Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-049
Youtube:
Showing posts with label #love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #love. Show all posts
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 49 - God is Love, but not that kind of love
Our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to 1-3 John and Jude. We discuss the importance of confession, of an unction, and how God is love. Study with me!
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-049
Youtube:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-049
Youtube:
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Satire: Let's talk about Children in the LDS Church
<Satire>
By Dr. Julie Hanks
Previously, I posted about women in the LDS church on Facebook. I opened by reminding everyone that my views are often misrepresented as men vs. women. I then thoroughly refuted that by contrasting how we look at men vs. how we look at women. Fortunately, most of my followers were able to ignore the thick envy that guided my post... so I decided to make a followup post about children in the LDS church along the same lines.
First off, (in case you were wondering) I'm still going to avoid referring to the church by its official name, while reminding you to be sensitive to the language you use... because, President Nelson was only a heart surgeon; I'm the therapist!
Second, I notice that there are few children represented in General Conference talks. In fact, it is incredibly rare to see anyone younger than 30 speak. Is it because of our subconscious hatred of children? You might not think so, but yes, it definitely is.
I also have noticed how few children are in decision making councils in the church. Sure, leaders say they love children, but unless you let some one make all policy decisions for you, do you actually love them?
Along the same lines, I want to encourage church leaders to do more of what I want... because that's the sign of a church led by God.
As a church, we can do more! We can do better! Because while members of the church try to follow Christ and his Apostles today, together, we can inspire them to follow social media influencers instead. (Remember to like and share this post!)
</Satire>
By Dr. Julie Hanks
Previously, I posted about women in the LDS church on Facebook. I opened by reminding everyone that my views are often misrepresented as men vs. women. I then thoroughly refuted that by contrasting how we look at men vs. how we look at women. Fortunately, most of my followers were able to ignore the thick envy that guided my post... so I decided to make a followup post about children in the LDS church along the same lines.
First off, (in case you were wondering) I'm still going to avoid referring to the church by its official name, while reminding you to be sensitive to the language you use... because, President Nelson was only a heart surgeon; I'm the therapist!
Second, I notice that there are few children represented in General Conference talks. In fact, it is incredibly rare to see anyone younger than 30 speak. Is it because of our subconscious hatred of children? You might not think so, but yes, it definitely is.
I also have noticed how few children are in decision making councils in the church. Sure, leaders say they love children, but unless you let some one make all policy decisions for you, do you actually love them?
Along the same lines, I want to encourage church leaders to do more of what I want... because that's the sign of a church led by God.
As a church, we can do more! We can do better! Because while members of the church try to follow Christ and his Apostles today, together, we can inspire them to follow social media influencers instead. (Remember to like and share this post!)
</Satire>
Thursday, August 22, 2019
Satire: Heartwarming - Lonely man who turned against his church finds genuine connection with porn video
<Satire>
Evan was about twenty years old when he decided to turn his back on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He said that it was really hard to leave an organization that invested heavily in his growth and development including fun activities including delicious meals, camping excursions, spiritual instruction, and leaders that volunteered their own time and resources to help him.
"I was really lonely after I told them that I refused to be brainwashed into their cult," explains Evan. "I've gone through a lot of depression, and sometimes, it seemed like I couldn't drink enough to dull the pain..."
That's when a miracle happened for Evan. He found a new porn video on his computer!
"Yeah, it's totally different than the ones I was watching last week!" exclaims Evan. "I feel a real connection to the star, even though I don't know her real name, or anything about her life, and there's no chance of actually meeting her, let alone having a conversation with her."
Evan explained that, unlike the stars of the other videos, he is actually in love... and with so much anger, aggression, and apathy on social media, it's nice to see genuine affection for a change!
</Satire>
Evan was about twenty years old when he decided to turn his back on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He said that it was really hard to leave an organization that invested heavily in his growth and development including fun activities including delicious meals, camping excursions, spiritual instruction, and leaders that volunteered their own time and resources to help him.
