyone may mean when they express condolences, regret, anger, or ideas for preventing similar tragedies in the future... none of these things can bring back the victims. None of these things have power to restore the lives of children to their grief-stricken parents.
In the end, there is only one power that can bring them back. There is only one power that can put life back into the children that have fallen, and peace in the hearts of those that lost loved ones. The name of that power is Jesus Christ.
When Martha professed to Jesus that if he had been there, her brother Lazarus would not have died, he replied with perhaps the most powerful declaration that has ever been made:
"...I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die..." (John 11:25-26)
Jesus Christ defeated death itself when he was resurrected. He extends his power to every man, woman, and child that has ever lived on the earth. Additionally, his power can bind husbands to their wives and children to their parents such that family relationships do not need to end at death. He literally has power and authority to heal every wound and restore everything that may be lost in any calamity.
Particularly for those of us who are indirectly affected by shootings, our role is not to trumpet "I told you so" or any of its equivalents. Our role is not to find something to blame or come up with a solution to every problem.
It is so much better to exercise faith and offer prayers to the one that already has a solution to every problem, a plan to overcome any difficulty, and the power to restore everything to its proper place. It is our role to help those that have been hurt as best we can until they receive every gift that Jesus Christ has prepared for them.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Why can't God speak for himself?
"For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom..." (D&C 84:36-38)
The quotation above implies a lot of receiving of people that represent God. The Son of God is the one speaking, and he indicates that other servants must be accepted in order to gain entrance to the Kingdom of God. Careful thought might lead a person to wonder why he would do this though.
Why does God insist on speaking by proxy? If God is our Heavenly Father, why would he not speak to his children directly? Why are only some of them considered his "servants" and eligible to hear the word of God from its source? Why use prophets? Why use the Only Begotten Son to speak, if he is capable of speaking himself?
The traditions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all embrace God's practice of speaking through prophets. All three religions accept prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and Moses. The Old Testament contains numerous accounts from even minor prophets that had short messages for their contemporaries from the Most High including Habakkuk, Joel, Zephaniah, and Malachi. In fact, traditions that do not include prophets have much more recent origins.
When protestant movements against the Catholic church began, it became logically necessary for protestants to find a connection to God that did not involve the clergy of the church. From these roots came the philosophy that all people have access to God directly, and no Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Deacon was required to maintain it. Why else would God ask individuals to pray to him if not to establish an individual basis for repentance and revelation?
With the spread of protestant philosophies, many people have concluded that there is really no need for prophets any longer. Some even point to passages in the Bible that seem to indicate as much: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (Matthew 11:13) This passage tends to indicate that the prophets ended with John the Baptist, whose special assignment was to prepare the way for the coming of the Son of God himself. Indeed, after the coming of Christ many things changed. Since it was no longer necessary to perform animal sacrifices, was it not possible that prophets were no longer necessary with the arrival of the Messiah?
Of course, the logic of such thought is not thorough. To the point of the reference in Matthew, the preceding verse adds the context of "until now" to the time frame. Also, if prophecy was no longer vital, then why would Christ have ordained Apostles to be special witnesses? His charge to them at the end of Matthew is as follows:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:19-20)
If the need for messengers to speak for God had ended, Christ would not have returned to his Apostles to give them such an assignment. They were specifically instructed to go throughout the world and represent him in a leadership capacity. The missionary efforts of the early Apostles are documented to some degree in the remainder of the New Testament, and contain their words with the same degree of reverence as the Old Testament did its prophets. The truth is, God's pattern of calling individuals to represent him to the public at large had not ended... in fact, it had expanded to a world-wide effort.
Understanding the purpose for God's extensive use of representation in his dealings with men requires an understanding of the purpose of life. If God's purpose were simply to find out who among humans were good and reward them with eternal life in his presence beyond the pearly gates, then there would be absolutely no reason to use prophets. He could stand on top of a mountain and project his voice for all to hear, proclaiming himself his desire for us to be good.
In fact, since God is omniscient, he does not need to send anyone to earth to live lives where we experience pain, sickness, frailty, cruelty, hunger, thirst, fatigue, and ultimately death. He would already know who will be naughty and nice. Why not make Minority Report real and spare people the pains and difficulties associated with life by implementing a pre-crime policy?
Of course, God's purpose is not just to send good people to heaven and damn the bad people to hell. Entrance to the kingdom of God requires more than avoiding sinful choices. It is meant for people who have become something...
Jesus taught a parable regarding a master that travelled to a far country and bestowed upon his servants varying numbers of talents. (Matthew 25:14-30) To one servant he gave five talents, to another he gave two talents, and to a third he gave one talent. The servants that worked hard to increase what their Lord had given them were rewarded, but the servant who had buried his single talent for fear of losing it was cast out.
The parable gives understanding regarding the purpose of life. God expects us to use what we have been given to become more than we are. There are numerous references in the scriptures to the process of sanctification which include language such as "overcome" (Revelation 3:21), "endure" (2 Nephi 31:20), being "refined", "purged", "purified". (Malachi 3:2-3)
With this understanding, God's apparent absence when it comes to speaking for himself is not because of a lack of concern for mankind. He does not employ servants to declare the word of the Lord because he is too busy, or because he enjoys giving cryptic orders...
He wants us to stay in the scenario where we will best learn. He has created a world with sorrow and pain in the hopes that people will learn to care for one another. He has created a world where injustice and unfairness thrive in the hopes that people will learn to embrace goodness and decry evil. He has created a world where his children have physical bodies that naturally entice people to indulge in lust, envy, wrath, gluttony, pride, sloth, and greed, and he has sent prophets to encourage people to have faith that there is something greater than these instincts.
The use of prophets requires faith not only of those that hear their words, but also the prophets themselves. Consider how worried Moses was that the people would hate him for his slow speech. (Exodus 4:10) Enoch also struggled with feelings of inadequacy. (Moses 6:31) Jonah doubted his mission entirely, fleeing from it. (Jonah 1:3) Many prophets and Apostles have been called to risk their lives to deliver their messages (Daniel 3, Jeremiah 20:2, Acts 20:22-24), and many prophets and Apostles have given their lives rather than rescind their messages. (Mosiah 17, Acts 7)
For those of us that are not called to speak for God to all the world, faith is required to believe in their words. People that have heeded the messages of those called to speak for God have become more humble, more faithful, and ultimately become more eligible to become heirs of the Kingdom of God. There are three basic tasks that all people who believe in God should undertake in light of this:
1. Seek a prophet of God. While it is true that Christ warned against false prophets (Matthew 24:11), God has not abandoned communicating mankind. Those that sought Christ did well in New Testament times to seek the council of his Apostles, just as Kings did well when they sought the word of the Lord from men of God in Old Testament times. Contemporarily, mankind does itself a great disservice if we believe that God no longer employs servants to speak on his behalf. What reasons would God have not to speak to us? Is it because he cannot? Christians believe that God's power has not waned with the passing of time. Is it because he no longer cares for us? Christians accept that God's love and mercy are strong today. Is it because we no longer need him? It can be observed that we need him now more than ever. (See President Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, October 1967, Third Day—Morning Meeting 118)
If Christians conlude that God does speak, then is it not the responsibility of Christians to find a way to hear his words and do his will? Relying solely on the words of ancient prophets was clearly not the right choice in the days of the Apostles, why should Christians be content with the Bible only... particularly when there are such widely varying interpretations and understandings of the same book?
Of course, the problem of discord regarding scriptural interpretation affects the ability to recognize a prophet. How can a person know if they have found a prophet of God?
The most fundamental teachings of Christ stir the feelings of Christians. There is a recognition of truth that all people have to varying degrees when they hear the word of God. "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name..." (John 1:9-12) Using the light of Christ, or our natural ability to recognize general truth, a person can recognize basic truths taught by prophets. Do they encourage faith, repentence, and humility? Do they testify of Christ? Practicing these principles bring us closer to God, and increase the ability of individuals to recognize his will and his words. Ultimately, they help us conclude whether a person is a prophet of God.
2. Sustain the Prophet. In the Old Testament, God chose Moses to be his prophet. It became the responsibility of the people to accept and sustain him as he directed them according to the will of God himself. Typically, this involved simply not rebelling against him, which was too hard for some of the people to do. (Numbers 16) In some cases, sustaining the prophet was more literal than figurative. In fighting against the Amalekites, Moses stood up on a hill while Joshua and the men of Israel fought. He held up his hands and the rod of God, and so long as he held up his hands, the Israelites prevailed. As he grew weary and his hands began to fall, the Amalekites began to prevail. Aaron and Hur, attempting to sustain the prophet, prepared a stone on which they seated him. They sat on either side of him and helped him hold up his hands, keeping him steady until the sun set and Israel had won the victory. (Exodus 17)
Once a person has learned of God that a particular person is a prophet, or is authorized to speak for God, they may find that the prophet will ask them to do or to believe things that may be difficult. Whether it is to give service, to give time, to teach an intimidating group of students, to speak publicly, or to accept a doctrine that may not seem to be in harmony with popular culture, the question of sustaining the prophet is always central to the request.
Ultimately, if a person is speaking for God, those that do not sustain the prophet refuse to support God.
3. Understand when a prophet is not a prophet. For members of the LDS church, there is a clear order in which revelation is given. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles represent the highest authority to speak generally and use every Priesthood Key. These special witnesses of Christ are called to speak for him. The duration of their roles in active church leadership is limited by their mortality, and in some cases, by their dissent. In the years shortly after the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was organized, there were some Apostles who left the church and fought against the prophet Joseph Smith, even though they had received witnesses that he spoke with God himself. Obviously, they forfeited their roles in receiving revelation for church members, just as Judas Iscariot forfeited his role as an Apostle when he betrayed Christ himself.
In addition to General Authorities, who have the ability to speak for God to all people generally, there are Area Authorities, who are called to speak for God in harmony with General Authorities, but on a smaller scope. There are also Authorities that speak for smaller divisions such as Stake Presidents, Bishops, Elders Quorum Presidents, Teachers Quorum Presidents, and Deacons Quorum Presidents. Parents have the divine mandate to teach their children to follow Christ in harmony with all those that speak for God. This is no doubt the reason that God has commanded us to honor our Father and Mother. All individuals fall under the stewardship of some prophets.
If there is any doubt as to whether a prophet or individual is acting as a prophet, examining whether there are conflicts between local and general authorities can help resolve these concerns. If there are no conflicts, it is the responsibility of individuals to sustain them all. If there are conflicts, it is the responsibility of individuals to understand the conflicts by first speaking with their local leaders. Typically, perceived conflicts are only misunderstandings, but if differences cannot be resolved, communiciating with leaders that have larger scopes of authority can help to clarify and correct.
It is important to note that prophets are human beings, and that they have their own set of opinions that may not represent the positions of God. Such views might include political leanings, dietary choices, literature preferences, financial choices, or scientific predictions. For example, finding out and emulating what an Apostle may own in stocks or other investments is not a guarantee of personal money making.
Conversely, when an Apostle speaks in General Conference and asks people to pray, or to increase the time they spend with their family, or to oppose ideas that marginalize the role of marriage, parental responsibility, or family values, these are not just opinions. These directions represent the will of God.
If a person truly believes that a prophet or a church does not adhere to the will of God, they ought to ask themselves if they should continue participating in that church or with that prophet, however, it is important to use caution. Remember the parable of the sower. (Matthew 13) The cares of the world or insufficient investment are not just causes to forsake the Kingdom of God. (Matthew 13:18-22)
Jesus taught "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." (Matthew 7:7-8)
Perhaps the most time-honored method for seeking God outside of prayer and scripture study is to seek out his prophets and Apostles. The last words of Christ's parable of the rich man and Lazarus speak literal truths regarding the importance of prophets in Christianity:
"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:27-31)
Ultimately, when he returns, he will hold individuals accountable for their effort or lack of effort in finding, sustaining, and understanding his chosen prophets and Apostles. "Why didn't you tell me yourself?" will not be a valid excuse, and will likely be answered with "why didn't you believe my servants that I sent?" The importance and benefits of finding all possible connections to one who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent should be obvious. In the end, God will speak for himself to everyone, but it will be far better for those who have recognized and heeded those he has sent to declare his word.
The quotation above implies a lot of receiving of people that represent God. The Son of God is the one speaking, and he indicates that other servants must be accepted in order to gain entrance to the Kingdom of God. Careful thought might lead a person to wonder why he would do this though.
Why does God insist on speaking by proxy? If God is our Heavenly Father, why would he not speak to his children directly? Why are only some of them considered his "servants" and eligible to hear the word of God from its source? Why use prophets? Why use the Only Begotten Son to speak, if he is capable of speaking himself?
The traditions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all embrace God's practice of speaking through prophets. All three religions accept prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and Moses. The Old Testament contains numerous accounts from even minor prophets that had short messages for their contemporaries from the Most High including Habakkuk, Joel, Zephaniah, and Malachi. In fact, traditions that do not include prophets have much more recent origins.
When protestant movements against the Catholic church began, it became logically necessary for protestants to find a connection to God that did not involve the clergy of the church. From these roots came the philosophy that all people have access to God directly, and no Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Deacon was required to maintain it. Why else would God ask individuals to pray to him if not to establish an individual basis for repentance and revelation?
