The Condescension of God

The Christmas season is time of gift giving, a tradition that stems from the magi who traveled from the east and gave the Christ child gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  Contemporarily, children look under trees with anticipation of receiving games, toys, and sweets.  The true root of gift giving is a much older story however.  Before men were born; before the world was forged, there was another gift for which every child of God yearned, and our Heavenly Father wanted very much to give it to us. The gift is immortality and eternal life, but it is not a gift that is easily received.  In fact, almost no one was eligible to receive the greatest of all the gifts of God.  Our Heavenly Father called for the sacrifice of one that would be able to not only save himself, but to condescend below all things, that he might lift the sons of men above all things.  Jesus Christ stood and declared “Here am I… send me.”  As our Father accepted him as worthy and able, he became to us a God, the only hope of salvation, and the joy of mans’ desiring.

Even children have the benefit of Christmas traditions that teach at an early age the characters of the Nativity story.  We have known from our youth of Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, the wise men, and the Christ child… but what if we had not known?  What if we had to be taught these things without the benefit of Christmas symbols?  Nephi was a prophet that lived 600 years before the birth of Christ.  He did not have any holiday traditions when he was taught the Christmas story.  An angel of God showed him a vision and asked what he beheld.  He replied, “A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.”  The angel asked a profound question… “Knowest thou the condescension of God?”  Nephi replied, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.”  The angel then showed him the virgin bearing a child in her arms.  With a single concise phrase, Nephi learned the true meaning of Christmas: “Behold, the condescension of God!”

Most people eagerly anticipate Christmas day, perhaps because of proximity to friends and loved ones, perhaps because of the hope of a chocolate-filled stocking, or something special underneath the tree.  The first Christmas was also anticipated greatly, but for other reasons.  The people in the promised land that believed in Jesus had been given that day as a deadline to justify their faith, and if the prophesied signs of Christ’s birth did not appear, they would be killed.  How anxious they must have been to see that their faith was not in vain.  But even as the wicked prepared to spill the blood of the righteous, the prayers of Christians reached the heavens.  When the sun set that night, the light did not wane away into the darkness of night.  In the very act of condescending, the light of the world saved those that had faith in him.

Christmas does not always bring tidings of comfort and joy.  Every year, people brave crowds at local retailers, and amid the pushing, shoving, and dirty looks, they seek meaningful gifts for loved ones.  Husbands scratch their heads and ask themselves "If I buy these shoes for her, do I also have to buy those earrings?"  Wives seek the assistance of unmotivated seasonal sales associates to ask "Do I need a nunchuck controller with the Legend of Zelda?"  It is not difficult to become so preoccupied with the hustle and bustle that Christ becomes disassociated with the majority of our Christmas season.  Perhaps it was the same hustle and bustle that caused innkeepers of Bethlehem to experience difficulty in finding room for a young expectant mother and her husband.  Perhaps they thought they were doing the best they could when they sent Mary to a pen of animals, it was tax season after all.  Whatever the reasons, when Mary gave birth to her son, she had only swaddling clothes in a stable to warm him.  When she laid him down, the trough where animals chewed hay was his bed.  While men of wealth and prestige sat in the company of peers, the King of Kings moved from a throne in the high heavens in the presence of our Heavenly Father, to a stable in the company of livestock.  Somehow, when everyone else was busy, the most High God descended down to the most humble place on Earth.

Even to the adults that understand the principles of electricity, and know the effort of stringing them up, there is a feeling of happiness that Christmas lights bring.  To children who do not understand these things, it is even more so.  It is not so much because understanding ruins things, but perhaps because innocence is so frequently accompanied by humility, which magnifies appreciation.  Even in ancient times it was so.  SPQR are the letters that every soldier's banner bore in the land to which Christ came.  Senatus Populusque Romanus... The senate and the people of Rome.  The empire was arguably the most powerful and prestigious that was ever on the earth, and it was filled with wise, powerful, strong, and wealthy people; and none more so than its emperor, Caesar Augustus.  However, it was not Caesar, or any of his appointed, or any philosophers or warriors to whom God sent word of his condescension.  Luke tells us that there were in the same country shepherds, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them.  And they were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them, fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David, a savior, which is Christ, the Lord.  And this shall be a sign unto you: ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

As commercial and cold as the retail experience of Christmas can be, the season also brings a renewed desire to help those in need.  Few experiences are as memorable as seeing the gratitude of someone receiving the very thing they require.  Perhaps there are those among us who have played the roles both of giver, and of recipient.  Called by some the true meaning of Christmas, it is in a truer sense the true meaning of Christianity.  Because he condescended below all men, he knows what it means to be hungry, to be hurt, to be fatigued.  He knows what it means to be lonely, and hated, and betrayed.  Is it any wonder he declared that "by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples: if ye have love one to another"?

There is a Christmas hymn in which a man sorrows that "Hate is strong, and mocks the song of peace on Earth, good will to men..."  He is answered by Christmas bells, that seem to say with faith and power "God is not dead, nor doth he sleep."  Two of the characters most forgotten in the old Christmas story are the two that knew that best.  Anna and Simeon saw no angel, they did not follow a new star in the east; instead they stayed at the temple.  They did not need the persuasion of fictional spirits of Christmas Past, Present, or Future; they followed the Spirit of God, and because of their faith, Christ came to them.  Two thousand years later, the same spirit that guided them pleads with us not to despair... for God is not dead, nor doth he sleep.  The Holy Spirit of God guides us, just as it did Anna and Simeon; and it brings the power of Jesus Christ across time to our hearts here and now: not just a story of a child in a manger, or a choir of angels in the fields near Bethlehem, but the power of his atoning sacrifice.  And it is the faith, penitence, and humility of men that give purpose to his sacrifice... for it is only with our consent that we can be redeemed.  My brothers and sisters... especially during this time when we celebrate the coming of Christ... let us be as Anna and Simeon and follow the guidance of his Holy Spirit.  Let our penitence give cause to his sacrifice.  Let us do all things that we might have the gift for which we sought in that grand council before the world was: the gift of eternal life!  Oh come all ye faithful... joyful and triumphant...  Oh come let us adore him!  Come and behold him: born the King of Angels!  Come and celebrate the condescension of God!

Mormons believe God sends prophets... but not always...