"I was really lonely after I told them that I refused to be brainwashed into their cult," explains Evan. "I've gone through a lot of depression, and sometimes, it seemed like I couldn't drink enough to dull the pain..."
That's when a miracle happened for Evan. He found a new porn video on his computer!
"Yeah, it's totally different than the ones I was watching last week!" exclaims Evan. "I feel a real connection to the star, even though I don't know her real name, or anything about her life, and there's no chance of actually meeting her, let alone having a conversation with her."
Evan explained that, unlike the stars of the other videos, he is actually in love... and with so much anger, aggression, and apathy on social media, it's nice to see genuine affection for a change!
</Satire>
Sunday, June 2, 2019
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 023 - Clarity about Love, Unity, and the Spirit of God
This week, the Come Follow Me material brings us to John 13-17. We focus on the topics of Love through service, Unity in the Godhead and the church, and The Holy Ghost. Study with me!
Soundcloud:
Youtube:
Monday, May 6, 2019
Satire: Point Counter-Point on how to treat people who disagree with us
<Satire>
Point: We should be tolerant of people who disagree with us (Perspective presented by Bishop Moss, an ecclesiastical leader and progressive social media activist)
Not everyone has the same preferences, opinions, or orientations... And that's OK.
I was talking to a guy who uses an anonymous account on twitter, which is understandable because of his unpopular stance... You see, he is a practicing homosexual.
Certainly, this type of activity goes against everything that my faith, that the prophets, that the apostles, that the scriptures, and that Jesus himself taught regarding marriage. In spite of this, I feel compelled to speak up in defense of this individual. His feelings are important, and he is a real person, in spite of the way he hides behind a clever alternative nickname and smiling picture on social media.
Jesus said to love our neighbors, so doesn't this count?
What's important is that we embrace the things that make us different than us, because we are all children of God, and we can all try harder to be like him.
Even those who don't share my faith should feel loved and welcomed for who they are, for as long as they seek to associate with me. And even if they reject every teaching of my church, I can't imagine not forgiving them or wishing them anything but happiness.
Counter-Point: We should relentlessly attack people who disagree with us (Another perspective presented by Bishop Moss, the same guy who gave the point)
Not everyone has the same preferences, opinions, or orientations... And that's NOT OK.
I was talking to a guy who uses an anonymous account on twitter, which is inexcusable because of his unpopular stance... You see, he thinks that it's OK to be modest.
Certainly this type of activity is in line with everything that my faith, that the prophets, that the apostles, that the scriptures, and that Jesus himself taught regarding how we should present ourselves. In spite of this, I feel compelled to speak up and mercilessly and repeatedly berate and condemn this individual. His feelings don't matter, because he's not even a real person; he's using a dumb fake name stupid Lego figure picture on social media.
Jesus said to love our neighbors, but he's not very neighborly, so he doesn't count.
What's important is that we ridicule anyone who has views that are different than progressives, because even though we are all children of God, some of us are more like him than others.
Even those who share my faith should be exposed and humiliated for who they are, for as long as they seek to promote principles that I like to ignore. And even if they apologize for defending legitimate teachings of my church, I can't imagine forgiving them or wishing them anything but hellfire.
</Satire>
Point: We should be tolerant of people who disagree with us (Perspective presented by Bishop Moss, an ecclesiastical leader and progressive social media activist)
Not everyone has the same preferences, opinions, or orientations... And that's OK.
I was talking to a guy who uses an anonymous account on twitter, which is understandable because of his unpopular stance... You see, he is a practicing homosexual.
Certainly, this type of activity goes against everything that my faith, that the prophets, that the apostles, that the scriptures, and that Jesus himself taught regarding marriage. In spite of this, I feel compelled to speak up in defense of this individual. His feelings are important, and he is a real person, in spite of the way he hides behind a clever alternative nickname and smiling picture on social media.
Jesus said to love our neighbors, so doesn't this count?
What's important is that we embrace the things that make us different than us, because we are all children of God, and we can all try harder to be like him.