With the spread of protestant philosophies, many people have concluded that there is really no need for prophets any longer. Some even point to passages in the Bible that seem to indicate as much: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (Matthew 11:13) This passage tends to indicate that the prophets ended with John the Baptist, whose special assignment was to prepare the way for the coming of the Son of God himself. Indeed, after the coming of Christ many things changed. Since it was no longer necessary to perform animal sacrifices, was it not possible that prophets were no longer necessary with the arrival of the Messiah?
Of course, the logic of such thought is not thorough. To the point of the reference in Matthew, the preceding verse adds the context of "until now" to the time frame. Also, if prophecy was no longer vital, then why would Christ have ordained Apostles to be special witnesses? His charge to them at the end of Matthew is as follows:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:19-20)
If the need for messengers to speak for God had ended, Christ would not have returned to his Apostles to give them such an assignment. They were specifically instructed to go throughout the world and represent him in a leadership capacity. The missionary efforts of the early Apostles are documented to some degree in the remainder of the New Testament, and contain their words with the same degree of reverence as the Old Testament did its prophets. The truth is, God's pattern of calling individuals to represent him to the public at large had not ended... in fact, it had expanded to a world-wide effort.
Understanding the purpose for God's extensive use of representation in his dealings with men requires an understanding of the purpose of life. If God's purpose were simply to find out who among humans were good and reward them with eternal life in his presence beyond the pearly gates, then there would be absolutely no reason to use prophets. He could stand on top of a mountain and project his voice for all to hear, proclaiming himself his desire for us to be good.
In fact, since God is omniscient, he does not need to send anyone to earth to live lives where we experience pain, sickness, frailty, cruelty, hunger, thirst, fatigue, and ultimately death. He would already know who will be naughty and nice. Why not make Minority Report real and spare people the pains and difficulties associated with life by implementing a pre-crime policy?
Of course, God's purpose is not just to send good people to heaven and damn the bad people to hell. Entrance to the kingdom of God requires more than avoiding sinful choices. It is meant for people who have become something...
Jesus taught a parable regarding a master that travelled to a far country and bestowed upon his servants varying numbers of talents. (Matthew 25:14-30) To one servant he gave five talents, to another he gave two talents, and to a third he gave one talent. The servants that worked hard to increase what their Lord had given them were rewarded, but the servant who had buried his single talent for fear of losing it was cast out.
The parable gives understanding regarding the purpose of life. God expects us to use what we have been given to become more than we are. There are numerous references in the scriptures to the process of sanctification which include language such as "overcome" (Revelation 3:21), "endure" (2 Nephi 31:20), being "refined", "purged", "purified". (Malachi 3:2-3)
With this understanding, God's apparent absence when it comes to speaking for himself is not because of a lack of concern for mankind. He does not employ servants to declare the word of the Lord because he is too busy, or because he enjoys giving cryptic orders...
He wants us to stay in the scenario where we will best learn. He has created a world with sorrow and pain in the hopes that people will learn to care for one another. He has created a world where injustice and unfairness thrive in the hopes that people will learn to embrace goodness and decry evil. He has created a world where his children have physical bodies that naturally entice people to indulge in lust, envy, wrath, gluttony, pride, sloth, and greed, and he has sent prophets to encourage people to have faith that there is something greater than these instincts.
The use of prophets requires faith not only of those that hear their words, but also the prophets themselves. Consider how worried Moses was that the people would hate him for his slow speech. (Exodus 4:10) Enoch also struggled with feelings of inadequacy. (Moses 6:31) Jonah doubted his mission entirely, fleeing from it. (Jonah 1:3) Many prophets and Apostles have been called to risk their lives to deliver their messages (Daniel 3, Jeremiah 20:2, Acts 20:22-24), and many prophets and Apostles have given their lives rather than rescind their messages. (Mosiah 17, Acts 7)
For those of us that are not called to speak for God to all the world, faith is required to believe in their words. People that have heeded the messages of those called to speak for God have become more humble, more faithful, and ultimately become more eligible to become heirs of the Kingdom of God. There are three basic tasks that all people who believe in God should undertake in light of this:
1. Seek a prophet of God. While it is true that Christ warned against false prophets (Matthew 24:11), God has not abandoned communicating mankind. Those that sought Christ did well in New Testament times to seek the council of his Apostles, just as Kings did well when they sought the word of the Lord from men of God in Old Testament times. Contemporarily, mankind does itself a great disservice if we believe that God no longer employs servants to speak on his behalf. What reasons would God have not to speak to us? Is it because he cannot? Christians believe that God's power has not waned with the passing of time. Is it because he no longer cares for us? Christians accept that God's love and mercy are strong today. Is it because we no longer need him? It can be observed that we need him now more than ever. (See President Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, October 1967, Third Day—Morning Meeting 118)
If Christians conlude that God does speak, then is it not the responsibility of Christians to find a way to hear his words and do his will? Relying solely on the words of ancient prophets was clearly not the right choice in the days of the Apostles, why should Christians be content with the Bible only... particularly when there are such widely varying interpretations and understandings of the same book?
Of course, the problem of discord regarding scriptural interpretation affects the ability to recognize a prophet. How can a person know if they have found a prophet of God?
The most fundamental teachings of Christ stir the feelings of Christians. There is a recognition of truth that all people have to varying degrees when they hear the word of God. "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name..." (John 1:9-12) Using the light of Christ, or our natural ability to recognize general truth, a person can recognize basic truths taught by prophets. Do they encourage faith, repentence, and humility? Do they testify of Christ? Practicing these principles bring us closer to God, and increase the ability of individuals to recognize his will and his words. Ultimately, they help us conclude whether a person is a prophet of God.
2. Sustain the Prophet. In the Old Testament, God chose Moses to be his prophet. It became the responsibility of the people to accept and sustain him as he directed them according to the will of God himself. Typically, this involved simply not rebelling against him, which was too hard for some of the people to do. (Numbers 16) In some cases, sustaining the prophet was more literal than figurative. In fighting against the Amalekites, Moses stood up on a hill while Joshua and the men of Israel fought. He held up his hands and the rod of God, and so long as he held up his hands, the Israelites prevailed. As he grew weary and his hands began to fall, the Amalekites began to prevail. Aaron and Hur, attempting to sustain the prophet, prepared a stone on which they seated him. They sat on either side of him and helped him hold up his hands, keeping him steady until the sun set and Israel had won the victory. (Exodus 17)
Once a person has learned of God that a particular person is a prophet, or is authorized to speak for God, they may find that the prophet will ask them to do or to believe things that may be difficult. Whether it is to give service, to give time, to teach an intimidating group of students, to speak publicly, or to accept a doctrine that may not seem to be in harmony with popular culture, the question of sustaining the prophet is always central to the request.
Ultimately, if a person is speaking for God, those that do not sustain the prophet refuse to support God.
3. Understand when a prophet is not a prophet. For members of the LDS church, there is a clear order in which revelation is given. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles represent the highest authority to speak generally and use every Priesthood Key. These special witnesses of Christ are called to speak for him. The duration of their roles in active church leadership is limited by their mortality, and in some cases, by their dissent. In the years shortly after the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was organized, there were some Apostles who left the church and fought against the prophet Joseph Smith, even though they had received witnesses that he spoke with God himself. Obviously, they forfeited their roles in receiving revelation for church members, just as Judas Iscariot forfeited his role as an Apostle when he betrayed Christ himself.
In addition to General Authorities, who have the ability to speak for God to all people generally, there are Area Authorities, who are called to speak for God in harmony with General Authorities, but on a smaller scope. There are also Authorities that speak for smaller divisions such as Stake Presidents, Bishops, Elders Quorum Presidents, Teachers Quorum Presidents, and Deacons Quorum Presidents. Parents have the divine mandate to teach their children to follow Christ in harmony with all those that speak for God. This is no doubt the reason that God has commanded us to honor our Father and Mother. All individuals fall under the stewardship of some prophets.
If there is any doubt as to whether a prophet or individual is acting as a prophet, examining whether there are conflicts between local and general authorities can help resolve these concerns. If there are no conflicts, it is the responsibility of individuals to sustain them all. If there are conflicts, it is the responsibility of individuals to understand the conflicts by first speaking with their local leaders. Typically, perceived conflicts are only misunderstandings, but if differences cannot be resolved, communiciating with leaders that have larger scopes of authority can help to clarify and correct.
It is important to note that prophets are human beings, and that they have their own set of opinions that may not represent the positions of God. Such views might include political leanings, dietary choices, literature preferences, financial choices, or scientific predictions. For example, finding out and emulating what an Apostle may own in stocks or other investments is not a guarantee of personal money making.
Conversely, when an Apostle speaks in General Conference and asks people to pray, or to increase the time they spend with their family, or to oppose ideas that marginalize the role of marriage, parental responsibility, or family values, these are not just opinions. These directions represent the will of God.
If a person truly believes that a prophet or a church does not adhere to the will of God, they ought to ask themselves if they should continue participating in that church or with that prophet, however, it is important to use caution. Remember the parable of the sower. (Matthew 13) The cares of the world or insufficient investment are not just causes to forsake the Kingdom of God. (Matthew 13:18-22)
Jesus taught "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." (Matthew 7:7-8)
Perhaps the most time-honored method for seeking God outside of prayer and scripture study is to seek out his prophets and Apostles. The last words of Christ's parable of the rich man and Lazarus speak literal truths regarding the importance of prophets in Christianity:
"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:27-31)
Ultimately, when he returns, he will hold individuals accountable for their effort or lack of effort in finding, sustaining, and understanding his chosen prophets and Apostles. "Why didn't you tell me yourself?" will not be a valid excuse, and will likely be answered with "why didn't you believe my servants that I sent?" The importance and benefits of finding all possible connections to one who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent should be obvious. In the end, God will speak for himself to everyone, but it will be far better for those who have recognized and heeded those he has sent to declare his word.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Should I freak out about the election?
Attention liberals: this post is not intended for you. This post is intended for conservatives that are upset about politics in the United States. This post may cause you to feel angry, and perhaps develop a desire to argue with me. I do not want to argue with you, so please feel free to read my other posts, or peruse the internet for pictures of cats, or robots, or robot cats. By continuing to read this post, you agree that you are conservative... not liberal, not moderate, not "fiscally" conservative, but conservative.
Ok, so for anyone who was unable to discern previously, I consider myself very conservative on the political spectrum. There are a large number of members of the Mormon church who believe as I do, although the church is politically neutral and there are many good members of the church that lean far to the left. Since liberals are not reading this post any longer, I have no qualms in declaring that they might be well-meaning, but are completely wrong.
The past few weeks have been filled with disappointment for conservatives. There are many of us who believe that President Obama is taking the country in a direction that will weaken the United States defensively and economically. I watched the internet and television on election night and felt my heart sink when states began turning blue. I asked myself what was wrong with Americans, and could not help but feel a special disappointment with the state of Ohio. I had, probably against my better judgment, been following several political conservatives in the media, and told myself that the death threats, slurs, and vile hatred being spewed out against them personally and those that believed in conservatism would be worth it because we would at least be able to put the proverbial brakes on the out-of-control big government mentality that had prevailed during the Obama administration.
Of course, people that were brave enough to declare themselves conservative were lambasted with additional profane and vulgar language after the election in the lowest form of gloating. (for example: http://twitchy.com/2012/11/07/obama-supporters-serve-up-venomous-revenge-to-actress-stacey-dash-die-come-off-porch-house-slave/ warning: language)
Writing a few posts on a blog has obviously not made me a target of the crazed haters that occupy the fringes of the left, but the feeling of being gloated over is seen in numerous passive aggressive statements from even well-meaning leftists. A link that I have seen posted several times is one in which the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints congratulates President Obama on his re-election. (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-on-election-result) As a member of the church, this does not surprise me. The church is politically neutral, and particularly where the opposing candidate was a member, it is appropriate to show that they are not unhappy with the result, and that Romney's candidacy was not (as some may have believed) an attempt to gain political power for the church. It is positive, concise, and clear.
The issue appears when liberals use this and other messages to congratulate the President on his re-election. They are frequently accompanied with statements exhorting conservatives not to "freak out" or expressing a desire to "work together" and "move forward."
Statements such as these come off to conservatives like this:
You should be happy about the results of the election because I am happy about them.
Or
You shouldn't freak out about the election, because my candidate won.
Of course, as a conservative, I believe that leftists would post far fewer of these "work together" and "don't freak out" nuggets of advice had Romney won the election.
In truth, conservatives such as us do have a few reasons to freak out... and no gloating liberal or progressive wearing moderate clothing is going to convince us otherwise. Below are legitimate reasons to feel discouraged:
1. Obama's statement about "flexibility" after the election - (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326) - The idea that Obama was moving to the center only temporarily in order to win votes is not baseless. There were a number of promises that Obama made before his first term that he did not keep. Now that there is no re-election about which to worry, how far left can he go?
2. The Supreme Court - Should there be any retirements or vacancies in the Supreme Court, Obama will appoint another subscriber to the "living" constitutional theory that believes pushing progressive theories is the unwritten goal of our highest law.
3. Socialist policies - Any one who talks about "fair share" without insisting on a flat rate for all social classes is by definition discriminating against certain social classes. That is by definition socialist. Obama has not even made a secret of his plan to make the wealthiest individuals (who are in the best position to hire others or to purchase the most goods and services from those that do) the target of his tax policies.