Frequently when the topic of lessons in Mormon Sunday School classes turns to revelation or to prophets, a part of President Hugh B. Brown's general conference talk in October 1967.  Sunday School manuals present the material as follows:


Before President Brown was called as a General Authority, he spent some time in England working as a barrister, or attorney. He befriended a prominent Englishman who was a member of the House of Commons and a former justice of the supreme court of Britain. The two men often discussed various subjects, including religion.

In 1939, when it appeared that World War II would soon break out, the English gentleman called Brother Brown into his office. He asked Brother Brown to defend his religious beliefs in the same way he would discuss a legal problem. In a general conference address, President Brown recalled part of their conversation:

“I began by asking, ‘May I proceed, sir, on the assumption that you are a Christian?’

“‘I am.’

“‘I assume that you believe in the Bible—the Old and New Testaments?’

“‘I do!’”

The English gentleman said that he believed the biblical accounts of the Lord speaking to prophets. However, he maintained that such communication had stopped soon after the Resurrection of Christ. The conversation continued with another question from Brother Brown: “Why do you think it stopped?”

“‘I can’t say.’

“‘You think that God hasn’t spoken since then?’

“‘Not to my knowledge.’

“‘May I suggest some possible reasons why he has not spoken. Perhaps it is because he cannot. He has lost the power.’

“He said, ‘Of course that would be blasphemous.’

“‘Well, then, if you don’t accept that, perhaps he doesn’t speak to men because he doesn’t love us anymore. He is no longer interested in the affairs of men.’

“‘No,’ he said, ‘God loves all men, and he is no respecter of persons.’

“‘Well, then, … the only other possible answer as I see it is that we don’t need him. We have made such rapid strides in education and science that we don’t need God any more.’

“And then he said, and his voice trembled as he thought of impending war, ‘Mr. Brown, there never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why he doesn’t speak.’

“My answer was, ‘He does speak, he has spoken; but men need faith to hear him’” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1967, 117–18; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1967, 36–37)


This experience articulates the beliefs of members of the LDS church effectively.  Mormons believe the need for continuing revelation is obvious, and that it is consistent with the patterns and practices that God has always used.

As a member of the LDS church, I have always been surprised that the previously mentioned argument and associated train of thought has seemed to go unchallenged.  Not that there are flaws in the argument, but that the position of the Mormon church is not so very different from the judge with whom President Brown spoke.

A fundamental aspect of Mormon faith is that the line of authority and organization that existed in the days of Christ was taken from the earth.  Arguments that there is an unbroken line of authority mainly reside in the claims of Catholicism who maintain Papal authority was established with the Apostle Peter, however, the organization of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers (see Ephesians 4:11-14) was obviously not maintained.

Protestants must accept that there was a falling away (see 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) because every one of their churches was established in protest of Papal authority.

Restorationists, such as Mormons, believe that the power of God was taken from the earth in the early centuries after Christ.  Apostles, prophets, and priests did not exist, or if they did, they did not act as they had in ages past under the authority of God.

The question then becomes this for Protestants and Mormons:

Why did God stop speaking to men?

Is it because God lost the power to do so in the dark ages?
Of course not; that would be blasphemous.

Is it because God did not love the people that lived in those times?  Is it possible that their lives had no purpose, and that he was unconcerned with the plagues, wars, and famines that afflicted them?
No.  God loves all men and he is no respecter of persons.

Is it because in the dark ages that humanity had made such rapid strides in education, science, technology, and life that they did not need God?  Is it possible that only as ages went on that God realized mankind again needed guidance, or that we have fallen from the superior state that we had in medieval times?
Certainly not.  Perhaps more so in the middle ages than in any other age, mankind needed the voice of God.

Then why did God stop speaking to men?  If continuing revelation is so critical to humanity, why did he withhold it for more than a thousand years?

Of course, the answer to the question emphasizes another fundamental belief in Mormonism: just because someone died without learning the truth, does not mean they are forever damned.

Jesus himself taught this:
"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 22:31-32)

Martha thought that Jesus was too late to heal her brother Lazarus because he had died:
"Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, 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 11:21-26)

The conclusion is powerful.  Not even death can separate God from blessing his beloved sons and daughters.  Simply because people lived a thousand years ago (or even many thousands of years ago) does not mean that they are out of God's reach.  The answer to the question why did God stop speaking to men? is that he didn't.

The Apostle Peter gave insight as to what Jesus did in the short time between his death and resurrection:
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison... For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18-19, 4:6)

Modern revelation adds to this truth.  President Joseph F. Smith taught the following:
"But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel. Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (D&C 138:30-34)

As indicated above, vital ordinances that require a body can be performed vicariously for those who have died, that they too might have hope to take part in the resurrection of the saints:
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29)

Jesus will not let little things like thousands of years or death stand in his way of his work.  Though there was a lack organization and priesthood power on the earth during the great apostasy, the Lord continued to speak to people via missionaries in the spirit world, and offers to them today opportunity to show the signs of baptism, confirmation, priesthood, and other ordinances through the efforts of his followers today.

Christ has the power and the love to ensure that all people have access to his message.  God does send prophets, but not always: those that call themselves Christians also have the responsibility to help ourselves, our neighbors, and those that have gone before us.  Modern Christians can help the living and the dead so that when Christ returns, it will truly be to save us all.

Government shutdowns and doing the church's job

Social media has been talking about the government shutdown for several days.  More conservative posts will vilify Senate Majority Leader Reid and President Obama.  More liberal posts will vilify Senator Cruz, Senator Paul, and Senator Lee.  The majority of posts in the middle will blame all of congress, and blame their apparent lack of ability to compromise.

Of course, the truth is that congress actually represents the views of the people in the United States.  The liberals were specifically elected to enact social government programs and expand the role of government in providing goods and services to individuals in lower income brackets.  Conservatives in congress were specifically elected to stop the expansion of government that has happened under both Republicans and Democrats since the 1930s.  If either side of the aisle agrees to a compromise, they will essentially be breaking the promises made to their constituents.

It is easy to say that congress is filled with people that will not compromise, but the harder truth is that the United States of America is filled with people that are polarized beyond the point of compromise.  Ideals of more government and less government are mutually exclusive.  Blaming a government of representatives returns the blame to the people who are being represented.