Even those who don't share my faith should feel loved and welcomed for who they are, for as long as they seek to associate with me. And even if they reject every teaching of my church, I can't imagine not forgiving them or wishing them anything but happiness.
Counter-Point: We should relentlessly attack people who disagree with us (Another perspective presented by Bishop Moss, the same guy who gave the point)
Not everyone has the same preferences, opinions, or orientations... And that's NOT OK.
I was talking to a guy who uses an anonymous account on twitter, which is inexcusable because of his unpopular stance... You see, he thinks that it's OK to be modest.
Certainly this type of activity is in line with everything that my faith, that the prophets, that the apostles, that the scriptures, and that Jesus himself taught regarding how we should present ourselves. In spite of this, I feel compelled to speak up and mercilessly and repeatedly berate and condemn this individual. His feelings don't matter, because he's not even a real person; he's using a dumb fake name stupid Lego figure picture on social media.
Jesus said to love our neighbors, but he's not very neighborly, so he doesn't count.
What's important is that we ridicule anyone who has views that are different than progressives, because even though we are all children of God, some of us are more like him than others.
Even those who share my faith should be exposed and humiliated for who they are, for as long as they seek to promote principles that I like to ignore. And even if they apologize for defending legitimate teachings of my church, I can't imagine forgiving them or wishing them anything but hellfire.
</Satire>
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Satire: If you truly love someone... an open letter to a woman who claims to follow Jesus
<Satire>
Dear Controlling "Christian" Woman,
We need to talk about how to treat other people... especially people who you claim to love... because it's not the way Jesus would treat them...
Can you not tell how destructive it is when you push your standards and morals on others? We've seen how you force people to attend your worship service even though they don't want to; and if that's not enough you force them to wear "Sunday best" clothing while forcing them to stay quiet during the sacrament that they might not even understand or believe! Unacceptable!
We all see the look of judgment and frustration on your face when you see a girl take something at the store... but what if she's starving? And who are you to tell that girl that the outfit she wants to wear is "inappropriate" because it's "revealing"? Why is it your business!?!
I thought members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believed in agency, but you obviously have no problems stripping it away from others so that you can maintain your absolute authority. And not only that, but while ruling with an iron fist over others with your oppressive requirements, you have the gall to tell these people that you love them!
If you truly love someone else, you can't control them. You have to let them make their own choices. Sometimes you might not agree with those choices, but you have to let them be themselves.
Jesus didn't force people to do what he wanted... he just loved people! He taught that we shouldn't judge!
And I know that you think you've got good excuses for all these examples... the boys you force to church are your own children ages 4 and 6, and that you can "love" your children and still demand good behavior... Or that the girl who's taking things is your 3-year-old who doesn't know any better, and that the outfit she wanted to wear wasn't the inappropriate thing, it was that she was taking off her clothes in the middle of Wal-Mart to try it on that was "too revealing."
Let me tell you something though... just because they're too young to make independent choices about everything or understand the consequences of their decisions doesn't give you the right to push your morals on them! They have the right to do whatever they want! And if you truly loved them, you would let them be themselves!
I realize this may be hard to hear... but I'm publicly shaming and manipulating you in this letter to try and control your behavior because I care about you and love you!
So please change everything about your life that doesn't conform to our progressive vision.
Love,
Jessie
President of the Orem Oracion Association
</Satire>
Dear Controlling "Christian" Woman,
We need to talk about how to treat other people... especially people who you claim to love... because it's not the way Jesus would treat them...
Can you not tell how destructive it is when you push your standards and morals on others? We've seen how you force people to attend your worship service even though they don't want to; and if that's not enough you force them to wear "Sunday best" clothing while forcing them to stay quiet during the sacrament that they might not even understand or believe! Unacceptable!
We all see the look of judgment and frustration on your face when you see a girl take something at the store... but what if she's starving? And who are you to tell that girl that the outfit she wants to wear is "inappropriate" because it's "revealing"? Why is it your business!?!