4. Lack of Defense - The Benghazi incident is consistently dodged by the Obama administration as "being investigated." Part of the problem though is how a consulate in a notoriously dangerous nation was not watched more carefully and defended more thoroughly. To the observer, Obama has placed a higher priority on his golfing than the defense of the country, hoping that his friendly demeanor will decrease the hatred of America by our enemies.
5. The Republican Party re-evaluating social conservatism - The party that gave us moderate John McCain in 2008 and moderate Mitt Romney in 2012 has started to wonder if they are too conservative. The party's defense of traditional marriage and stance for the sanctity of the life of the unborn have spawned leftist campaigns encouraging women to "vote with [their] lady parts." (http://twitchy.com/2012/10/02/for-shame-women-obama-literally-reduced-you-to-sum-of-your-ladyparts-vote-like-lady-parts-depend-on-it/) For some reason, the GOP thinks if we switch to a libertarian philosophy of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism that we will win, in spite of the fact that moderates have done poorly. I find this point to be more discouraging than many of the difficulties that are coming or may potentially come out of the Obama administration. Defending marriage is a noble cause... and so is trying to prevent the exploitation of the unborn. Forfeiting principles in favor of popularity is the wrong move. I believe the GOP should return to its conservative base and hold fast to correct principles regardless of whether they are popular or politically correct.
6. The Media - It is absolutely infuriating to see the lack of coverage. Reporters have, for the most part, bought the "we're investigating it" line from Benghazi without asking for details of the investigation. When interviewing conservatives, the mainstream media possesses a talent for finding those that are least able to articulate their views, or those from the fringe that could easily be portrayed as racists or undesirable. Although there are a multitude of liberals that could just as easily make the left look foolish, they are always overlooked by the mainstream media. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-supporters-celebrate-election-victory-no-more-israel-fk-that-sht-kill-those-mother-fkers/ warning: language)
7. Pot and Gay Marriage as ballot measures - Several states including Colorado had measures regarding gay marriage and the legalization of pot. The populations of these states apparently felt the small percentage of the population that actually use pot or are gay were among the most important issues. Is changing the law for these items really that helpful for any state? Certainly I am among conservatives that feel that the fact these things are even considered debatable issues is a sign indicating the moral decay of society at large.
Of course the complete list of points is actually much longer, and any of these points could be supplemented with additional details and sources confirming how conservatives actually do have lots of reasons to freak out.
Ultimately though, in spite of the reasons for freaking out, even obnoxious gloating liberals can be right when they advise conservatives to stay calm. Of course, for different reasons than they think.
Consider how many people freak out because they think that the world will end soon. There is a wide sense across several religions that seem to perceive that we are living in the latter days, or the end times. Though many religions have a similar perception, Christianity emphasizes the importance of the latter days through prophets and scriptures. Christianity also emphasizes the terrible tribulation that accompanies the approach of Christ's second coming.
Below is a list of reasons that people could use to freak out that the world is ending:
1. Wars and rumors of war - Matthew 24:6
2. Earthquakes in diverse places - Matthew 24:7
3. Famine and pestilence - Matthew 24:7
4. False prophets - Matthew 24:11
5. Apathy and hatred - Matthew 24:10,12
6. Widespread pride and selfishness - 2 Timothy 3:2
7. Those that do good are despised - 2 Timothy 3:3
Essentially, all of these perils are being seen presently. The calamities that prophets both ancient and modern have foretold are unfolding before our eyes. Certainly this list is not comprehensive either, and details and sources could supplement any of these points.
Fortunately, I am not aware of any gloating liberals telling people not to freak out over these things; in fact, leftists are notorious for freaking out over wars, famines, earthquakes, and apathy (though typically only apathy toward spotted owls or 'climate change').
In the case of the signs of our times, it is Jesus Christ himself that tells us not to be troubled:
"...see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass..." (Matthew 24:6)
Jesus Christ is the master of not freaking out. Even before he was brutally tortured and killed, he gave comfort to his apostles:
"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27, emphasis added)
While the gloating leftist stirs hearts to anger, the conservative that remembers Christ can have comfort in calamity. In fact, the essence of conservatism should exude confidence.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that injustice exists; we can have confidence that if we work hard, a source higher than the government will ensure that malevolence is punished and benevolence is rewarded.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that some people have more money than others; we can work hard to improve our own circumstances, and give Christian charity to those in need around us.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that a few SUVs on the road will end the world; we can have confidence that Jesus Christ will restore the earth to a paradisiacal glory that has not been known since the days of Eden.
- A conservative does not need to freak out over the election of a President of the United States; as much as we love our country and want it to succeed, ultimately, as conservatives, we are also citizens of a great kingdom with an immortal and omnipotent King that is not subject to elections or the vices inherently present in political office...
So fellow conservatives, don't freak out. Think of the reasons we have to be confident. Ultimately, remember that in the United States of America, we have no man for whom we shout 'God save the King' because the ideal for conservatives, and for all Americans is that God is the King.
Ok, so for anyone who was unable to discern previously, I consider myself very conservative on the political spectrum. There are a large number of members of the Mormon church who believe as I do, although the church is politically neutral and there are many good members of the church that lean far to the left. Since liberals are not reading this post any longer, I have no qualms in declaring that they might be well-meaning, but are completely wrong.
The past few weeks have been filled with disappointment for conservatives. There are many of us who believe that President Obama is taking the country in a direction that will weaken the United States defensively and economically. I watched the internet and television on election night and felt my heart sink when states began turning blue. I asked myself what was wrong with Americans, and could not help but feel a special disappointment with the state of Ohio. I had, probably against my better judgment, been following several political conservatives in the media, and told myself that the death threats, slurs, and vile hatred being spewed out against them personally and those that believed in conservatism would be worth it because we would at least be able to put the proverbial brakes on the out-of-control big government mentality that had prevailed during the Obama administration.
Of course, people that were brave enough to declare themselves conservative were lambasted with additional profane and vulgar language after the election in the lowest form of gloating. (for example: http://twitchy.com/2012/11/07/obama-supporters-serve-up-venomous-revenge-to-actress-stacey-dash-die-come-off-porch-house-slave/ warning: language)
Writing a few posts on a blog has obviously not made me a target of the crazed haters that occupy the fringes of the left, but the feeling of being gloated over is seen in numerous passive aggressive statements from even well-meaning leftists. A link that I have seen posted several times is one in which the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints congratulates President Obama on his re-election. (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-on-election-result) As a member of the church, this does not surprise me. The church is politically neutral, and particularly where the opposing candidate was a member, it is appropriate to show that they are not unhappy with the result, and that Romney's candidacy was not (as some may have believed) an attempt to gain political power for the church. It is positive, concise, and clear.
The issue appears when liberals use this and other messages to congratulate the President on his re-election. They are frequently accompanied with statements exhorting conservatives not to "freak out" or expressing a desire to "work together" and "move forward."
Statements such as these come off to conservatives like this:
You should be happy about the results of the election because I am happy about them.
Or
You shouldn't freak out about the election, because my candidate won.
Of course, as a conservative, I believe that leftists would post far fewer of these "work together" and "don't freak out" nuggets of advice had Romney won the election.
In truth, conservatives such as us do have a few reasons to freak out... and no gloating liberal or progressive wearing moderate clothing is going to convince us otherwise. Below are legitimate reasons to feel discouraged:
1. Obama's statement about "flexibility" after the election - (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326) - The idea that Obama was moving to the center only temporarily in order to win votes is not baseless. There were a number of promises that Obama made before his first term that he did not keep. Now that there is no re-election about which to worry, how far left can he go?
2. The Supreme Court - Should there be any retirements or vacancies in the Supreme Court, Obama will appoint another subscriber to the "living" constitutional theory that believes pushing progressive theories is the unwritten goal of our highest law.
3. Socialist policies - Any one who talks about "fair share" without insisting on a flat rate for all social classes is by definition discriminating against certain social classes. That is by definition socialist. Obama has not even made a secret of his plan to make the wealthiest individuals (who are in the best position to hire others or to purchase the most goods and services from those that do) the target of his tax policies.
4. Lack of Defense - The Benghazi incident is consistently dodged by the Obama administration as "being investigated." Part of the problem though is how a consulate in a notoriously dangerous nation was not watched more carefully and defended more thoroughly. To the observer, Obama has placed a higher priority on his golfing than the defense of the country, hoping that his friendly demeanor will decrease the hatred of America by our enemies.
5. The Republican Party re-evaluating social conservatism - The party that gave us moderate John McCain in 2008 and moderate Mitt Romney in 2012 has started to wonder if they are too conservative. The party's defense of traditional marriage and stance for the sanctity of the life of the unborn have spawned leftist campaigns encouraging women to "vote with [their] lady parts." (http://twitchy.com/2012/10/02/for-shame-women-obama-literally-reduced-you-to-sum-of-your-ladyparts-vote-like-lady-parts-depend-on-it/) For some reason, the GOP thinks if we switch to a libertarian philosophy of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism that we will win, in spite of the fact that moderates have done poorly. I find this point to be more discouraging than many of the difficulties that are coming or may potentially come out of the Obama administration. Defending marriage is a noble cause... and so is trying to prevent the exploitation of the unborn. Forfeiting principles in favor of popularity is the wrong move. I believe the GOP should return to its conservative base and hold fast to correct principles regardless of whether they are popular or politically correct.
6. The Media - It is absolutely infuriating to see the lack of coverage. Reporters have, for the most part, bought the "we're investigating it" line from Benghazi without asking for details of the investigation. When interviewing conservatives, the mainstream media possesses a talent for finding those that are least able to articulate their views, or those from the fringe that could easily be portrayed as racists or undesirable. Although there are a multitude of liberals that could just as easily make the left look foolish, they are always overlooked by the mainstream media. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-supporters-celebrate-election-victory-no-more-israel-fk-that-sht-kill-those-mother-fkers/ warning: language)
7. Pot and Gay Marriage as ballot measures - Several states including Colorado had measures regarding gay marriage and the legalization of pot. The populations of these states apparently felt the small percentage of the population that actually use pot or are gay were among the most important issues. Is changing the law for these items really that helpful for any state? Certainly I am among conservatives that feel that the fact these things are even considered debatable issues is a sign indicating the moral decay of society at large.
Of course the complete list of points is actually much longer, and any of these points could be supplemented with additional details and sources confirming how conservatives actually do have lots of reasons to freak out.
Ultimately though, in spite of the reasons for freaking out, even obnoxious gloating liberals can be right when they advise conservatives to stay calm. Of course, for different reasons than they think.
Consider how many people freak out because they think that the world will end soon. There is a wide sense across several religions that seem to perceive that we are living in the latter days, or the end times. Though many religions have a similar perception, Christianity emphasizes the importance of the latter days through prophets and scriptures. Christianity also emphasizes the terrible tribulation that accompanies the approach of Christ's second coming.
Below is a list of reasons that people could use to freak out that the world is ending:
1. Wars and rumors of war - Matthew 24:6
2. Earthquakes in diverse places - Matthew 24:7
3. Famine and pestilence - Matthew 24:7
4. False prophets - Matthew 24:11
5. Apathy and hatred - Matthew 24:10,12
6. Widespread pride and selfishness - 2 Timothy 3:2
7. Those that do good are despised - 2 Timothy 3:3
Essentially, all of these perils are being seen presently. The calamities that prophets both ancient and modern have foretold are unfolding before our eyes. Certainly this list is not comprehensive either, and details and sources could supplement any of these points.
Fortunately, I am not aware of any gloating liberals telling people not to freak out over these things; in fact, leftists are notorious for freaking out over wars, famines, earthquakes, and apathy (though typically only apathy toward spotted owls or 'climate change').
In the case of the signs of our times, it is Jesus Christ himself that tells us not to be troubled:
"...see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass..." (Matthew 24:6)
Jesus Christ is the master of not freaking out. Even before he was brutally tortured and killed, he gave comfort to his apostles:
"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27, emphasis added)
While the gloating leftist stirs hearts to anger, the conservative that remembers Christ can have comfort in calamity. In fact, the essence of conservatism should exude confidence.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that injustice exists; we can have confidence that if we work hard, a source higher than the government will ensure that malevolence is punished and benevolence is rewarded.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that some people have more money than others; we can work hard to improve our own circumstances, and give Christian charity to those in need around us.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that a few SUVs on the road will end the world; we can have confidence that Jesus Christ will restore the earth to a paradisiacal glory that has not been known since the days of Eden.
- A conservative does not need to freak out over the election of a President of the United States; as much as we love our country and want it to succeed, ultimately, as conservatives, we are also citizens of a great kingdom with an immortal and omnipotent King that is not subject to elections or the vices inherently present in political office...
So fellow conservatives, don't freak out. Think of the reasons we have to be confident. Ultimately, remember that in the United States of America, we have no man for whom we shout 'God save the King' because the ideal for conservatives, and for all Americans is that God is the King.
Monday, November 5, 2012
"Reading my scriptures, going to church, and praying are ways to help me ______ ?!?!? I'm going to these things every day for the rest of my life!" - No one ever
When Jesus taught, he did so in a manner that provoked deep thinking and spiritual investigation. He did not necessarily teach in the tone or manner that people expected. In some cases, he talked about simple things such as being poor in spirit and meek. (Matthew 5:3,5) In other cases, he boldly declared that he would reject many that came to him calling him Lord. (Matthew 7:21-23)
People were amazed when Jesus taught. He taught "as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matthew 7:29)
For 2013, the Mormon church has determined to re-work its curriculum for youth classes based on the same concepts as the missionary discussion replacement "Preach My Gospel." The new curriculum is titled "Come, Follow Me." It features the use of principles called "Teaching in the Savior's Way."