The real question is how did the United States get to the point where we could not agree on government?  I suggest that the root of the issue is that the government has progressively taken on more tasks that have been in the domain of religion.  Well-meaning liberals want the government to aid the poor using income from the rich.  Certainly there are tremendous gaps in the income between the wealthiest 1% and the 99% of the population below as the "occupy" movements point out.  It is not difficult to see why people feel that this is unfair, and that those who are struggling might benefit from the resources of those who are not struggling.  In the past, it was the role of churches to persuade the population that compassion for their fellow men was as critical to their well-being as it was to the well-being of those in need.  In modern times, the government passes laws to try to take more and more of the money of those in high income brackets to fund programs intended to benefit those in lower income brackets.  In other words, the state has become like a mandatory church.

Liberals have argued that if the government did not compel the wealthy to contribute to the poor, then they would not do it.  Certainly, that is possible.  A person granted freedom does not always use their freedom to make responsible decisions.  In spite of this, there exist a large number of foundations, charities, and churches that rely exclusively on the donations of generous individuals that seem to be doing fairly well.  Certainly many of the liberals who campaign enjoy fundraisers with Hollywood celebrities and benefit from voluntary donations from wealthy individuals in amounts that could help millions of struggling families.  Perhaps liberals are too quick to judge the motives of those in a position to help.

If additional motivation is an issue, government ought to ensure that religions are as free as possible to persuade people to make positive moral choices.  Throwing religion out of every aspect of government has given atheist activists great pleasure, but there are few calls from these activists to throw the government out of religion.

I suggest that not only can a more religious society better unite and provide for its citizens, it already has.

The prophet Mormon wrote of the time after Christ came to the people of ancient America and united them with religion using the following words:

"And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift... And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God."  (4 Nephi 1:2-3,16-17)

In other words, almost every problem that is currently expected to be solved by the government was solved by people leading religious lives.  Poverty was eliminated because people were generous and compassionate toward one another voluntarily.  Crime was eliminated because people were religious enough that no one desired to commit crime.

The problems that eventually made their way into this society occurred when people began to leave religion.  In the absence of motivation to make moral choices from recognizing religious authority, the people stopped making moral choices, and every vice enumerated in the passage above returned.

In the end, the solution to stalemates and arguments in government or in other aspects of life is the same as it has always been: Christianity.  If each individual could themselves be more generous, more kind, more honest, more humble, more chaste, more virtuous, and more religious... the disagreements that divide us would be less important than the moral strength that binds us.

I believe that this Utopian society is not only achievable, but inevitable.  Jesus Christ will personally reign on the earth and usher in a glorious age of peace and happiness throughout the entire world.  Of course, it is not necessary to wait for his coming before adopting the principles that make bad men good and good men better...  I invite all who come here not to postpone heeding the call of Jesus Christ:

"Yea, verily I say unto you, if ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life. Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me." (3 Nephi 9:14)

Don't get your shorts in a knot... Understanding and modesty

Recently, I have seen a lot of heated discussion regarding a blog post called FYI (if you're a teenage girl).

On one hand, there are many individuals that are grateful for encouraging girls to cover themselves, and express understanding for the mother who wrote the post, who desires to help her sons avoid lustful thoughts and urges.

On the other hand, I have read comments from people who are upset with calls for modesty because it blames girls for the impure thoughts of boys, and teaches boys that they just can't help themselves.

The term modesty has become a item of debate as well.  Among religious people of many faiths, modesty has represented a method for dressing, particularly for women, such that they minimize any provocative aspects of their appearance.  There have been many individuals that have pointed out that this understanding of modesty is a stretch from the root of the word, which implies restraint and humility.  The concept in this case is that modesty represents how an individual views himself or herself rather than how others view them.

One side of this debate emphasizes the effect of provocative styles on men.  There can be little doubt that seeing women in skimpy outfits affects men... otherwise there would not be a pornography "industry".  Lingerie makers, fragrance producers, and other clothing designers also seem to depend on women noticing the effects their products have on men, and implying that the results are tied to ownership of these goods.  Anyone who has attended high school knows that men are willing to part with money, invest time, and provide service for girls that catch their attention.

The opposing side points out that women are being held guilty for an effect they may not intend or of which they may not even be aware.  It is also plain that men who are guilty of sexual predation cannot be held guiltless if their victims were wearing revealing or otherwise provocative clothing.  Men must control their own impulses.  Additionally, the concept of being provocative is relative.  One person may be aroused by seeing bare shoulders while another remains completely unaffected.  If the line is to be drawn such that no one is remotely aroused ever, then should all people be required to wear large burlap cloaks or dress as Benedictine monks?

Of course, on the other hand, sexual harassment lines are already defined by the perception of the victim as opposed to the intent of the perpetrator.  An innocent pat on the back or a shoulder rub can be forms of sexual harassment if they are unwelcome.  The same can be said of lewd discussions, displaying racy images in the workplace, or the wearing of tight, revealing, and/or otherwise provocative clothing.  Individuals that create a hostile and/or uncomfortable work environment for coworkers are directed to alter their appearance, behavior, and/or speech to accommodate the well-being of others, and people generally understand that such laws and policies are appropriate.

The question then becomes this: at what point do these standards become inappropriate?  If a behavior is unwelcome or a lack of consent exists, does that make it wrong?

If consent is not important to defining what is acceptable, then by what standard are crimes such as rape condemned?

Certainly, the issue of modesty is difficult, if not impossible, to define explicitly.  At the ends of the spectrum, most people agree that exotic dancers may be dressing to be seductive, and nuns are dressing to cover themselves, but middle ground seems shifting.  What one believes is modest, another finds provocative.  One person can be distracted by something they find revealing while most others find it tasteful and appropriate.

To add to the confusion, individuals on both sides of the argument seem quick to use argumentative language.  In response to modesty, one side will use the term shaming.  This term calls into question the motives of those that are asking for sensitivity, which ironically, is a form of shaming.  On the other side, calling someone a slut for the way they dress is attempting to shame or guilt trip them for failing to conform to standards they may not understand or share.  Name calling and questioning the motives assumes the worst about others, and generates most of the unnecessary heat in these debates.

It should not be hard to understand that a person who did not intend to do anything wrong does not want to be made to feel as though they did.  It is absolutely hypocritical to be insensitive while trying to get someone else to be more sensitive.  It is also hypocritical to try to get someone to feel guilty for requesting sensitivity by accusing them of trying to make others feel guilty.