I thought members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believed in agency, but you obviously have no problems stripping it away from others so that you can maintain your absolute authority. And not only that, but while ruling with an iron fist over others with your oppressive requirements, you have the gall to tell these people that you love them!
If you truly love someone else, you can't control them. You have to let them make their own choices. Sometimes you might not agree with those choices, but you have to let them be themselves.
Jesus didn't force people to do what he wanted... he just loved people! He taught that we shouldn't judge!
And I know that you think you've got good excuses for all these examples... the boys you force to church are your own children ages 4 and 6, and that you can "love" your children and still demand good behavior... Or that the girl who's taking things is your 3-year-old who doesn't know any better, and that the outfit she wanted to wear wasn't the inappropriate thing, it was that she was taking off her clothes in the middle of Wal-Mart to try it on that was "too revealing."
Let me tell you something though... just because they're too young to make independent choices about everything or understand the consequences of their decisions doesn't give you the right to push your morals on them! They have the right to do whatever they want! And if you truly loved them, you would let them be themselves!
I realize this may be hard to hear... but I'm publicly shaming and manipulating you in this letter to try and control your behavior because I care about you and love you!
So please change everything about your life that doesn't conform to our progressive vision.
Love,
Jessie
President of the Orem Oracion Association
</Satire>
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 13 - When Jesus deliberately pushed people away
This week, on the Ward Preacher Podcast:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-13-when-jesus-deliberately-pushed-people-away
Youtube:
- Why Jesus dismissed a pleading woman as a dog
- Why Jesus can judge us
- Jesus deliberately pushes people away by preaching they should eat his flesh and drink his blood
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-13-when-jesus-deliberately-pushed-people-away
Youtube:
Monday, June 12, 2017
Hating Hate and Hypocrisy
I recently came across an article that condemned the mantra "love the sinner, hate the sin." There were several compelling reasons behind the main idea. Here are some of the highlights
- Jesus never said it, instead he said "love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:39)
- Loving the sinner has a condescending tone that implies superiority of self over "sinner"
- It is difficult for many people to separate sin from sinner... allowing hatred to fester and spread
Each of these reasons has some legitimacy.
Jesus taught that anger with someone else led to great danger (Matthew 5:21-24). He personally showed great compassion to individuals that were condemned as sinners (Luke 19:1-10, John 8:1-11). He frequently preached the importance of mercy, forgiveness, and kindness.
Jesus taught humility. Consider the account of the prayers of the Pharisee and the Publican in Luke 18:10-14. The Pharisee prided himself above the Publican because of his greater diligence in keeping the law of Moses. In spite of this, the humble prayer of the Publican "God be merciful to me a sinner" brought justification to the sinner and not the Pharisee. As Jesus taught: "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 14:11)
Human nature tends to lead people to do ill. Undoubtedly, this contributes to Jesus's analogy of the camel going through the eye of a needle (Matthew 19:24), or encouraging his disciples to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow him (Matthew 16:24).
I certainly do not wish to take away from the value of these ideas. I do, however, want to point out the problem with this type of thinking. Consider the following hypothetical dialog:
Person 1: We should stop with the "love the sinner, hate the sin."
Person 2: Why?
Person 1: Jesus never said it, instead he said love thy neighbor.
Person 2: He also said "My house shall be called a house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves" as he threw sinners out of the temple.
Person 1: Yes, but he loved them!
Person 2: But perhaps not their sins?
Person 1: Well, calling people sinners implies superiority. You should let God judge!
Person 2: So you're saying that calling people sinners is a sin? And that people who do it are sinners?
Person 1: No! I'm saying that we're not supposed be hateful! I'm saying that if you allow hate in your heart for sin, how can you say there is no hate in your heart for those who sin? We're supposed to love!
Person 2: So it's wrong to hate the idea "love the sinner, hate the sin." Right?
Person 1: I don't hate it, I just want it to stop.
Person 2: Because it is sin?
Person 1: No, because it's hate!
Person 2: And hate isn't a sin?
Person 1: No, it is...
Person 2: Just a sin that bothers you more than other sins?