One of the concepts promoted by this style of teaching is the use of audience-appropriate material based on loose principles and outlines rather than pre-structured lessons. The use of this method provokes a combination of excitement and anxiety. I am excited at the prospect of people putting more thought into lesson preparation than cracking the manual open during Sacrament Meeting. I am nervous about the prospect of teachers flying by the seat of their pants or preparing something that is completely off-topic.
If nothing else, hopefully this method of teaching will produce better questions to ask class members. The worst question that can be asked in any lesson is the question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray." These questions are typically asked by well-meaning teachers, but they are hardly thought provoking, and used far too frequently. A lesson with the subject of the Holy Spirit almost inevitably features the question "What are some ways that we can have the spirit more in our lives?" A lesson about faith features the question "What are some ways that we can show our faith?" A lesson about Temple attendance asks "How can a person prepare to attend the Temple?" A lesson about strengthening families will ask "How do you strengthen your family?"
I have never known of anyone that sat up and started paying attention when the answer "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" was given and think to themselves "that's right! I need to read my scriptures, go to church, and pray! I'm going to do these tasks without fail from now on!"
I have found that questions that challenge me to define Christianity or understand scriptures are far more thought provoking than questions that can be answered by enumerable lists of well-known information. For example, if strong faith has been compared in the scriptures to moving mountains, then does that mean faith is generally weak since considering the low number of faith-based mountain moves? Thinking about how faith is a power (Matthew 17:20), and how it must also be based in truth (Alma 32:21) can lead to a greater understanding of how it works. Jesus questioned his disciples to challenge them to consider their faith asking what they believed. (Matthew 16:13-16)
Questions that can quickly be answered by "the atonement" are typically less effective as well. Of course the atonement of Christ is the center of Christian worship and doctrine, but this information is probably not news to anyone that has some knowledge of the faith. In general, if the answer to a question is painfully obvious, it probably should not be asked. If a teacher wishes to help people believe in the power of Christ's sacrifice, my experience is that testimony is superior to a simplistic question that can be answered. More thought provoking questions involving how ordinances apply the power of his sacrifice or the role of penitence and forgiveness are far more effective.
Ultimately, my hope is that teachers of Christianity everywhere will learn to speak with power and authority as Christ himself did. Inviting people to come to God is better accomplished when manuals are simply read aloud, or when questions to which everyone knows the answers are asked. The message of salvation is not casual; it should not be taught casually.
People were amazed when Jesus taught. He taught "as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matthew 7:29)
For 2013, the Mormon church has determined to re-work its curriculum for youth classes based on the same concepts as the missionary discussion replacement "Preach My Gospel." The new curriculum is titled "Come, Follow Me." It features the use of principles called "Teaching in the Savior's Way."
One of the concepts promoted by this style of teaching is the use of audience-appropriate material based on loose principles and outlines rather than pre-structured lessons. The use of this method provokes a combination of excitement and anxiety. I am excited at the prospect of people putting more thought into lesson preparation than cracking the manual open during Sacrament Meeting. I am nervous about the prospect of teachers flying by the seat of their pants or preparing something that is completely off-topic.
If nothing else, hopefully this method of teaching will produce better questions to ask class members. The worst question that can be asked in any lesson is the question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray." These questions are typically asked by well-meaning teachers, but they are hardly thought provoking, and used far too frequently. A lesson with the subject of the Holy Spirit almost inevitably features the question "What are some ways that we can have the spirit more in our lives?" A lesson about faith features the question "What are some ways that we can show our faith?" A lesson about Temple attendance asks "How can a person prepare to attend the Temple?" A lesson about strengthening families will ask "How do you strengthen your family?"
I have never known of anyone that sat up and started paying attention when the answer "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" was given and think to themselves "that's right! I need to read my scriptures, go to church, and pray! I'm going to do these tasks without fail from now on!"
I have found that questions that challenge me to define Christianity or understand scriptures are far more thought provoking than questions that can be answered by enumerable lists of well-known information. For example, if strong faith has been compared in the scriptures to moving mountains, then does that mean faith is generally weak since considering the low number of faith-based mountain moves? Thinking about how faith is a power (Matthew 17:20), and how it must also be based in truth (Alma 32:21) can lead to a greater understanding of how it works. Jesus questioned his disciples to challenge them to consider their faith asking what they believed. (Matthew 16:13-16)
Questions that can quickly be answered by "the atonement" are typically less effective as well. Of course the atonement of Christ is the center of Christian worship and doctrine, but this information is probably not news to anyone that has some knowledge of the faith. In general, if the answer to a question is painfully obvious, it probably should not be asked. If a teacher wishes to help people believe in the power of Christ's sacrifice, my experience is that testimony is superior to a simplistic question that can be answered. More thought provoking questions involving how ordinances apply the power of his sacrifice or the role of penitence and forgiveness are far more effective.
Ultimately, my hope is that teachers of Christianity everywhere will learn to speak with power and authority as Christ himself did. Inviting people to come to God is better accomplished when manuals are simply read aloud, or when questions to which everyone knows the answers are asked. The message of salvation is not casual; it should not be taught casually.
Monday, October 29, 2012
If seeking signs is bad, why do Mormons tell people to do it?
There are many accounts in the scriptures that decry the seeking of signs.
Consider the example from the life of Jesus Christ:
"The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring, O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it..." (Matthew 16:1-4)
The Book of Mormon condemns the seeking of signs in two profound examples:
1. The sign that was given to Sherem was being struck with a debilitating sickness that killed him. (Jacob 7)
2. The sign that was given to Korihor was being struck dumb. (Alma 30)
Contemporarily, teachers in the Mormon faith affirm that seeking signs is negative. I have sat through many classes where instructors have professed that signs are never a good source of testimony. Examples that affirm this position include the following:
1. Pharaoh was determined to pursue after the children of Israel even after blood, frogs, lice, flies, the death of their cattle, boils, hail and fire, locusts, darkness, and the destroying angel. (Exodus 7-14)
2. The children of Israel worshiped a golden calf even after being fed manna from heaven and being miraculously delivered through a split in the Red Sea. (Exodus 14,16,32)
3. Israel tolerated Baal worship even after Elijah called down fire from heaven. (1 Kings 18-21)
4. After the miraculous delivery of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, Hezekiah's son Manasseh turned to wickedness. (2 Kings 19, 21:1-6)
5. Laman and Lemuel doubted the ability of God to help them obtain the brass plates immediately after having an angelic visitation of rebuke. (1 Nephi 3:31)
6. Oliver Cowdrey left the Mormon Church for several years after being ordained to the Priesthood by John the Baptist, as well as a large number of other miraculous witnesses of the divinity of the work.
Certainly, the case that signs are largely futile seems sound. It is not surprising that teachers throughout the church affirm that sign-seeking is negative.
The inconsistency that seems to appear occurs when teachers and missionaries invite people to pray and ask God so that they might personally know whether the Church is led by Jesus Christ, or whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God. If sign seeking is so bad, they why tell people to seek signs?
Another equally important question is that if seeking signs is so bad, why has God ever given them? Why tempt people to seek signs if they should not be doing it?
A concept that seems to be implied by several teachers is the superiority of spiritual evidence over tangible evidence. Some point to the example of Alma, who stated that he knew the truths of the gospel of Christ by the spirit rather than the angelic visitation and vision he encountered in his youth. (Mosiah 27, Alma 38:6) There are also statements by prophets to the same effect. Consider the following from Joseph F. Smith:
“The Spirit of God speaking to the spirit of man has power to impart truth with greater effect and understanding than the truth can be imparted by personal contact even with heavenly beings. Through the Holy Ghost the truth is woven into the very fibre and sinews of the body so that it cannot be forgotten.” (“The Sin against the Holy Ghost,” Instructor, Oct. 1935, p. 431)
Of course, interpreting statements such as these can come across with the implication that a person that has received a spiritual witness will never fall away. This is, of course, incorrect. People that have received spiritual witnesses, even those that have performed missionary service to persuade others to seek spiritual witnesses have in some cases unfortunately fallen from activity and lost faith in Christianity. Recognizing spiritual evidence is not a stamp in the passport that grants passage through the pearly gates.
As unfortunate as these cases are, they highlight the reason that Mormons ask people to pray for spiritual evidence of the Book of Mormon or the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith or the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is one thing to stubbornly refuse to do anything until God proves himself, and it is quite another to diligently and humbly pray for help believing something.
Consider the man who begged Christ for help with his child:
"And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child. And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him..." (Mark 9:17-26, emphasis added)
This story is an excellent example of being humble and diligent. The man had already gone to the disciples, and they were unsuccessful. He appealed to the Son of God himself, and asked not only for help with his son, but help to believe. The miraculous outcome was not a method of proving that Jesus was the Messiah, but a method of providing mercy and compassion to a child of God that persisted in seeking his power.
The invitation that is made by Moroni and repeated by missionaries across the world is not to do nothing until God proves himself with a sign. It is to actively seek him:
"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:3-5, emphasis added)
Understanding of the truth is unlikely to come with a casual curiosity or when demanding proof before action. Christ did not say "wonder, and ye shall receive, demand and ye shall find, wait for a knock before you open." He did say:
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." (Matthew 7:7-8)
The form of sign seeking is different from the type that is condemned. A better term to describe this type of sign-seeking is faith. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6) It is the difference between Alma and Korihor, and the variance between Nephi and his brothers Laman and Lemuel. In the end, it is faith that keeps people doing the right thing, and that brings understanding, wisdom, and knowledge. Ultimately, it is unbelief that causes people to neglect what is right, and that leads them to fall away.
One witness is not better than another witness. There is nothing wrong with a person believing that God is real after seeing a miracle. There is nothing superior about spiritual feelings that can accompany the learning of true principles.
That having been said, diligently and consistently believing in God is superior to demanding justification for every commandment. The invitation to come to Christ is superior to the idea of waiting until he comes to you. Asking to prove oneself to God is superior to asking God to prove himself... and in all cases, faith is superior to doubt.
Consider the example from the life of Jesus Christ:
"The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring, O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it..." (Matthew 16:1-4)
The Book of Mormon condemns the seeking of signs in two profound examples:
1. The sign that was given to Sherem was being struck with a debilitating sickness that killed him. (Jacob 7)
2. The sign that was given to Korihor was being struck dumb. (Alma 30)
Contemporarily, teachers in the Mormon faith affirm that seeking signs is negative. I have sat through many classes where instructors have professed that signs are never a good source of testimony. Examples that affirm this position include the following:
1. Pharaoh was determined to pursue after the children of Israel even after blood, frogs, lice, flies, the death of their cattle, boils, hail and fire, locusts, darkness, and the destroying angel. (Exodus 7-14)
2. The children of Israel worshiped a golden calf even after being fed manna from heaven and being miraculously delivered through a split in the Red Sea. (Exodus 14,16,32)
3. Israel tolerated Baal worship even after Elijah called down fire from heaven. (1 Kings 18-21)
4. After the miraculous delivery of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, Hezekiah's son Manasseh turned to wickedness. (2 Kings 19, 21:1-6)
5. Laman and Lemuel doubted the ability of God to help them obtain the brass plates immediately after having an angelic visitation of rebuke. (1 Nephi 3:31)
6. Oliver Cowdrey left the Mormon Church for several years after being ordained to the Priesthood by John the Baptist, as well as a large number of other miraculous witnesses of the divinity of the work.
Certainly, the case that signs are largely futile seems sound. It is not surprising that teachers throughout the church affirm that sign-seeking is negative.
The inconsistency that seems to appear occurs when teachers and missionaries invite people to pray and ask God so that they might personally know whether the Church is led by Jesus Christ, or whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God. If sign seeking is so bad, they why tell people to seek signs?
Another equally important question is that if seeking signs is so bad, why has God ever given them? Why tempt people to seek signs if they should not be doing it?
A concept that seems to be implied by several teachers is the superiority of spiritual evidence over tangible evidence. Some point to the example of Alma, who stated that he knew the truths of the gospel of Christ by the spirit rather than the angelic visitation and vision he encountered in his youth. (Mosiah 27, Alma 38:6) There are also statements by prophets to the same effect. Consider the following from Joseph F. Smith:
“The Spirit of God speaking to the spirit of man has power to impart truth with greater effect and understanding than the truth can be imparted by personal contact even with heavenly beings. Through the Holy Ghost the truth is woven into the very fibre and sinews of the body so that it cannot be forgotten.” (“The Sin against the Holy Ghost,” Instructor, Oct. 1935, p. 431)
Of course, interpreting statements such as these can come across with the implication that a person that has received a spiritual witness will never fall away. This is, of course, incorrect. People that have received spiritual witnesses, even those that have performed missionary service to persuade others to seek spiritual witnesses have in some cases unfortunately fallen from activity and lost faith in Christianity. Recognizing spiritual evidence is not a stamp in the passport that grants passage through the pearly gates.
As unfortunate as these cases are, they highlight the reason that Mormons ask people to pray for spiritual evidence of the Book of Mormon or the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith or the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is one thing to stubbornly refuse to do anything until God proves himself, and it is quite another to diligently and humbly pray for help believing something.
