Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 31 - When not to turn the other cheek

This week in the Come Follow Me curriculum, we wrap up the book of Acts.  Paul doesn't turn the other cheek, but defends himself, and witnesses of Jesus in all circumstances.  Study with me!

SoundCloud:

https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-31-when-not-to-turn-the-other-cheek

Youtube:

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.

Be an American, not a troll...

The political debate in the United States has heated up as election day has approached.  Every record not protected by law has been examined.  Popular figures have thrown their support behind one candidate or another, and plead for Americans to do the same.  Every idle word has fallen under scrutiny, and even the amount of scrutiny given has fallen under scrutiny.

People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates.  Some of these posts are civil.  Some less so.

Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.

Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best.  At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.

Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy.  They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create.  To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.

The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do.  Many people avoid politics altogether as a result.  Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens.  Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.

There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack.  This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally.  Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally.  A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney."  On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."

The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate.  While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races.  "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.

Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings.  People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them.  Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.

To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before.  Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement.  Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions.  Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions.  The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America."  The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans.  Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been.  It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.

The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll?  The following list explores solutions:

• Be informed.  Nasty political advertisements are not effective against people who have already looked at the issues and come to their own conclusions.  They target the uninformed.  This leads into the next point which is...
• Choose reliable sources of information.  There is no such thing as an unbiased source, since no source presents all of the information.  The decisions regarding what to report and what to ignore are always based on the opinions of editors (and others) as to what is important or what will bring the most viewing.
• Don't get offended.  This is of course easier said than done.  Try to avoid sources of information that use images and language that will bother you.  Unsubscribe to the posts of some of your Facebook friends.  Stop following celebrities on Twitter.  Of course, eventually you will find something that offends you.  Resist the urge to immediately post something in rebuttal.  Evaluate whether pursuing a dialog is for the purpose of informing or rebuking can prevent pointless debates.  This leads into the next point which is...
• Avoid pointless debates.  If you have already made up your mind and cannot be persuaded, talking to someone else who has made up their mind and cannot be persuaded probably wastes time.  Debates are only helpful for weighing two opposing views.  If you talk to someone who is unsure, being persuasive is perfectly fine.  Being a little abrasive might even be ok, depending on the people involved and assuming that arguments presented are founded in facts and honest beliefs rather than clever fallacies.
• Prioritize your principles.  Do you know what things you would be willing to compromise?  Do you have ideals from which you cannot withdraw support?  Candidates and platforms include so many issues, and it is possible that opposing parties might have some elements that are appealing.  Those that most firmly support what is most important to you should have support.  For Christians, the most important principles must be religious.  Saving mankind by embracing good and denouncing evil is more important than saving whales.  For environmental purists, saving whales is far more important than other economic or governmental concerns.  Choices between platforms become easier when you know what is most important to you.
• Be consistent.  Another way this point might be phrased is to examine your beliefs to see if there are any problems.  This does not mean to go read everything from people that disagree with you and hate you...  It also does not mean that if you find an inconsistency, you should throw out your principles immediately.  Is there a better argument to support something that you believe in your heart?  Are the arguments to believe something else more compelling?  Everyone is guilty of some hypocrisy, but the effort to keep it to a minimum is a good thing.

In the end, most people are good.  For conservatives read 'tax-and-spend, anti-war, tree-huggers can be good people.'  For liberals read 'Christian, right-wing, Bible-thumping, hicks can be good people.' 

The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did).  The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us.  Be an American, not a troll.