Person 1: Well, when you put it like that...
There exists a group of people who pride themselves on their refusal to judge... except for those they feel are judgmental. They pride themselves on loving their neighbor, unless they believe their neighbor doesn't love other neighbors the right way.
The hypocrisy of condemning Pharisee-like adherence to a moral code based on behavior because it does not conform to a different Pharisee-like adherence to a moral code based on tolerance should be obvious. In spite of this, I am still surprised by people who do the equivalent of point their finger at someone and shout "You're judgmental, and that makes you bad!"
Calling for an end to "love the sinner, hate the sin" seems to be a well-meaning plea, but it is misguided. Though there is great value in loving neighbor as self... the first and great commandment is to love God. The best way to do this is to keep his commandments. Jesus was very clear about this in all of his teachings, but perhaps no where more than in his admonition "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15) When an individual has failed to keep a commandment, repentance is necessary. (Matthew 4:17) While a person who has sinned is still worthy of love, respect, and mercy, the counsel of Christ to the woman caught in adultery is applicable to all: "...go, and sin no more."
While there may not be any single method that is universally helpful in persuading individuals to make better decisions, and it is true that there are some methods that are counter-productive, there is nothing wrong with seeing sin for what it is. It is OK to say that murder is wrong. It is OK to say that a person should honor their marriage vows. It is OK to say that theft is criminal. It is even OK to say a person should not be judgmental. In doing so, it is possible that you are "loving the sinner and hating the sin"... but that is OK too.
Loving the sinner and hating the sin is most beneficial if done introspectively. This is exactly what Paul was expressing in Romans 7 as he declared "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." (Romans 7:15) Recognizing the need for improvement... recognizing the seriousness of sinful behavior... this can be good if it leads a person to God.
Even when done in the context of helping another, it can be useful. This is what Christ implied with his parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son. (Luke 15)
Certainly there is a degree of hypocrisy that a person acquires when they suggest that other people might need to do better (since the same is true for everyone). Still, Jesus inspires missionaries, apostles, and prophets to encourage people to change and improve. (Matthew 28:19-20) As much as some may hate the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin," it is a perfectly appropriate way of thinking about the responsibility of Christians everywhere, not just to love their neighbor, but to understand that both they and their neighbors need Christ.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
What Type of Marriage Discrimination Will Gay Marriage Advocates Continue To Support?
I have seen many rainbow picture profiles on Facebook and many "love wins" sentiments after the 5-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in which they used the 14th amendment to discover a "right to marry." There are numerous legal reasons why this move represents a dangerous precedent, and how wrong it is for justices to find "implied rights" are more important that explicitly stated rights (such as in the 10th amendment). For those that have interest in the legal side of this (or those who claim that defense of traditional marriage is indefensible), reading the dissents of the four justices who did not support this finding is illuminating.
I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad. I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.
It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage. In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:
I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad. I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.
It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage. In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:
- That I "probably don't have a lot of gay friends"
- That I have a phobia of homosexuals
- That I am a bigot
- That I am hateful
- That I don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That I might be gay myself if I am "threatened"
- That I am fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That I am encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That I am being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
The list is not comprehensive, but it never ceases to amaze me how many accusations are made about any person who believes in traditional marriage.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to be married, the question I have for gay marriage advocates is whether they plan to extend these rights to everyone. (This is a rhetorical question, I don't want you to tell me about it, I want you to actually open your mind to the consequences of "love" "winning.")