Consider the man who begged Christ for help with his child:
"And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child. And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him..." (Mark 9:17-26, emphasis added)
This story is an excellent example of being humble and diligent. The man had already gone to the disciples, and they were unsuccessful. He appealed to the Son of God himself, and asked not only for help with his son, but help to believe. The miraculous outcome was not a method of proving that Jesus was the Messiah, but a method of providing mercy and compassion to a child of God that persisted in seeking his power.
The invitation that is made by Moroni and repeated by missionaries across the world is not to do nothing until God proves himself with a sign. It is to actively seek him:
"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:3-5, emphasis added)
Understanding of the truth is unlikely to come with a casual curiosity or when demanding proof before action. Christ did not say "wonder, and ye shall receive, demand and ye shall find, wait for a knock before you open." He did say:
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." (Matthew 7:7-8)
The form of sign seeking is different from the type that is condemned. A better term to describe this type of sign-seeking is faith. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6) It is the difference between Alma and Korihor, and the variance between Nephi and his brothers Laman and Lemuel. In the end, it is faith that keeps people doing the right thing, and that brings understanding, wisdom, and knowledge. Ultimately, it is unbelief that causes people to neglect what is right, and that leads them to fall away.
One witness is not better than another witness. There is nothing wrong with a person believing that God is real after seeing a miracle. There is nothing superior about spiritual feelings that can accompany the learning of true principles.
That having been said, diligently and consistently believing in God is superior to demanding justification for every commandment. The invitation to come to Christ is superior to the idea of waiting until he comes to you. Asking to prove oneself to God is superior to asking God to prove himself... and in all cases, faith is superior to doubt.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Contention may be of the Devil, but Jesus was really good at it!
Having one's views attacked can be aggravating and frustrating whether the views are political, religious, or based on the type of music/movies/shows that a person enjoys. Of course, closing in on the presidential race in the United States of America, arguments have become heated in many forums. People that normally remember to say "please" and "thank you" have in many cases been seen slinging that which is vulgar and profane. Arguments in many cases have the power to bring out the worst in humanity.
On another occasion, enemies tried to trap him by asking Jesus the source of his authority. If he were to say God, they would accuse him of blasphemy (even though it was true). If he were to say some other source, they could accuse him of being a false prophet. He took the advice that he had given in his sermon on the mount when he said:
"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." (Matthew 7:6)
Instead of answering the question they posed, he posed a similar question to them:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:24-27)
Certainly it is no coincidence that Jesus taught in the Book of Mormon the following:
"For verily, verily I say unto you, 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. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." (3 Nephi 11:29-30)
The passage in the Book of Mormon is quite plain and direct, and certainly in harmony with the messages that he shared famously in his sermon on the mount:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven..." (Matthew 5:38-45)
Jesus seemed clear that people probably should not participate in arguments or contentions. That having been said, he was himself a target of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees that dominated religious thought in Galilee and Judea during his mortal life. The gospels are filled with accounts of the various attempts that were made to argue against Jesus. The truth is, as much as he talked about the vices of pride and wrath that are so easily stimulated by arguments, Jesus was really really good at arguing.
One example was the group of Pharisees that thought they could trap Jesus by asking whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. If Jesus were to say it was lawful, they could attack his popularity because Roman occupation was despised by the Jews. If he were to say it was not lawful, they could report him to the Romans for sedition. His response was perfect:
"Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:19-21)
Jesus gave the perfect answer. By asking about the image on the coin, those that had thought they could trap him were forced to portray themselves as having overlooked something obvious. Additionally, he could not be accused of sedition, nor could his piety be questioned by suggesting that people give to Caesar what is his and to God what is his.
Sadducees attempted to attack Christ's affirmation of the resurrection with a hypothetical situation:
"Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:24-32)
In this case, he showed his amazing ability by ignoring the hypothetical situation which was a distraction from the real point of whether or not there would be a resurrection of the dead. Though they had come to attack his views for something they felt was inconsistent, he was able to counter by identifying their own inconsistency.
On another occasion, enemies tried to trap him by asking Jesus the source of his authority. If he were to say God, they would accuse him of blasphemy (even though it was true). If he were to say some other source, they could accuse him of being a false prophet. He took the advice that he had given in his sermon on the mount when he said:
"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." (Matthew 7:6)
Instead of answering the question they posed, he posed a similar question to them:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:24-27)
His enemies were never able to win an argument with him, so in the end, they paid Judas Iscariot to betray him so they could secretly arrange for his death. Ironically, they were not able to surprise him or beat him even with their murderous conspiracy, as Jesus raised himself from the dead.
Back to the subject of arguments, there are some that may wonder why Jesus even participated in verbal contests when he seemed so against them. The effort to understand why he debated those that tried to trap him is fundamental to understanding the responsibilities of all Christians to defend the truth, and balancing that with the need to show respect and kindness to all of God's children.
Modern prophets and apostles have encouraged participation in discussions about the church:
"There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches. While some conversations have audiences in the thousands or even millions, most are much, much smaller. But all conversations have an impact on those who participate in them. Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time." (M. Russel Ballard http://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/07/sharing-the-gospel-using-the-internet?lang=eng)
In spite of the possibility that disagreements or contentions may arise, or the fact that the internet is crawling with trolls that, like the Pharisees of old, feel satisfaction in discrediting, angering, and bullying others, Christians have a responsibility to help others both by charitably imparting of their tangible substance, and by sharing the good news that Christ is alive and has power to save us all. That having been said, there are lessons to learn from the methods used by Christ himself for dealing with trolls.
Many people that attack Christians do so based on the idea of logical arguments. A logical argument is like a house where the roof represents a conclusion or premise that is supported by walls representing supporting evidence or reasons. The basic idea behind attacking a logical argument is that if all or many of the supporting reasons are eliminated, the conclusion falls just as if the walls of a house are knocked down or weakened, the roof falls.
This concept is important for many discussions, such as jury deliberations where the conclusion of the defendant's guilt is dismissed when reasonable doubt knocks down or weakens the evidence that supports the conclusion. As important as critical thinking techniques are in making some decisions, matters of philosophy, ethics, and faith are not always best served by such techniques.
An example of this can be seen in the following hypothetical situation:
There is a Christian that believes in God, and that the Bible represents the word of God. He has friends that are historians that have informed him about evidence that supports his belief in that ancient Biblical cities are mentioned in archaeological artifacts. A skeptical friend finds that the mention of these cities can be explained by the fact that the Bible was written centuries later and used the names of old cities to appear to be of ancient origin. Because there is no other tangible evidence of the Bible's authenticity that the Christian is able to enumerate, the skeptic explains that there is no reason for him to believe in the Bible.
Obviously, belief in God and the Bible does not need to be based on tangible evidence. It is based on faith. Consequently, when the supporting evidences of religious conclusions are attacked, their is an invisible pillar in the center that prevents the conclusion from falling. Since a person of faith does not need tangible evidence to support their conclusion, exposing reasons or evidence of belief to those that might attack it is like casting pearls before swine. Conclusions of faith such as those that God lives, that the Bible is accurate, and that prophets dispense the truths of heaven to mankind are not conclusions that require logical defense, so do not provide them.
Secular conclusions on the other hand do require logical and tangible justification. It is typically easy to discern a person who is genuinely interested in faith from one who is genuinely interested in destroying faith by asking them to defend their philosophical and ethical positions. Since such positions put them in a position of vulnerability, they will try and evade, stall, or shift the burden of proof to you. Individuals that are genuinely interested in conversation will not maneuver you into positions where you may look bad. Ending a conversation is not the same as conceding an opponent was correct. If an attacker refuses to expose their reasoning, it might be wise to do as Christ did when he was pressed on the source of his authority and follow suit.
Avoiding contention does not necessarily mean avoiding pointing out flaws in reasoning. Jesus was not afraid to tell people that they were acting hypocritical, or to condemn incorrect principles. Going back to the example where Christ countered the Sadducees regarding their misunderstanding of the resurrection, it is good to use critical thinking to examine the integrity of secular conclusions. Particularly in matters of ethics, few secularists have examined their views. In recent conversations I have had for example, secularists claimed that their ethical behavior was guided by the principles of "empathy and compassion." It does not take much critical thinking to show that these principles fall apart when administering justice. If a person does not want to be held against their will, empathy and compassion tell them that imprisoning others even if they are guilty of heinous crimes is unethical. Relativists that believe something is good only because an individual or group has labeled it good strip themselves of moral judgement entirely. If something is bad because a person does not like it, then that puts bad acts such as child molestation on equal moral ground as having to eat vegetables. The need for God in ethics is something I have previously touched on in this post.
Christianity assumes that humanity consists of more than animals with a large number of adaptations making survival easier... The assertion is that people are the children of Almighty God. From the perspective of the Mormon church, we assert that each human being lived before they came to earth with our Heavenly Father, and that after we die, we will return to face him, and be held accountable for our choices. The understanding that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent is fundamental to our faith. With that understanding, context is added to the story of the creation of the earth. A being with tremendous power went to a lot of trouble to send us to a place where we would not remember him and where we could not typically see, hear, or tangibly perceive him. He did not completely abandon humanity though, and provided spiritual sources for learning truths. The environment created was brilliant in its design since it truly imparts free will to men. The choices and desires of every human are not compelled by the Heavens.
Another assertion made by most Christians is that all human beings are given something to help them identify and recognize good and truth. The conscience is sometimes referred to as the light of Christ in accordance with the description of the Apostle John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:1-9)
People have a general understanding of how to perceive good. They have an instinct that draws them toward God in some fashion. While no one follows their conscience perfectly, and while there are some that rarely use it, it is capable of being as recognizable as the image and superscription on a coin. Just as Jesus was not afraid to point out to his attackers what they should have already noticed, so should those that defend faith in Christ be willing to point out that people are already capable of recognizing truth without dependence on tangible evidence. Like recognizing a scent, people know instinctively when something is right. With regular, diligent use, anyone is capable of recognizing the truths of God and his Christ. Odds are, any individual that attacks faith knows in their heart that they are wrong. Even if they do not know it, they are still the person that will be most persuasive in convincing themselves that they should have faith.
The responsibility of Christians to invite all to come to Christ is not a policy to hunt down antagonists and attempt to humiliate them. It is a policy of spreading the good news of Jesus. Christ proclaimed the truth to all; his religion was his identity. The same should be the case for those that aspire to be called Christians.
When a discussion moves to become antagonistic, affirm the truth and end the discussion. Endless bashing between individuals is at best a waste of time, and at worst, could tragically turn a friend into an enemy. In persuading others to accept Christ, Christians must not abandon his teachings. In the end, what made Christ so good when he contended with those that sought to malign him was his ability to know when not to contend, and when to step away.
Winning a petty argument is meaningless since everyone will eventually agree. In the end, Jesus will come in triumph and glory. He will be the hero that appears in the moment of peril and despair to save his people. Every knee will bow before His Majesty. The good news is that he wants everyone on his side.
This concept is important for many discussions, such as jury deliberations where the conclusion of the defendant's guilt is dismissed when reasonable doubt knocks down or weakens the evidence that supports the conclusion. As important as critical thinking techniques are in making some decisions, matters of philosophy, ethics, and faith are not always best served by such techniques.
An example of this can be seen in the following hypothetical situation:
There is a Christian that believes in God, and that the Bible represents the word of God. He has friends that are historians that have informed him about evidence that supports his belief in that ancient Biblical cities are mentioned in archaeological artifacts. A skeptical friend finds that the mention of these cities can be explained by the fact that the Bible was written centuries later and used the names of old cities to appear to be of ancient origin. Because there is no other tangible evidence of the Bible's authenticity that the Christian is able to enumerate, the skeptic explains that there is no reason for him to believe in the Bible.
Obviously, belief in God and the Bible does not need to be based on tangible evidence. It is based on faith. Consequently, when the supporting evidences of religious conclusions are attacked, their is an invisible pillar in the center that prevents the conclusion from falling. Since a person of faith does not need tangible evidence to support their conclusion, exposing reasons or evidence of belief to those that might attack it is like casting pearls before swine. Conclusions of faith such as those that God lives, that the Bible is accurate, and that prophets dispense the truths of heaven to mankind are not conclusions that require logical defense, so do not provide them.
Secular conclusions on the other hand do require logical and tangible justification. It is typically easy to discern a person who is genuinely interested in faith from one who is genuinely interested in destroying faith by asking them to defend their philosophical and ethical positions. Since such positions put them in a position of vulnerability, they will try and evade, stall, or shift the burden of proof to you. Individuals that are genuinely interested in conversation will not maneuver you into positions where you may look bad. Ending a conversation is not the same as conceding an opponent was correct. If an attacker refuses to expose their reasoning, it might be wise to do as Christ did when he was pressed on the source of his authority and follow suit.
Avoiding contention does not necessarily mean avoiding pointing out flaws in reasoning. Jesus was not afraid to tell people that they were acting hypocritical, or to condemn incorrect principles. Going back to the example where Christ countered the Sadducees regarding their misunderstanding of the resurrection, it is good to use critical thinking to examine the integrity of secular conclusions. Particularly in matters of ethics, few secularists have examined their views. In recent conversations I have had for example, secularists claimed that their ethical behavior was guided by the principles of "empathy and compassion." It does not take much critical thinking to show that these principles fall apart when administering justice. If a person does not want to be held against their will, empathy and compassion tell them that imprisoning others even if they are guilty of heinous crimes is unethical. Relativists that believe something is good only because an individual or group has labeled it good strip themselves of moral judgement entirely. If something is bad because a person does not like it, then that puts bad acts such as child molestation on equal moral ground as having to eat vegetables. The need for God in ethics is something I have previously touched on in this post.