Ultimately, men, women, and children are better protected from complicated, expensive, and dangerous situations when sexual relations are kept between husband and wife.  All people have responsibilities with respect to this.  For women, it means being aware of how their appearance affects others.  For men, it means getting out of situations that might impair judgment or integrity.  For parents, it means protecting their children as possible from influences that might steer them toward irresponsibility. (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

Ideally, no one would become defensive or take these discussions personally, and the benefit of the doubt would be given.

If someone tells you that your cleavage is showing, is it possible that they are not intending to make you feel bad, but they are genuinely worried about the effect it has on others, or how it might affect you?  What is the right way to tell someone that their appearance is making you feel uncomfortable?

On the other hand, is it possible that a person wearing a tight outfit is unaware of how much of their body shape is visible?  Is it possible that a person is not wearing something to try and seduce all the men in the room?

In other words, be sensitive in how you dress and how you treat others.

Better Questions, Great Discussions

In the August 2013 issue of the Ensign, the LDS magazine, there was an article titled "Great Questions, Great Discussions" by Jack Lyon.

Normally, I do not get really excited about how-to sorts of articles, but the quality of teaching is a subject for which I have passion.  While some of the items that were discussed hit the nail on the head, others were disappointing or even incorrect.

From the article:
"“Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to.

“What is the most important principle of the gospel?” is also an ineffective question. No one knows the answer the teacher is looking for except the teacher, who is essentially saying, “Guess what I’m thinking.”"

While the first question is an excellent example of an ineffective question, I immediately had to take issue with the second example.  "What is the most important principle of the gospel?" is not an ineffective question... the way that the teacher handled the question, or the intent behind it was ineffective.

It would be completely appropriate for a teacher to ask students what they feel is the most important principle of the gospel, as long as they understood that a case can be made for many different principles.  It also becomes the responsibility of a teacher that uses these questions to ensure that discussion and the expression of opinion does not devolve into contention, and that student contributions should be valued as much as possible.  A student that answers with "faith" can probably present a strong case for so answering.  A good discussion on how vital faith is could ensue.  On the other hand, a student that answers "repentance" can present a very strong case for how important repentance is.  Neither one of the students needs to be wrong.

On the other hand, if a teacher is attempting to present a lesson of faith, they may want to restrict open ended questions to that subject.  A question can be effective in some cases and ineffective in others.

The article uses faith as the assigned topic as it suggests the following:
"If you want the class to have a discussion about something specific like faith, consider saying something like this: “Today we’ll be talking about faith, the first principle of the gospel.” Then ask a question about faith that doesn’t have a specific answer:

1. “What part has faith played in your life?”
2. “Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?”
3. “What are some ways we can increase our faith?”"

Unfortunately, only one out of the three suggestions is actually a good question.  Below is an analysis of each one.

1. "What part has faith played in your life?"

Asking what part faith has played in the lives of students is asking for one of the following:
    - the student that loves to pontificate going on about their lives
    - the student that begins weeping to the point that anything they say is unintelligible
    - the student that gives a valid example, followed by three other students that give similar examples
    - the student that uses redundant statements to make a thirty-second comment become a fifteen-minute ordeal

Personal experiences may be appropriate for a class... but if people making unprepared statements is superior to the material that the teacher is presenting after having prepared, the teacher needs to improve.  When personal stories become the backbone of the lesson, there is little gospel teaching that occurs.

2. "Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?"

This is actually an excellent question.  Encouraging thoughtful pondering about gospel topics is a fundamental responsibility of a gospel instructor.  Naturally, if the instructor has a preconceived "right" answer in mind, then the question becomes ineffective.

3. "What are some ways we can increase our faith?"

This is a terrible question.  Any question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" is a bad idea.  What are the odds that a student will hear an answer to this like "prayer can increase faith" and then think to themselves "Wow!  I had not previously considered that prayer might increase my faith.  This answer has completely changed my outlook on life, and I will always ensure that I pray every day from now till the end of time..."?  Not good.

Everyone attending a Gospel Doctrine class should have enough of an understanding of Gospel principles to know that reading scriptures, prayer, church attendance, and other "Sunday School" answers apply.  This type of question is just like the first "bad" example the author gave at the beginning: “Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to."


The article goes on to talk about the importance of using the scriptures.  This is spot-on:
"Although the manual should be used to prepare the lesson and is a great source of open-ended questions, the scriptures should remain the primary focus of our teaching and learning."

I would suggest this implies that the backbone of the lesson should never be personal experiences.  They can be present, but they are not a substitute for canon.

The article then discusses staying focused:
"There is a challenge in having a lot of classroom discussion: it’s easy for the discussion to get off track. It’s important that you prepare your lesson well so that you know where you want it to go and so that you’re ready, if necessary, to bring the class back to the main topic of discussion. Usually all you need to provide is a little guidance: “That’s interesting, but I think we’re a little off track. Let’s get back to our discussion of faith now.”"

While getting focus back is important, the statement that is suggested seems like it could be offensive... (and I am not one to shy away from abrasive statements).  Essentially it comes of as "what you said was irrelevant..."

Perhaps more effective would be to (as politely as possible) interrupt the student that is trailing off with a question that asks "so are you saying that..." and then say something that ties into your lesson.  If they confirm it, you can immediately move on having regained control.  If they indicate that was not their intention, ask them to explain (as politely as possible) how their comment relates to the subject.  It is possible that the student was saying something relevant, and that they may not have realized that others were missing a connection that they saw.

Additionally... always remember to thank students for contributions.

Finally, the article went back to discussing personal stories.  As I previously mentioned, there is a place for this, but it ought not be the core of any gospel doctrine lesson...  The heart of every lesson ought to be the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

After teaching the Nephites about faith, penitence, humility, baptism, and the Holy Ghost, he declared the following:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth." (3 Nephi 11:39-41, emphasis added)

Ultimately, the goal of a teacher is not to talk about their mission, their family, or the missions and families of their students... it is to reiterate the importance of Christian principles that have the power to make bad men good, and good men better.  Discussion about triviality or mediocre questions ought to give way to meaningful discussion about the power of Christ himself.  Though there are many topics that can occupy time for 45 minutes, discussions that bring classes closer to Jesus will continue to be important to those involved when the 45 minutes have expired.