Take for example the polygamous group. (Now before you say that this is a straw man argument, and no one is advocating for it, read this article) So if seven people decide that they are in "love", how can a person say that they should be denied the right to marry? Obviously not because we adhere to a standard of traditional marriage. If you are opposed to polygamy, let me suggest the following reasons:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of polygamous friends"
- That you have a phobia of polygamists
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have polygamous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the biological brother and sister that have fallen in love, but that the state will not issue a marriage license because they are related. If marriage is a right, then who are you to say that being related should deprive a person of this right? If you still disagree that incestuous relationships should be able to have legal recognition in the form of marriage, may I suggest the following reasons that you believe this:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of incestuous friends"
- That you have a phobia of incest
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have incestuous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the man that has fallen in love with his pet dog. They would like to make their love officially recognized in the form of marriage. Who are you to say that the dog doesn't love its owner. I have spoken to many vegetarians who insist that animals have all the same feelings that humans have, and that the most important of those feelings is love. Who are you to say that this type of relationship is "not natural." For thousands of years the majority of civilization believed the exact same thing about homosexuality (and many still do.) Just because Leviticus 18:23 says "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion" doesn't mean anything. After all, the Bible also forbids eating pork or women speaking in church, so you can't accept everything in the Bible... right? Certainly this form of "love" may not be traditional, but the man has a right to be married, and if you try to discriminate against the form of his love, it can only be because:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of animal-loving friends"
- That you have a phobia of human-animal relationships
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have bestiality desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the forty-year-old man that has fallen in love with a twelve-year-old boy. The boy says that he is happy with the man, and who are you to say their relationship is taboo? Of course, the boy may not be an adult, to which traditional marriage relationships typically are limited, but tradition is not the basis for love anymore, right? It's only love. Nothing else matters, right? And who are you to say that the boy is not capable of being in love? If young people are not capable of love, then are you advocating banning relationships in high school between students who are under the age of eighteen? No more "cutest couple" in the year book, right? Your "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" is not allowed. There are no gay teens, right, since they are too young to understand or participate in sexual activities, right? Or perhaps you truly believe that "love" should win? Perhaps the pedophile is just another "non-traditional" relationship that has been negatively stereotyped by society. No? Then perhaps you say this because:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of pedophile friends"
- That you have a phobia of pedophilia
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have pedophilia desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
If you are a gay marriage advocate, you may be tempted to let me know about how these ideas are totally different than those of gay marriage. You may be tempted to shout "slippery slope" or "no one is going to advocate that" or "straw man" or whatever else makes you feel better about the fact that you believe (as I do) that there should be some discrimination in who we permit to marry. Please, before you begin sending me messages about how awful a human being I am... consider for just a moment that perhaps gay marriage advocates are not so very different from the traditionalists, cake bakers, and people of faith that many of them tend to demonize.
If the reasons for why you might be opposed to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and other unnatural relationships are not accurately represented by the bullet point lists... then consider for a moment the possibility that the reason I am opposed to homosexual marriage may not be accurately represented by these things either.
Additionally, if you have thrown "traditional marriage" out the window as a valid reason to discriminate against other unorthodox types of unions, consider for a moment the actual reasons that you are opposed to them. Examine why you believe that some types of unions are not good, and should not be condoned by society.
It is my earnest hope that perhaps, in the moment when you struggle to define why it is OK to discriminate against some marriages, that you will see that advocates of traditional marriage are not the demons they are painted to be.
Monday, June 3, 2013
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
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".
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".
Monday, October 15, 2012
Is God a Tyrannical Dictator?
For anyone that has followed this blog for any degree of time, it should be evident that I love to emphasize the power of God over the love of God.
I have often felt that throughout Christianity, and even in my own church, God is portrayed like a feel-good pill rather than a King. Of course this is not always the case, and Christians from many sects will from time to time express their confidence in God's abilities instead of only his compassion, but discussion of God seems unbalanced in favor of kindness.
When Christians study and invest only in the one attribute, it is easy for them to be surprised, shocked, or even shaken when their beliefs are challenged; especially so when attacks are derived from sources they accept and treasure such as the Bible. Being confronted with a version of God that kills every man woman child and beast except for those in the protection of Noah's ark seems to portray God as a cruel murderer that made a mistake.
God spoke through the prophet Samuel to King Saul giving him a cruel directive: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3) When Saul spared Agag, the King of the Amalekites, and also took animals alive, the Lord said to Samuel: "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments." (1 Samuel 15:11) After being reproved by the prophet of God, Saul sought forgiveness of the Lord. Samuel did not respond with the compassion one might expect from one speaking on behalf of a merciful God: "thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:26) Additionally, the prophet made the situation right in the eyes of God when he personally killed Agag. (1 Samuel 15:33) How can God be so loving if he ordered his people to enact genocide on a people?