Christianity assumes that humanity consists of more than animals with a large number of adaptations making survival easier... The assertion is that people are the children of Almighty God. From the perspective of the Mormon church, we assert that each human being lived before they came to earth with our Heavenly Father, and that after we die, we will return to face him, and be held accountable for our choices. The understanding that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent is fundamental to our faith. With that understanding, context is added to the story of the creation of the earth. A being with tremendous power went to a lot of trouble to send us to a place where we would not remember him and where we could not typically see, hear, or tangibly perceive him. He did not completely abandon humanity though, and provided spiritual sources for learning truths. The environment created was brilliant in its design since it truly imparts free will to men. The choices and desires of every human are not compelled by the Heavens.
Another assertion made by most Christians is that all human beings are given something to help them identify and recognize good and truth. The conscience is sometimes referred to as the light of Christ in accordance with the description of the Apostle John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:1-9)
People have a general understanding of how to perceive good. They have an instinct that draws them toward God in some fashion. While no one follows their conscience perfectly, and while there are some that rarely use it, it is capable of being as recognizable as the image and superscription on a coin. Just as Jesus was not afraid to point out to his attackers what they should have already noticed, so should those that defend faith in Christ be willing to point out that people are already capable of recognizing truth without dependence on tangible evidence. Like recognizing a scent, people know instinctively when something is right. With regular, diligent use, anyone is capable of recognizing the truths of God and his Christ. Odds are, any individual that attacks faith knows in their heart that they are wrong. Even if they do not know it, they are still the person that will be most persuasive in convincing themselves that they should have faith.
The responsibility of Christians to invite all to come to Christ is not a policy to hunt down antagonists and attempt to humiliate them. It is a policy of spreading the good news of Jesus. Christ proclaimed the truth to all; his religion was his identity. The same should be the case for those that aspire to be called Christians.
When a discussion moves to become antagonistic, affirm the truth and end the discussion. Endless bashing between individuals is at best a waste of time, and at worst, could tragically turn a friend into an enemy. In persuading others to accept Christ, Christians must not abandon his teachings. In the end, what made Christ so good when he contended with those that sought to malign him was his ability to know when not to contend, and when to step away.
Winning a petty argument is meaningless since everyone will eventually agree. In the end, Jesus will come in triumph and glory. He will be the hero that appears in the moment of peril and despair to save his people. Every knee will bow before His Majesty. The good news is that he wants everyone on his side.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Is God a Tyrannical Dictator?
For anyone that has followed this blog for any degree of time, it should be evident that I love to emphasize the power of God over the love of God.
I have often felt that throughout Christianity, and even in my own church, God is portrayed like a feel-good pill rather than a King. Of course this is not always the case, and Christians from many sects will from time to time express their confidence in God's abilities instead of only his compassion, but discussion of God seems unbalanced in favor of kindness.
When Christians study and invest only in the one attribute, it is easy for them to be surprised, shocked, or even shaken when their beliefs are challenged; especially so when attacks are derived from sources they accept and treasure such as the Bible. Being confronted with a version of God that kills every man woman child and beast except for those in the protection of Noah's ark seems to portray God as a cruel murderer that made a mistake.
God spoke through the prophet Samuel to King Saul giving him a cruel directive: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3) When Saul spared Agag, the King of the Amalekites, and also took animals alive, the Lord said to Samuel: "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments." (1 Samuel 15:11) After being reproved by the prophet of God, Saul sought forgiveness of the Lord. Samuel did not respond with the compassion one might expect from one speaking on behalf of a merciful God: "thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:26) Additionally, the prophet made the situation right in the eyes of God when he personally killed Agag. (1 Samuel 15:33) How can God be so loving if he ordered his people to enact genocide on a people?
There are those in the world of Christianity that dismiss these things as "old testament" even to the point of imagining that there was a "God of the old testament" in ancient times that was different from Christ in the new testament. Of course, those that embrace these excuses may be challenged as well. Ananias and Sapphira were members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the stewardship of the early Apostles. At that time, Christians gave all of their possessions to the Apostles, and were given back according to their needs. This husband and wife claimed to the Apostles that they were giving all of the money they had received from a portion of land, but in truth, they conspired to lie about the amount and keep some of the money themselves. As a reward, they were stuck dead by God. (Acts 5:1-11)
There exist Christians that are shocked and surprised when they learn these things exist in the Bible. If they know only the mercy and compassion of God that is so emphasized in contemporary Christianity, then they may even question their faith.
Indeed, it is easy to portray our Heavenly Father as a Heavenly tyrant. He sits on his throne in the high heavens and commands people to do as he says or be condemned to the torment of hell. To those who would worship him and have no other God before him, he promises rich rewards of mansions in his kingdom. He imposes his definition of good and evil on all individuals, regardless of their culture, understanding, or upbringing.
How do Christians deal with the cruel and jealous version of God portrayed in the holy scriptures?
The worst technique is to ignore it. Pretending that the flood in the ancient world, the plagues of Egypt, or the violent invasion and conquests in Israel were symbolic of something is foolish. Doubting them, or claiming that these things are "fulfilled" because Christ gave a new law provides grounds for dismissing large sections of valid scripture, and perhaps leading to selective Christianity or new-age Christianity where Jesus is not the authoritative son of God, but simply a good philosopher.
Another incorrect technique is to swing the pendulum too far the other way. I do, as all Christians should, maintain that God is never wrong. When he sent the flood or slew the Amalekites or sent famines and diseases and curses, he was right to do so. He made the correct decision. This does not mean that we may derive authority to make a posse and slay the wicked in the name of God, as may have been practiced in the dark ages.
The approach to finding the answer is important. When confronted by uncomfortable facts about God, a bad strategy is to pray to God demanding that he explain himself. If he is truly the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then he does not owe anyone an an explanation. In fact, he has gone to a lot of effort to put humanity in a situation where the eternal consequences to decisions do not occur immediately. He has invested in the creation of an environment to prove the faith of individuals. That means that not answering such demands is in his interest. The frequent emphasis on faith throughout the scriptures is not just a good idea, it is fundamental to accomplishing God's plan for humanity.
Those who insist that God "prove himself" can use the following two step process to uncover the proof they seek:
1. Wait
2. If God has not revealed himself, repeat step 1.
In the end, God will appear, and every knee will bow before him. It is just a lot better to accept him before this happens. Those that persist in demanding proof 'right now' will either not receive it, or they will receive it and it will be unpleasant so as to remind others that patience is in fact a virtue. (Jacob 7, Alma 30)
That having been said, there is a faith-based approach for recognizing the benevolence of God. In fact, I submit that this is a fundamental reason that there exists a Godhead. Almost all Christianity believes in some form of the trinity, and regardless of the interpretation, the following statements should ring true:
1. We know that God the Father is good because of the goodness of his son Jesus Christ. (John 14:6-7)
2. We know that the accounts of Christ's goodness and power in the Bible are accurate because of the witness of the Holy Ghost. (John 14:26)
While this may not seem to specifically address the examples that seemed to portray God as cruel and unforgiving, this approach does something more important. The witness of the Holy Ghost establishes something beyond the reading comprehension that is generally available by opening the scriptures; this is a mechanism for personal interaction with God. Knowing who God is personally allows an individual to make their own judgement about his character, and according to Christ, it is the definition of eternal life. (John 17:3)
It is one thing for me to point to the compassion of Christ as he fed 5000 people in Galilee and say he is kind. (John 6:1-13) It is another when I describe the peace he has given me when I plead for help with my doubts, questions, and mistakes. Frequently using prayer, scripture study, and worship in a diligent effort to find God is a slow path. It is strait and narrow. As Lehi saw in vision, those that walk it can be confused by clouds of darkness, or the attacks of those in spacious buildings. (1 Nephi 8) Ultimately, those that press forward with faith that God will answer them will find the truth. They will find the love of God.
While this may not be an enumerated list of explanations regarding all the dealings God has had with men from the days of Adam, it will provide confidence in the truth that God is never wrong. Not only is he real, but he is omniscient, omnipotent, and his influence is omnipresent. Those that press forward in faithful effort to know God do more than escape the damnation of hell, or earn the rewards of heaven... they become new.
This is the fundamental purpose of Christianity: the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Sometimes helping a person become better requires letting bad things happen to them. Sometimes it requires that they get sick, or that they lose a loved one. Sometimes it requires wars and conquests, and other times it requires peace and quiet. Sometimes it requires famines and starvation, and other times it requires feasting and plenty.
Though God uses various means at various times with various people, and though sometimes it may not make sense, or even seem incorrect, those that know God have confidence that he is not a tyrannical dictator. He is a benevolent father... and he has a plan to save us all.
I have often felt that throughout Christianity, and even in my own church, God is portrayed like a feel-good pill rather than a King. Of course this is not always the case, and Christians from many sects will from time to time express their confidence in God's abilities instead of only his compassion, but discussion of God seems unbalanced in favor of kindness.
When Christians study and invest only in the one attribute, it is easy for them to be surprised, shocked, or even shaken when their beliefs are challenged; especially so when attacks are derived from sources they accept and treasure such as the Bible. Being confronted with a version of God that kills every man woman child and beast except for those in the protection of Noah's ark seems to portray God as a cruel murderer that made a mistake.
God spoke through the prophet Samuel to King Saul giving him a cruel directive: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3) When Saul spared Agag, the King of the Amalekites, and also took animals alive, the Lord said to Samuel: "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments." (1 Samuel 15:11) After being reproved by the prophet of God, Saul sought forgiveness of the Lord. Samuel did not respond with the compassion one might expect from one speaking on behalf of a merciful God: "thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:26) Additionally, the prophet made the situation right in the eyes of God when he personally killed Agag. (1 Samuel 15:33) How can God be so loving if he ordered his people to enact genocide on a people?
There are those in the world of Christianity that dismiss these things as "old testament" even to the point of imagining that there was a "God of the old testament" in ancient times that was different from Christ in the new testament. Of course, those that embrace these excuses may be challenged as well. Ananias and Sapphira were members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the stewardship of the early Apostles. At that time, Christians gave all of their possessions to the Apostles, and were given back according to their needs. This husband and wife claimed to the Apostles that they were giving all of the money they had received from a portion of land, but in truth, they conspired to lie about the amount and keep some of the money themselves. As a reward, they were stuck dead by God. (Acts 5:1-11)
There exist Christians that are shocked and surprised when they learn these things exist in the Bible. If they know only the mercy and compassion of God that is so emphasized in contemporary Christianity, then they may even question their faith.
Indeed, it is easy to portray our Heavenly Father as a Heavenly tyrant. He sits on his throne in the high heavens and commands people to do as he says or be condemned to the torment of hell. To those who would worship him and have no other God before him, he promises rich rewards of mansions in his kingdom. He imposes his definition of good and evil on all individuals, regardless of their culture, understanding, or upbringing.
How do Christians deal with the cruel and jealous version of God portrayed in the holy scriptures?
The worst technique is to ignore it. Pretending that the flood in the ancient world, the plagues of Egypt, or the violent invasion and conquests in Israel were symbolic of something is foolish. Doubting them, or claiming that these things are "fulfilled" because Christ gave a new law provides grounds for dismissing large sections of valid scripture, and perhaps leading to selective Christianity or new-age Christianity where Jesus is not the authoritative son of God, but simply a good philosopher.
Another incorrect technique is to swing the pendulum too far the other way. I do, as all Christians should, maintain that God is never wrong. When he sent the flood or slew the Amalekites or sent famines and diseases and curses, he was right to do so. He made the correct decision. This does not mean that we may derive authority to make a posse and slay the wicked in the name of God, as may have been practiced in the dark ages.
The approach to finding the answer is important. When confronted by uncomfortable facts about God, a bad strategy is to pray to God demanding that he explain himself. If he is truly the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then he does not owe anyone an an explanation. In fact, he has gone to a lot of effort to put humanity in a situation where the eternal consequences to decisions do not occur immediately. He has invested in the creation of an environment to prove the faith of individuals. That means that not answering such demands is in his interest. The frequent emphasis on faith throughout the scriptures is not just a good idea, it is fundamental to accomplishing God's plan for humanity.