You have more than five senses: don't let Aristotle limit your perception!

Greek philosopher Aristotle is widely credited with being the first to define the five senses by which humanity perceives the world.  The concept that the acquisition of knowledge is limited to sight, sound, odor, flavor, and touch is taught even today.  This concept appears at first to be logical as each of these senses seem to correspond well to an obvious sensory organ: eyes provide vision, ears provides hearing, noses reveal odors, tongues detect flavors, and skin detects the many varieties of touch.

Unfortunately, this list is far from complete.  Consider the sense of balance that most people possess.  Tiny canals in the inner ear help us determine whether we are upright or upside down.  These same canals also help provide humans with the ability to detect acceleration.

Additionally, pain is not only limited to things that touch our skin.  Certainly anyone who has experienced a headache, stomachache, or other internal ache realizes that their body is capable of slowing them down dramatically when it detects some problem.

Consider the ability of humans to know when their bodies require more food or water through hunger or thirst.  Anyone who has indulged at a buffet may also recognize the sensation of being full, particularly when they may have over-indulged.  We also are able to detect when our bodies are reaching their use limits through the sense of fatigue.  Additionally, expecting mothers are perhaps most familiar with food cravings that can help them obtain vitamins, minerals, and chemicals that they need.

Though no specific organ is associated with it, humans have the ability to determine the passage of time.  Though it may seem longer when waiting for water to boil or during an uninteresting meeting, even closed away from the light of the sun, people can have a general sense of time passing.

Current scientific understanding will likely discover additional ways that human bodies are able to perceive information about their surroundings and circumstances.  One sense that may not be detected so easily is the ability of humans to detect spiritual truth.

The sense that something is spiritually true is dismissed by some because there are diverse views on what is spiritually true.  Also, falsehoods have in some cases been peddled as truth using appeals to this sense.  That having been said, its use is well documented.

Consider the following conversation between Christ and his Apostles:

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)

Certainly Peter had seen miracles and evidences that contributed to his belief that Jesus was the Son of God, but Christ did not point to the use of his sight and observation as the source of his acquired knowledge.  He clearly stated that "flesh and blood" had not been the cause of his revelation, but his Father in heaven.  He further declared that the ability to obtain truth from our Father in heaven, or sense spiritual truth was the rock upon which his church would be built.

Consider the following from the disciples of Christ on the road to Emmaus:

" ¶And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:13-32)

The method by which these disciples recognized the identity of the man with whom they walked as the risen Lord was not sight, even though they saw him.  They had sensed spiritual truth as he spoke, and noted this with one another as they described how their "heart[s] burn[ed] within" them. 

The Apostle John declared at the beginning of his gospel how Christ was "the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9)

Additionally, Christ himself taught "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14)  Of course, the only way that he could be "known" by others is if they had some mechanism for recognizing who he was, just as Peter did.

Just as any other sense, there are limitations on our ability to discern spiritual truth.  Optical illusions trick our sense of sight into seeing something that may not be.  Spiritual illusions can fool people into trusting incorrect sources, or withholding trust from accurate sources.  The children of Israel famously decided it was in their best interest to create a golden calf while Moses communed with God on Sinai. (Exodus 32)  True prophets such as Jeremiah, Isaiah, and John the Baptist were killed by people who should have had spiritual sense to recognize them for who they truly were.

It is also important to note that like other senses, spiritual perception can be dulled.  A person that first encounters the odor of rotting flesh will be repulsed immediately, but if they spend long enough around it, the odor becomes far easier to tolerate to the point that it may not be noticeable.  The same thing is true of moral questions.  King David went from seeing a woman bathing to arranging the death of her husband to cover his sins over a period of time.  Additionally, senses that are not properly used, or are abused, will not be as missed when they are gone.  People who as youth listened to loud music too often may not be able to distinguish sounds when they are older.  People who intentionally ignore their spiritual senses are most likely to conclude later that they never had any to begin with.

There are those who might say that because spiritual sensitivity can lead people to different conclusions, it cannot be trusted.  Of course, if that is true, then the same should be true of all other senses, which also tend to lead people to different conclusions.  What inspires one observer of modern art to call a piece "moving" and "skillful" while another observer calls it "a heap of crap" and "something my kid could do blindfolded"?  What is it that inspires one listener to enjoy the rhythm of a song, and another to complain of its "repetitive noise"?  What causes one person to relish the flavor of a sushi roll, and another to spit it out in disgust?  What causes the masochist to enjoy pain while others perceive it so negatively?

Ultimately, everyone embraces an incorrect view or perspective from time to time.  The point of life is not to shut off your perception... A person is wiser when using all their senses to perceive the world around them.  It is also wise to question the motivation of individuals that would have others disregard or avoid perceptions of any particular sense or group of senses.

If you are new to exercising spiritual senses, or if you have not used them in some time, do not let discouragement prevent you from persisting.  Prayer and scripture study have aided people in developing their spiritual senses for thousands of years.  Humility, diligence, faith, and penitence are as vital to recognizing spiritual truths as opening the eyelids or unstopping the ears are to improving vision and hearing.

In the end, whatever conflicts or discrepancies may arise with various perceptions will be overcome, and we will all understand the truth.  "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)  Ultimately, we will all know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that his gospel offers solutions to every problem humanity faces.  The sooner we use our perceptions to see him, the sooner his power will help to save us all.

"...on my mission..." - why women should avoid using the mating call of 21 year old Mormon men...

Every young man in the LDS church knows there is an expectation... a commandment even... to prepare and serve a two-year mission.  Church leaders frequently explain how important it is to share the gospel with everyone, and how substantial the opportunities are for learning and gaining experience through missionary service.

In some areas, the importance of this service translated into grand and glorious farewells and homecomings to honor those that had given such service.  Such displays certainly contribute to generating interest in missionary service, but not always in positive ways.

Additionally, leaders of LDS young women frequently encourage the attitude that they ought to seek out a spouse that is a returned missionary.  Nearly every time a young woman in LDS meetings or activities described the qualities and accomplishments of their "ideal" husband, returned missionary was among them.

For all the difficulties that men may have when it comes to listening, this fact is known by all men that serve as missionaries.  When these young men return home, particularly those with limited dating abilities will fall back to this memory, and any conversation in which they participate will recall a story or experience from their mission that will allow them to spread the word that they are a returned missionary.