Those who insist that God "prove himself" can use the following two step process to uncover the proof they seek:
1. Wait
2. If God has not revealed himself, repeat step 1.
In the end, God will appear, and every knee will bow before him. It is just a lot better to accept him before this happens. Those that persist in demanding proof 'right now' will either not receive it, or they will receive it and it will be unpleasant so as to remind others that patience is in fact a virtue. (Jacob 7, Alma 30)
That having been said, there is a faith-based approach for recognizing the benevolence of God. In fact, I submit that this is a fundamental reason that there exists a Godhead. Almost all Christianity believes in some form of the trinity, and regardless of the interpretation, the following statements should ring true:
1. We know that God the Father is good because of the goodness of his son Jesus Christ. (John 14:6-7)
2. We know that the accounts of Christ's goodness and power in the Bible are accurate because of the witness of the Holy Ghost. (John 14:26)
While this may not seem to specifically address the examples that seemed to portray God as cruel and unforgiving, this approach does something more important. The witness of the Holy Ghost establishes something beyond the reading comprehension that is generally available by opening the scriptures; this is a mechanism for personal interaction with God. Knowing who God is personally allows an individual to make their own judgement about his character, and according to Christ, it is the definition of eternal life. (John 17:3)
It is one thing for me to point to the compassion of Christ as he fed 5000 people in Galilee and say he is kind. (John 6:1-13) It is another when I describe the peace he has given me when I plead for help with my doubts, questions, and mistakes. Frequently using prayer, scripture study, and worship in a diligent effort to find God is a slow path. It is strait and narrow. As Lehi saw in vision, those that walk it can be confused by clouds of darkness, or the attacks of those in spacious buildings. (1 Nephi 8) Ultimately, those that press forward with faith that God will answer them will find the truth. They will find the love of God.
While this may not be an enumerated list of explanations regarding all the dealings God has had with men from the days of Adam, it will provide confidence in the truth that God is never wrong. Not only is he real, but he is omniscient, omnipotent, and his influence is omnipresent. Those that press forward in faithful effort to know God do more than escape the damnation of hell, or earn the rewards of heaven... they become new.
This is the fundamental purpose of Christianity: the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Sometimes helping a person become better requires letting bad things happen to them. Sometimes it requires that they get sick, or that they lose a loved one. Sometimes it requires wars and conquests, and other times it requires peace and quiet. Sometimes it requires famines and starvation, and other times it requires feasting and plenty.
Though God uses various means at various times with various people, and though sometimes it may not make sense, or even seem incorrect, those that know God have confidence that he is not a tyrannical dictator. He is a benevolent father... and he has a plan to save us all.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Ethical Dilemmas of Godlessness
I recently saw an argument presented by a group of self-proclaimed atheists indicating persuading citizens to decry the practices of some political representatives to argue about the laws of God, and that they should instead embrace "reason."
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
Monday, October 1, 2012
The Armor of God
I recall participating in an annual religious activity that was intended for high school students during spring break. The activity always spanned several days and would include a variety of activities, dances, and speakers. Called Youth Conference, this type of activity is not church-wide, but it or something like it was available to high school aged youth in many different places in the United States.
To keep the attention of youth, people employed a variety of techniques to try and communicate the spiritual importance of the theme for a particular year. One year, the theme was "Put on the whole armor of God," based on the passage in Ephesians 6 in the New Testament:
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:11-17)
Unfortunately, that particular year, everyone had almost the same idea, which was to create homemade armor and put it piece by piece on a volunteer describing how to better implement a certain idea such as the breastplate of righteousness or shield of faith. There was also a video made by the church for seminary students that depicted the same basic concept, in which the conclusion portrayed a young man leaving for missionary service in an airport clad in armor. We wondered how he had made it though airport security even then, which was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the additional screening measures we see today.
While there were efforts made to get people to think about spiritual defense in different ways, ultimately, the ecclesiastical messages shared mostly focused on the metaphorical concept that correct choices protect individuals from the negative consequences that follow sinful behavior.
That message was probably the most appropriate message for the majority of teenagers that attended Youth Conference, since many of the teenagers were primarily there to flirt with one another; any spiritual information that was even accidentally absorbed represented an accomplishment of the instructors and counselors. While I too had social ambitions in participating, I found the repetitive "spiritual dress-up" to be tedious and shallow.
Since then, I have thought about how much emphasis is put on the metaphorical armor or metaphorical shield, or metaphorical fiery darts of the wicked. In fact, there seems to be an abundance of metaphorical content with respect to spiritual matters. Of course, much if it is correctly portrayed as symbolic such as the allegory of the olive trees in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 5) or the comparison of faith in the word of God to the nourishment of a seed (Alma 32). Christ himself taught many things metaphorically, explaining that he had "living water" (John 4) and that he was the"bread of life". (John 6)
The problem comes in when the literal aspects of spirituality are lost. I have heard people claim that Jesus was resurrected only "spiritually." I have heard people explain away powerful miracles such as the dividing of the Red Sea as a symbolic delivery from Egypt, or Noah's ark and the flood as a symbolic escape from wickedness. There are those who so love metaphors that they see them in things that are meant to be taken literally.
The Armor of God certainly has metaphorical elements. Righteousness can act as a breastplate, sparing the heart from the pain that accompanies wickedness. Faith can act as a shield, helping those that exercise it to overcome trials that they might not otherwise be able to overcome. It seems obvious that the Apostle Paul spoke symbolically when he taught the Armor of God concept.
While symbolism can be rich and powerful, I believe the greatest strength in spirituality is not based on metaphysical concepts or psychological strength, but in literal power. While the metaphorical Armor of God can provide protection, there is in my opinion to little emphasis placed on the literal Armor of God.
The fact that there is a literal Armor of God may conjure up images of other relics of divine importance, such as the Ark of the Covenant, the brazen serpent, or even the Holy Grail. The literal Armor of God is not composed of a helmet, a breastplate, a shield, a sword, leggings and boots. There is a powerful example showing its power that comes from the story of the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.
A fourteen year old boy named Joseph Smith was conflicted in determining what church truly represented God's kingdom, as each of them in his area claimed to be exclusively correct, and condemned the others. Wanting to ensure he was following God, he retired to a secluded grove of trees near his home and prayed to God. His account of the end result of this prayer is well known to members of the Mormon church, but there is an element that is frequently dismissed. In his own words, Joseph Smith said:
"After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being" (Joseph Smith History 1:15-16)
Many people, even in the Mormon faith, tend to describe Satan as a concept rather than a person. The devil is taught as a metaphor to describe "the natural man" or "human nature" or perhaps wickedness in general. The apostle Paul did not describe him that way in the original passage in Ephesians, but described the "wiles" of the devil, and his attacks as fiery darts. Joseph Smith was quite clear that the force that attacked him was not a concept, it was "the power of some actual being from the unseen world..."
Convinced that death was about to come, at that moment, he was suddenly saved:
"...just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (Joseph Smith History 1:16-17)
To keep the attention of youth, people employed a variety of techniques to try and communicate the spiritual importance of the theme for a particular year. One year, the theme was "Put on the whole armor of God," based on the passage in Ephesians 6 in the New Testament:
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:11-17)
Unfortunately, that particular year, everyone had almost the same idea, which was to create homemade armor and put it piece by piece on a volunteer describing how to better implement a certain idea such as the breastplate of righteousness or shield of faith. There was also a video made by the church for seminary students that depicted the same basic concept, in which the conclusion portrayed a young man leaving for missionary service in an airport clad in armor. We wondered how he had made it though airport security even then, which was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the additional screening measures we see today.
While there were efforts made to get people to think about spiritual defense in different ways, ultimately, the ecclesiastical messages shared mostly focused on the metaphorical concept that correct choices protect individuals from the negative consequences that follow sinful behavior.
That message was probably the most appropriate message for the majority of teenagers that attended Youth Conference, since many of the teenagers were primarily there to flirt with one another; any spiritual information that was even accidentally absorbed represented an accomplishment of the instructors and counselors. While I too had social ambitions in participating, I found the repetitive "spiritual dress-up" to be tedious and shallow.
Since then, I have thought about how much emphasis is put on the metaphorical armor or metaphorical shield, or metaphorical fiery darts of the wicked. In fact, there seems to be an abundance of metaphorical content with respect to spiritual matters. Of course, much if it is correctly portrayed as symbolic such as the allegory of the olive trees in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 5) or the comparison of faith in the word of God to the nourishment of a seed (Alma 32). Christ himself taught many things metaphorically, explaining that he had "living water" (John 4) and that he was the"bread of life". (John 6)
The problem comes in when the literal aspects of spirituality are lost. I have heard people claim that Jesus was resurrected only "spiritually." I have heard people explain away powerful miracles such as the dividing of the Red Sea as a symbolic delivery from Egypt, or Noah's ark and the flood as a symbolic escape from wickedness. There are those who so love metaphors that they see them in things that are meant to be taken literally.
The Armor of God certainly has metaphorical elements. Righteousness can act as a breastplate, sparing the heart from the pain that accompanies wickedness. Faith can act as a shield, helping those that exercise it to overcome trials that they might not otherwise be able to overcome. It seems obvious that the Apostle Paul spoke symbolically when he taught the Armor of God concept.
While symbolism can be rich and powerful, I believe the greatest strength in spirituality is not based on metaphysical concepts or psychological strength, but in literal power. While the metaphorical Armor of God can provide protection, there is in my opinion to little emphasis placed on the literal Armor of God.
The fact that there is a literal Armor of God may conjure up images of other relics of divine importance, such as the Ark of the Covenant, the brazen serpent, or even the Holy Grail. The literal Armor of God is not composed of a helmet, a breastplate, a shield, a sword, leggings and boots. There is a powerful example showing its power that comes from the story of the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.
A fourteen year old boy named Joseph Smith was conflicted in determining what church truly represented God's kingdom, as each of them in his area claimed to be exclusively correct, and condemned the others. Wanting to ensure he was following God, he retired to a secluded grove of trees near his home and prayed to God. His account of the end result of this prayer is well known to members of the Mormon church, but there is an element that is frequently dismissed. In his own words, Joseph Smith said:
"After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being" (Joseph Smith History 1:15-16)
Many people, even in the Mormon faith, tend to describe Satan as a concept rather than a person. The devil is taught as a metaphor to describe "the natural man" or "human nature" or perhaps wickedness in general. The apostle Paul did not describe him that way in the original passage in Ephesians, but described the "wiles" of the devil, and his attacks as fiery darts. Joseph Smith was quite clear that the force that attacked him was not a concept, it was "the power of some actual being from the unseen world..."
Convinced that death was about to come, at that moment, he was suddenly saved:
"...just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (Joseph Smith History 1:16-17)
The pillar of light that descended upon Joseph freed him from a genuine attack that had nearly killed him. Miraculous protection from genuine harm is not limited to Joseph Smith's first vision. Consider the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Determined not to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's golden image on the plain of Dura, these three faithful men refused to obey the king. Provoking his anger, they found themselves thrown into a burning fiery furnace. To the surprise of all those who saw, they were not harmed. At Nebuchadnezzar's request, they walked out of the furnace completely unharmed. (Daniel 3)
The Apostle Paul who wrote concerning the Armor of God found himself shipwrecked on an island he called Melita on his journey to Rome. A poisonous viper emerged from the fire by which he warmed himself, and latched its fangs into Paul's hand. To the astonishment of those who watched him, the venom did not affect him at all. (Acts 28:3-6)
There is no shortage of examples in which God provided literal protection from harm of all sorts. Though God does not always protect every individual from every harm that might fall upon them, there is a literal Armor of God that can prevent any ill effect, spiritual, physical, or otherwise.
There are actual malevolent forces that actively and constantly seek the corruption and destruction of humanity, and that there are more powerful benevolent forces that seek to exalt mankind. This is not a metaphor or a symbol. Joseph Smith may have encountered a "spiritual" attack, but it had real power to bind him and cause him to think he would be destroyed. While Mormons describe his experience with the pillar of light and two personages as a "vision," he was literally delivered from evil.... evil from which he could not deliver himself.
Ultimately, the protection described by Paul with helmets of salvation, shields of faith, and breastplates of righteousness represents more than moral courage. The literal Armor of God is not made of pieces to be strapped to our bodies.
The truth is simple, yet profound. The Armor is God. He is the one that protected Joseph Smith. He is the one that delivered Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. He is the one that guarded the Apostle Paul. In the end, his power to protect is not limited at all. Though there may be times when harm, injury, illness, and even death come, his power makes these conditions temporary.
Those that cling to him, and follow his council will be shielded from the will of actual enemies that would see them destroyed. Those that accept God accept literal protection. It is not with reluctance that God acts as armor for his children; he eagerly asks us... even begs us to find shelter in his power... He wants to save us all...
The words of his prophets represent the pleading of a protective father when they ask us to put on the Armor of God.
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy
For those unfamiliar with the concept of a ward, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the church is divided into large areas. Each area is typically divided into Stakes (the term coming from the prophet Isaiah describing Zion as a tent held down by stakes). (Isaiah 54:2) Each Stake is typically divided into wards, which are congregation-sized units that meet together each Sunday. While there are other types of units where large congregations are not possible, the ward is the basic unit of official church organization.
Most wards consist of families and geographic boundaries. Singles wards are special units of organization that do not typically have only single young adult membership. Since one of the most fundamental teachings of the Mormon church involves eternal marriage and family relationships, in many areas, these special wards provide unique opportunities to meet other singles in addition to the typical ecclesiastical functions found in all wards. In other words, the church promotes, endorses, and attempts to facilitate marriages.
The principles of marriage are emphasized more in some wards than others. The reason for this is the natural sensitivity that many singles have to the subject. Few people are opposed to the idea of romantic involvement, but many singles feel that they will not have the opportunity to be married. When rejections and failures begin to accumulate, encouragement from leaders to date more frequently feels like salt being rubbed into a wound. Well-meaning individuals try to persuade singles to attempt to initiate relationships, but frequently do little more than remind singles that they are lonely.