In some cases, these efforts can help make girls that would otherwise been unavailable open enough to present a dating opportunity.  In cases where the area is already saturated with returned missionaries, the value of completing such service, while still something, is substantially less valuable to women.

At some point after missionary service, whether successful or not in using the "on my mission" mating call, men tend to realize that the glorious return where people lined up to shake their hand is fleeting, and it is important to build new experiences and accomplishments in employment, education, and religious service, just like everyone else.

While young men are told in the form of a commandment that they should prepare and serve a mission, young women are offered this service opportunity as an option.  For some of these sisters, missionary service becomes appealing only when there are no imminent marriage prospects, while for others, it is appealing regardless.  Sisters from both of these categories can achieve success in missionary efforts.

When service concludes for sister missionaries, many of them seem to fall into the same pattern as returned Elders.  Every conversation and every comment they offer in church includes the male mating call "...on my mission..." along with some anecdote or experience.

Of course, almost no men have "returned missionary" on their list of required achievements and accomplishments when seeking a wife.  Additionally, since numerous men in the LDS church have served missions, they know that missionary service does not guarantee that a person is kind, honest, intelligent, or even that they have good communication skills.  Returned missionaries know that they themselves, regardless of their intentions, made numerous mistakes. 

Additionally, most men do not look for a woman that has a good resume or an impressive list of accomplishments.  They want someone that is attractive and will agree with them about things they will not compromise (such as religious truths, political views, whether it's ok to eat steak, and the belief that investing some time in the Legend of Zelda is a good thing).  Missionary experience does not make a woman more appealing.  If women intend it as a mating call of their own, it is a poor choice.

For some people, the phrase "...on my mission..." causes negative feelings.  Although missionary service is an option for women, those that persist in relating everything to an experience they had on their mission can cause women who made choices beside full-time missionary service to feel regret, guilt, or inferiority.  Particularly for women who were married and started families, there are already enough voices in society telling them that motherhood is not as valuable as careers or other accomplishments... Members of the church ought to avoid guilt tripping women for making correct choices.

Some might respond to this assertion by asking why it would be acceptable for men to talk about their missions and not women.  I suggest that men also need to temper the degree with which they use "...on my mission..."  Of course since there are so many LDS single women who are determined to marry a returned missionary, a single man may feel the need to communicate that they meet this requirement.  That having been said, people ought to see it for what it is: a mating call... and all mating calls are meant to be declarations of superiority.

In other words, a person that says "...on my mission, I [accomplished feat]..." is really saying "consider me to be a superior choice for romantic commitment because I [served a mission]..."  Even if the return missionary is female, anyone that frequently refers to their mission comes off as though they are claiming superiority to those who have not served a mission, regardless of whether or not they intend to.

Please do not misunderstand to think that the point of this article is to treat missionary service as a skeleton in the closet.  The experiences of missionary service can be remembered, enjoyed, and shared...  The point is that these experiences do not make a person superior to another who does not have them.  Many times, relating a story about an experience during missionary service can convey the desired point without pontificating about the fact that it may have occurred during missionary service.

Instead of "on my mission, I talked to a person who..." why not say "I once talked to a person who..."?  Is it necessary to announce to everyone (especially in an Elders Quorum or Relief Society meeting) that you served a mission?  And if you are married, who exactly are you trying to impress by touting your accomplishments?

Ultimately, almost every full time missionary comes to the conclusion that the decisions they made as a 19-21 year old may not always have been the right ones... and that while a full-time mission can offer tremendous opportunity to learn and improve... ultimately, we are all beggars before God (Mosiah 4:19). 

A mission should probably not be used as a trumpet announcing good deeds (Matthew 6:2)... and a person's good deeds should not be limited to a time when they served a full time mission.  In the end, no amount of accomplishment will hold a candle to the triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ over sin and death... and that is the accomplishment of which all Christians should be most anxious to share.

A land choice above all others...

Is the United States of America a Christian nation?

Many of the arguments regarding this question attempt to examine documents or quotations from the late 1700s… but I would like to draw from a much older source.

After the flood in the Old Testament, in a land called Shinar, people aspired to build a great tower that they hoped would let them ascend to heaven without having to live the laws of God.  The Lord confounded the languages of many of these people rendering them unable to communicate, but before the process was completed, a man named Jared and his brother pled that God not confound the language of their family.  Their faith pleased the Lord and he not only allowed them to keep their tongue, but offered to guide their people to a land of promise.  The journey ultimately brought them to the shores of the ancient sea.  There the God of the Old Testament revealed his identity as Jesus Christ, who would be born in the future and perform a great sacrifice to save all men.  He also spoke of the land to which they were being led.

“…but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people. And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:7-8) 

The land across the sea was the American continent.  Tragically, these Jaredites eventually abandoned the guidance of Christ and his prophets, and destroyed themselves in a civil war that had but one survivor… Just as had been promised, they had been swept off the land, and God guided another group of people seeking refuge from the wickedness of Zedekiah in Jerusalem to his land of promise.  Among these travelers was a prophet named Nephi.  He foresaw that in spite of his efforts to preach of the Messiah, his own people would eventually reject Jesus and be swept off the land, but he had hope that his efforts might be valued by those to whom Christ would lead to his promised land afterward: Christopher Columbus and other European colonists:

“And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land. And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.” (1 Nephi 13:12-13)

This ancient Christian prophet foretold the hand of God in aiding the American Revolution and establishing an independent nation:

“And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them. And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them. And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle. And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.” (1 Nephi 13:16-19)

The founding fathers were not just imagining divine providence, they were brought here and preserved by God himself.  The witness and warning of ancient Christians regarding this place echoes across time:

“…and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;” (Ether 13:2)

Perhaps it is not important to ask “is the United States of America a Christian nation?”  Christ is responsible for the existence of our nation, and as he has done with the land’s previous inhabitants, he has prospered us when we have put our trust in him.  As this is his promised land, a more prudent question might be “what can we do to make the United States of America a more Christian nation?”  Our knowledge and understanding has not advanced us so far as to make faith and penitence, charity and forgiveness, humility and diligence, or any of the teachings of Christ obsolete.  Adhering to these principles is the ultimate in patriotism.