I was personally in that situation. Being a scrawny nerdy kid in high school, I was not successful in wooing girls for whom I felt affection. Repeated failure made me feel like I had overestimated my value, especially when my friends appeared to be successful in their attempts. I decided to try and bury the nagging feeling of low self-worth by focusing on representing something larger than myself. I served a mission. When I returned home, I felt like I had a much better chance at finding a significant other. I became involved in a singles ward, which was filled with people who were a little older. Many of these people were very nice, and I enjoyed friendships, however, any time I conjured the courage to ask a girl out, it ended in rejection.
Eventually, I moved to wards where the average age was closer to my own, but the pattern of asking a girl out and having her want to be "just friends" and then finding out that "just friends" meant "keep away from me you freak" was taxing. I spent time on my knees begging God to help me in my efforts to not be alone. It seemed like something that God should have helped me with if his church focused so much on eternal families.
The nearly constant reminders of my single status from being surrounded by happy couples at work, at school, at church, and even at home when my roommates brought their girlfriends over was painful. Having some married high councilor come in to priesthood meeting and tell me that girls were upset that men were not asking them out on dates was completely inconsistent with my experience. I concluded that they might want some men to ask them out, but not me.
Trying to improve my dating techniques was an effort in which I improved from being dismally bad to just really bad. I was completely unable to "be myself", as so many people had advised me, when I was desperately worried about not coming off as too "needy." The number of failures I had experienced made it all the more difficult to summon courage to ask girls out... and when I finally did, I was a nervous wreck. The encouragement of friends and peers was negated by dates that ended without a hug, a handshake, a high-five, or even a "have a nice night." Attempts to try again were always met with impossibly difficult scheduling issues and other excuses.
It did not take long before I realized what was happening. These girls were filling their social obligation of agreeing to a first date... the "courtesy date." I never really had any chance with them, but they would allow me to think that I did... at least temporarily. The dishonesty required in these social interactions was upsetting, and it caused me to question my worth altogether. Was I really loved for who I was? After all, my parents and family had to love me because I was family. They had not chosen me based on my merits. I wondered if God felt the same way. I did not feel particularly talented or useful to him. I felt worthless.
Struggling with feelings of depression led me to vow that I would stop the practice of dating which had brought me to that condition. It was by no means a unique thing to take a break from dating to allow one's heart to heal, but I was determined that I would be done with it. I imagined what it would be like to be away from all the happy couples and the beautiful girls whose very presence taunted me. I concluded that if I had lived in the middle ages, I would have joined the Benedictine order and found quiet, humble purpose in prayer and simple work in monastic life. The concept of the monk who never had his value reduced by the rejection of women was quite appealing.
Ultimately, these thoughts became the basis for the creation of something I called "The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy." Over time, I began criticizing the dishonesty involved in the dating process more openly. Some of my friends and relatives that were feeling bad because of rejection (both male and female) would temporarily join the brotherhood. Somewhere in the snacks, the laughter, and the video games, I discovered something that had eluded me... happiness. Suddenly, it no longer mattered that I was alone, because I was voluntarily swearing off dating.
Of course, even I, the Holy Brother, was not perfectly immune to the influence of beautiful girls, particularly those that I determined might have something in common with me, but my departures from the comfort of the Brotherhood grew less frequent, and each rejection reinforced my view that dating had been invented by a liar or an idiot.
To the dismay of several of my church leaders, I began openly denouncing dating and date-promoting activities. I preached the "blessed doctrine of celibacy" to others, knowing that I was not alone in my frustrations. Many men were frustrated when girls would say things like "I would love to go out with you" when they really meant "I would tolerate you purchasing food and entertainment for me." To my surprise, a number of girls became very angry with me. They would tell me that I was fighting against the doctrine of the church because people had to date to get married, and marriage was ordained of God. Of course such simple arguments were easily refuted by pointing out examples like Isaac and Rebecca, whose marriage was not founded on dating and dishonesty. If scriptural points were insufficient, I could always silence them by asking them out. Of course, none of them wanted me to stop preaching celibacy because they had interest in me.
The disdain and frustration of some became a badge of honor. With pride and vigor I would greet people by labeling them "friends of celibacy." Some of my talented roommates worked with me to create a short film, "The Ascension of the Holy Brother" which humorously portrayed me being rejected and finding happiness in the acceptance of celibacy. People loved it.
It was not in one instant, but over the course of my notorious stent as the Holy Brother of Celibacy, I realized that this was more than just a façade. The Holy Brotherhood represented my efforts to reject rejection itself. In public speaking and bold declarations, I felt strength. It no longer mattered as much that women saw a sniveling, scrawny, nerdy, half-wit in a dating situation, because they were not seeing my strength. The self-esteem that I had so willingly given to girls only to have it trampled upon had been moved so it was mostly out of their reach.
Somewhere as this realization came, I began hanging out with the beautiful woman that would become my wife. There was no dating. There were no mind-games. There was no dishonesty. I did not feel like I had to sell the idea that I was fun, interesting, or desirable. In hanging out, not dating, we fell in love, made plans, and got married.
The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy is no longer a daily subject of preaching. I do not greet people as friends of celibacy anymore. My wife and I have a wonderful family. As important as my marriage and children are to me, and as much as I believe that God himself has blessed me to be with them, their presence is not the reason I believe that God loves me. The realization of God's love came when I rejected a system that emphasized my weaknesses and discovered my strengths. The assessments of girls I attempted to woo were far less important. The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy represented a concentrated effort to be happy as a single, and while it did not remove the sting of loneliness completely, it helped me to put it in context.
I still believe that dating is not necessarily the answer to being single. I believe that there are many people that are not able to be themselves, let alone be their best, in a dating environment. My heart is filled with empathy for people in these situations. Although I am no longer single, I still feel a bit of contempt for those that oversimplify or underestimate the problems with being single. I understand the bitter bitter taste of loneliness, and the pain of heart-break and disappointment.
For those in this situation, I encourage membership in the Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy. Of course, there is no official organization, and membership does not require any special ceremony. It means to actively seek out situations where you can play to your strengths. Where possible, cut down on involvement in situations where you are not able to be yourself or act freely and honestly. Stop doubting that God loves you, and search for the gifts he has given you.
It may be difficult to immediately see how not helping you to find a spouse is a manifestation of God's love, but in the end, it will all become clear. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) In the end, we will see his hand has been miraculously helping and guiding us all along, and in the end, he will save those that believe in him, even when it is difficult.
Most wards consist of families and geographic boundaries. Singles wards are special units of organization that do not typically have only single young adult membership. Since one of the most fundamental teachings of the Mormon church involves eternal marriage and family relationships, in many areas, these special wards provide unique opportunities to meet other singles in addition to the typical ecclesiastical functions found in all wards. In other words, the church promotes, endorses, and attempts to facilitate marriages.
The principles of marriage are emphasized more in some wards than others. The reason for this is the natural sensitivity that many singles have to the subject. Few people are opposed to the idea of romantic involvement, but many singles feel that they will not have the opportunity to be married. When rejections and failures begin to accumulate, encouragement from leaders to date more frequently feels like salt being rubbed into a wound. Well-meaning individuals try to persuade singles to attempt to initiate relationships, but frequently do little more than remind singles that they are lonely.
I was personally in that situation. Being a scrawny nerdy kid in high school, I was not successful in wooing girls for whom I felt affection. Repeated failure made me feel like I had overestimated my value, especially when my friends appeared to be successful in their attempts. I decided to try and bury the nagging feeling of low self-worth by focusing on representing something larger than myself. I served a mission. When I returned home, I felt like I had a much better chance at finding a significant other. I became involved in a singles ward, which was filled with people who were a little older. Many of these people were very nice, and I enjoyed friendships, however, any time I conjured the courage to ask a girl out, it ended in rejection.
Eventually, I moved to wards where the average age was closer to my own, but the pattern of asking a girl out and having her want to be "just friends" and then finding out that "just friends" meant "keep away from me you freak" was taxing. I spent time on my knees begging God to help me in my efforts to not be alone. It seemed like something that God should have helped me with if his church focused so much on eternal families.
The nearly constant reminders of my single status from being surrounded by happy couples at work, at school, at church, and even at home when my roommates brought their girlfriends over was painful. Having some married high councilor come in to priesthood meeting and tell me that girls were upset that men were not asking them out on dates was completely inconsistent with my experience. I concluded that they might want some men to ask them out, but not me.
Trying to improve my dating techniques was an effort in which I improved from being dismally bad to just really bad. I was completely unable to "be myself", as so many people had advised me, when I was desperately worried about not coming off as too "needy." The number of failures I had experienced made it all the more difficult to summon courage to ask girls out... and when I finally did, I was a nervous wreck. The encouragement of friends and peers was negated by dates that ended without a hug, a handshake, a high-five, or even a "have a nice night." Attempts to try again were always met with impossibly difficult scheduling issues and other excuses.
It did not take long before I realized what was happening. These girls were filling their social obligation of agreeing to a first date... the "courtesy date." I never really had any chance with them, but they would allow me to think that I did... at least temporarily. The dishonesty required in these social interactions was upsetting, and it caused me to question my worth altogether. Was I really loved for who I was? After all, my parents and family had to love me because I was family. They had not chosen me based on my merits. I wondered if God felt the same way. I did not feel particularly talented or useful to him. I felt worthless.
Struggling with feelings of depression led me to vow that I would stop the practice of dating which had brought me to that condition. It was by no means a unique thing to take a break from dating to allow one's heart to heal, but I was determined that I would be done with it. I imagined what it would be like to be away from all the happy couples and the beautiful girls whose very presence taunted me. I concluded that if I had lived in the middle ages, I would have joined the Benedictine order and found quiet, humble purpose in prayer and simple work in monastic life. The concept of the monk who never had his value reduced by the rejection of women was quite appealing.
Ultimately, these thoughts became the basis for the creation of something I called "The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy." Over time, I began criticizing the dishonesty involved in the dating process more openly. Some of my friends and relatives that were feeling bad because of rejection (both male and female) would temporarily join the brotherhood. Somewhere in the snacks, the laughter, and the video games, I discovered something that had eluded me... happiness. Suddenly, it no longer mattered that I was alone, because I was voluntarily swearing off dating.
Of course, even I, the Holy Brother, was not perfectly immune to the influence of beautiful girls, particularly those that I determined might have something in common with me, but my departures from the comfort of the Brotherhood grew less frequent, and each rejection reinforced my view that dating had been invented by a liar or an idiot.
To the dismay of several of my church leaders, I began openly denouncing dating and date-promoting activities. I preached the "blessed doctrine of celibacy" to others, knowing that I was not alone in my frustrations. Many men were frustrated when girls would say things like "I would love to go out with you" when they really meant "I would tolerate you purchasing food and entertainment for me." To my surprise, a number of girls became very angry with me. They would tell me that I was fighting against the doctrine of the church because people had to date to get married, and marriage was ordained of God. Of course such simple arguments were easily refuted by pointing out examples like Isaac and Rebecca, whose marriage was not founded on dating and dishonesty. If scriptural points were insufficient, I could always silence them by asking them out. Of course, none of them wanted me to stop preaching celibacy because they had interest in me.
The disdain and frustration of some became a badge of honor. With pride and vigor I would greet people by labeling them "friends of celibacy." Some of my talented roommates worked with me to create a short film, "The Ascension of the Holy Brother" which humorously portrayed me being rejected and finding happiness in the acceptance of celibacy. People loved it.
It was not in one instant, but over the course of my notorious stent as the Holy Brother of Celibacy, I realized that this was more than just a façade. The Holy Brotherhood represented my efforts to reject rejection itself. In public speaking and bold declarations, I felt strength. It no longer mattered as much that women saw a sniveling, scrawny, nerdy, half-wit in a dating situation, because they were not seeing my strength. The self-esteem that I had so willingly given to girls only to have it trampled upon had been moved so it was mostly out of their reach.
Somewhere as this realization came, I began hanging out with the beautiful woman that would become my wife. There was no dating. There were no mind-games. There was no dishonesty. I did not feel like I had to sell the idea that I was fun, interesting, or desirable. In hanging out, not dating, we fell in love, made plans, and got married.
The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy is no longer a daily subject of preaching. I do not greet people as friends of celibacy anymore. My wife and I have a wonderful family. As important as my marriage and children are to me, and as much as I believe that God himself has blessed me to be with them, their presence is not the reason I believe that God loves me. The realization of God's love came when I rejected a system that emphasized my weaknesses and discovered my strengths. The assessments of girls I attempted to woo were far less important. The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy represented a concentrated effort to be happy as a single, and while it did not remove the sting of loneliness completely, it helped me to put it in context.
I still believe that dating is not necessarily the answer to being single. I believe that there are many people that are not able to be themselves, let alone be their best, in a dating environment. My heart is filled with empathy for people in these situations. Although I am no longer single, I still feel a bit of contempt for those that oversimplify or underestimate the problems with being single. I understand the bitter bitter taste of loneliness, and the pain of heart-break and disappointment.
For those in this situation, I encourage membership in the Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy. Of course, there is no official organization, and membership does not require any special ceremony. It means to actively seek out situations where you can play to your strengths. Where possible, cut down on involvement in situations where you are not able to be yourself or act freely and honestly. Stop doubting that God loves you, and search for the gifts he has given you.
It may be difficult to immediately see how not helping you to find a spouse is a manifestation of God's love, but in the end, it will all become clear. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) In the end, we will see his hand has been miraculously helping and guiding us all along, and in the end, he will save those that believe in him, even when it is difficult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)