For more information about the role of Jesus Christ on the American continent, visit http://mormon.org/beliefs/book-of-mormon

 

 

Music credit:  Destiny of the chosen – Immediate

 

Tolerating Unethical Behavior

John Dillinger was a depression-era gangster that robbed banks.  He had quite a number of successful heists before the BOI (precursor to the FBI) eventually tracked him down.  He was shot multiple times in a final escape attempt.

During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular.  There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown.  Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad.  Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.

Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber.  In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.

Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue.  Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level.  The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States.  In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars.  In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.

Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this.  For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States.  For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.

Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity.  There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.  Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.

The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality.  The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners.  While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.

There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision.  Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics.  Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical. 

I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits.  I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be.  I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured.  The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.

Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical.  The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:

John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child."  After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted.  He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity.  In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them.  The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported.  Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.

In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime. 
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.

Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point.  The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior.  The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."

In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].

Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.

Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.

The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.

Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness.  They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.

This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good.  Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes.  The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"

For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify.  Homosexual behavior is unethical.  Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it.  Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior. 

The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)

Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior.  That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Is the Bible authoritative?

Is the Bible authoritative?

The answer to this question depends on the branch of Christianity.

The original church that Christ established existed before the Bible, which meant that the word of God was not a single closed book.  This is not to say they did not value scripture.  Matthew’s gospel points out that many Old Testament passages are fulfilled by Christ, and Paul discusses the value of the law in his numerous epistles. 

Scripture was not the ultimate authoritative source of guidance for Christ’s original church; the Apostles were.  They had authority to be witnesses of Christ and his gospel to all the world, and through guidance they received in the form of visions and revelations, they established new doctrines that directly contradicted established scriptural practices such as the dietary law of Moses, circumcision, Sabbath day observance, and so forth, while maintaining the spirit of the laws contained in the scriptures.

The leadership of the Apostles worked well until they were all caught and/or killed.  The remaining bishops in the church tried to maintain Christianity, but over time they began to disagree.  Eventually, the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and prohibited persecution of Christians in 313. Later Theodosius made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire on 27 February 380.  The Bishop of Rome became known as the Pope, and from that time, the Papacy has claimed an unbroken line of authority that goes back to the Apostle Peter to whom Christ said “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

The majority of Christians seemed satisfied with the authority of the Pope, but eventually, concerns were expressed when their actions seemed inconsistent with Biblical teachings.  Specifically, Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to the door of the Castle church in Wittenburg protesting the sale of indulgences, which basically amounted to certificates of forgiveness for sins.  Eventually, the dispute between Luther and Pope Leo X resulted in Luther being excommunicated from the Catholic Church.  Luther openly rejected the authority of the Pope, and instead demanded that his actions be proven wrong based on scripture.

For the Protestant movement to have authority after breaking away from the formerly accepted unbroken line of leadership in Catholicism, it was necessary that something besides the Pope be the authoritative guide for Christianity.  To this day, the Bible is that authoritative source for defining faith for Protestants.

So, on the one hand, Catholic authority derives from Papal claims, and the Bible does not need to be authoritative.  On the other, Protestants must use it as the authoritative source of Christianity.  There is a third group that differs from these two.  They can be called restorationists and they believe in a literal restoration of Apostolic authority.

The largest of these groups is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  The story of their restoration begins with Joseph Smith.  Like Stephen in the New Testament, he saw God the Father and his son Jesus Christ.  Because the authority to lead the church had been lost with the Apostles, it needed to be restored at the hands of Apostles.  In 1829, Joseph Smith received this authority from Peter, James, and John.

The line of authority continues today with Apostles that stand as in the days of Jesus, guiding Christians with revealed truths.  Though restorationists teach that the Bible is the word of God, they follow the precedent in the Bible by proclaiming that God’s word is not a fixed or completed work, but that he guides us as he always has: through Apostles and Prophets.

For more information on restoration, see http://mormon.org/restoration.

Divorce: Portly English monarchs may be bad role models

Jesus was never afraid to say something bold or abrasive if it was important.  No doubt, this contributed to the astonishment people experienced when he taught the sermon on the mount. (Matthew 7:28-29)

Even today, many of the concepts he presented can seem difficult to accept.  Complete honesty (Matthew 5:33-37), morality in every thought (Matthew 5:28), abstinence from anger (Matthew 5:22), and total forgiveness (Matthew 5:38-45) are among the doctrines that Christ preached.  These ideals can take a lifetime of effort to achieve, and for some might even seem impossible.

Of course, not everything in these councils is completely literal.  Jesus is not actually suggesting removing one's hand or eye if it is offensive (Matthew 5:29-30).  When he declared "judge not that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), he was not suggesting that we make no decisions, or that we not participate in political elections to help elect the leadership we judge to be best.  He was not advocating that everyone would be better if they quit their employment and waited for God to feed, clothe, and house us as he does the lilies of the field or the fowls of the air. (Matthew 6:25-34)

Understanding which teachings are literal, rhetorical, or symbolic is a challenge in almost every book of scripture.  The changing societal views on issues influence interpretations and emphasis points in Christ's teachings.  This is particularly evident with Christ's teachings about divorce.

In the sermon on the mount, Jesus taught:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)

 

 Certainly, I have never met anyone that would argue that divorce is a positive experience, except perhaps attorneys that profit from them.  The sentiment of Jesus's teachings though are not just that divorce is bad, but that it is invalid.  Christ clearly blames the man that puts away his wife as forcing her into an adulterous situation.  He also accuses a man that marries a divorced woman of committing adultery.

This is not a singular teaching either.  Christ taught again:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:3-9)

These teachings are undoubtedly tied to the premise held by many Christians that marriage is sacred.  The concept that divorce might be acceptable under Christianity may have been derived from Henry VIII of England's "need" to get a divorce.  The "Defender of the Faith" was quick to cast his faith aside when it suited him.  Since this time, the practice has become more and more widespread, even to the point that many believe marriage is just a legal status rather than an institution of sanctity... a more formal form of "boyfriend and girlfriend" that can be terminated by either party at any time on a whim.

While the condemnation of divorce is clear, it is important to highlight that Christ did include an exception in his statement about divorce: "saving for the cause of fornication."  This obviously implies that there are instances where divorce may be not only be acceptable, but perhaps the right course of action.

It should not be surprising that infidelity is condemned... particularly when Jesus taught that marriage represents something that "God hath joined together", a violation of the marriage commitment definitely constitutes man putting it asunder.  I would suggest that situations where abuse of spouse or offspring have occurred are also breaches in the marriage covenant, and for the safety of the victims, divorce may be necessary.

In such cases when an individual has betrayed their marriage vows, and divorce has been the result... do Christ's teachings indicate that such individuals should not re-marry?  I do not believe that this is the intent of the phrase "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."  I believe that such teachings are directed at those who legally remove themselves from their marriage commitments over trivial circumstances or "irreconcilable differences."

A disagreement, lack of excitement, different life goals, or similar excuses are not likely to be acceptable to God as reasons to cast marriage aside.  This is particularly true of Christians who have committed to be humble, merciful, forgiving, and selfless as a part of their commitment to Christ himself.

Certainly any one of us are guilty of being foolish at times.  Every one of us have likely at some point acted petty, cruel, selfish, jealous, spiteful, or in some way done something to deserve being put away... but Christ personally suffered unspeakable torture and pain for each of us anyway.  In fact, regardless of our problems or mistakes (the very cause of his torture), he continually and selflessly offers forgiveness to us.

A person that cannot bend to offer love and respect to the person they swore they would in the covenant of marriage cannot expect love and respect from God... and a person that sets at naught their most sacred relationships for trivialities should not expect God to invest in forming relationships with them.

Frequently and tragically, the effects of divorce extend beyond the separating couple... particularly when there are children involved.  Remember the teaching of Jesus regarding children:
"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:3-6)

From the teachings of modern prophets:
"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity... We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." (http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng)

Of course there are circumstances such as death or disability that may require special attention.  These circumstances ought to be the exception and not the rule however.  As much as possible, we have a responsibility to ensure that children receive care under a father and mother who honor their vows completely.  Casting aside a spouse for anything but the most serious offenses constitutes a violation of the rights of children.  Even in the best circumstances divorce can cause harm to come to the little ones... in other words, children are hurt by the very parents on whom they should be able to depend for protection.

Ultimately, marriage was never intended to be trivial.  The sanctity of this institution is not lessened by the indulgence of society's "tolerance" for selfish practices.  Particularly among Christians who believe in the sanctity of marriage, it is vital that we practice what we preach.  While we have a responsibility to be kind and loving to all of God's children, there is no relationship more important in which to prove our Christianity than that between husband and wife.

My mom is awesome!

I remember when I was attending elementary school that one of the least enjoyable parts was the use of the school bus.  While there were some bus drivers that were friendly and did their best to make the experience safe and enjoyable, there was one in particular (who was assigned to the route that I used) who seemed irritated with the inconvenience of ferrying children to and from school.  I never once saw them smile, and when they spoke, it was laced with condescension.

I was in the unfortunate position of being one of a small number that got off at a certain stop.  Of that number, I was the only one that crossed the street.  Of course, normally this required the driver to exit the bus and hold a stop sign up to assist the student in crossing, but my six-year-old heart was not brave enough to confront the disagreeable driver and request this service.  Instead, I developed what seemed at the time to be a brilliant solution that would allow me to get home without having to face the scary bus driver.  I would get off the bus and feign as though I was following the other children who went down the opposite way, without crossing.  Then, when the bus was gone, I would cross the street myself.

This method worked for a couple months, and it seemed to be a great solution... however, one day, the angry driver shouted to me as we approached my stop.  She told me that she had seen me crossing the street, and that she could get in trouble for that.  She told me I should ride to the next stop and cross the street there, where she was already getting off the bus.  Of course I was horrified that my technique had been discovered.  (Only later I realized that this bus driver was not as observant as I had initially believed, since she had neglected using her mirrors for two months.)  At any rate, I did as I was told.

When I arrived at home, my mom immediately noticed that I was upset.  I did not divulge the details of the event, but gave a general complaint about the bus driver.

After some time, I decided it would be a great idea to return to my previous method, as it would allow me to return home much quicker than going all the way to the next stop and backtracking.  Except, in a hurry to get home, I went behind the bus and ran across the road.  The bus driver noticed me and shouted something in an angry tone.  Though I do not know what she had yelled, I felt ashamed and guilty, and ran home.  My mom calmed me down enough to learn that her six-year-old son had been expected to go to another stop to cross for the convenience of the driver.  I saw a fire in her eyes that I have never forgotten.  She stormed out the door and ran down the street, where the bus was stopped to allow other children to cross.  I have no idea what my mom said to her, but every day for the remainder of the year, the bus driver got out of her seat, grabbed her stop sign, and walked me across the street without speaking another word to me.

There was never any doubt that my mom loved me.  She repeatedly went to bat for my siblings and I whenever we needed.  She volunteered in our classes, she encouraged us in pursuing musical talent, she supported us in athletic competitions.  She exemplified a woman determined not to outsource the nurture of her children to anyone else, regardless of the opportunity costs for pursuing her own entertainment or enjoyment.

She was not the type of mother that sought personal recognition by earning scout awards for her boys...  in fact, she remained loving and supportive even when her boys discovered how much they disliked such programs.  If she was disappointed in how I neglected developing skills on the piano or the trumpet, she did not express it in any way that made me feel less valued.

In hindsight, it was as though my mom had confidence in us and our potential beyond what we were.  It was as though she knew that we would turn out alright in spite of our flaws.  As I grew older, and struggled with self-doubt and discouragement, the confidence of my mother proved to be extremely valuable.  That is not to say that I have become a billionaire whose philanthropic efforts have saved millions of lives... but I have a beautiful wife and wonderful children, and the traditions and values that my mom worked tirelessly to pass on to me have been invaluable to our family... and though I have probably not always done the things she might have preferred, her kindness has been constant.

Though my mom has not always been a resource for evaluating calculus problems, balancing chemical equations, or analyzing the logic of computer code, no amount of help in these areas can replace what she has been to me.  Thinking of her reminds me of the sentiment of the Apostle Paul... "...whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" but charity never faileth.  (1 Corinthians 13)

I am certain I am not alone among those expressing appreciation for their mothers, particularly on Mother's Day... but it is my hope that we might be more appreciative of the women that work tirelessly to forge each building block in society... surely these heroes should not remain "unsung".