There are those in the world of Christianity that dismiss these things as "old testament" even to the point of imagining that there was a "God of the old testament" in ancient times that was different from Christ in the new testament. Of course, those that embrace these excuses may be challenged as well. Ananias and Sapphira were members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the stewardship of the early Apostles. At that time, Christians gave all of their possessions to the Apostles, and were given back according to their needs. This husband and wife claimed to the Apostles that they were giving all of the money they had received from a portion of land, but in truth, they conspired to lie about the amount and keep some of the money themselves. As a reward, they were stuck dead by God. (Acts 5:1-11)
There exist Christians that are shocked and surprised when they learn these things exist in the Bible. If they know only the mercy and compassion of God that is so emphasized in contemporary Christianity, then they may even question their faith.
Indeed, it is easy to portray our Heavenly Father as a Heavenly tyrant. He sits on his throne in the high heavens and commands people to do as he says or be condemned to the torment of hell. To those who would worship him and have no other God before him, he promises rich rewards of mansions in his kingdom. He imposes his definition of good and evil on all individuals, regardless of their culture, understanding, or upbringing.
How do Christians deal with the cruel and jealous version of God portrayed in the holy scriptures?
The worst technique is to ignore it. Pretending that the flood in the ancient world, the plagues of Egypt, or the violent invasion and conquests in Israel were symbolic of something is foolish. Doubting them, or claiming that these things are "fulfilled" because Christ gave a new law provides grounds for dismissing large sections of valid scripture, and perhaps leading to selective Christianity or new-age Christianity where Jesus is not the authoritative son of God, but simply a good philosopher.
Another incorrect technique is to swing the pendulum too far the other way. I do, as all Christians should, maintain that God is never wrong. When he sent the flood or slew the Amalekites or sent famines and diseases and curses, he was right to do so. He made the correct decision. This does not mean that we may derive authority to make a posse and slay the wicked in the name of God, as may have been practiced in the dark ages.
The approach to finding the answer is important. When confronted by uncomfortable facts about God, a bad strategy is to pray to God demanding that he explain himself. If he is truly the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then he does not owe anyone an an explanation. In fact, he has gone to a lot of effort to put humanity in a situation where the eternal consequences to decisions do not occur immediately. He has invested in the creation of an environment to prove the faith of individuals. That means that not answering such demands is in his interest. The frequent emphasis on faith throughout the scriptures is not just a good idea, it is fundamental to accomplishing God's plan for humanity.
Those who insist that God "prove himself" can use the following two step process to uncover the proof they seek:
1. Wait
2. If God has not revealed himself, repeat step 1.
In the end, God will appear, and every knee will bow before him. It is just a lot better to accept him before this happens. Those that persist in demanding proof 'right now' will either not receive it, or they will receive it and it will be unpleasant so as to remind others that patience is in fact a virtue. (Jacob 7, Alma 30)
That having been said, there is a faith-based approach for recognizing the benevolence of God. In fact, I submit that this is a fundamental reason that there exists a Godhead. Almost all Christianity believes in some form of the trinity, and regardless of the interpretation, the following statements should ring true:
1. We know that God the Father is good because of the goodness of his son Jesus Christ. (John 14:6-7)
2. We know that the accounts of Christ's goodness and power in the Bible are accurate because of the witness of the Holy Ghost. (John 14:26)
While this may not seem to specifically address the examples that seemed to portray God as cruel and unforgiving, this approach does something more important. The witness of the Holy Ghost establishes something beyond the reading comprehension that is generally available by opening the scriptures; this is a mechanism for personal interaction with God. Knowing who God is personally allows an individual to make their own judgement about his character, and according to Christ, it is the definition of eternal life. (John 17:3)
It is one thing for me to point to the compassion of Christ as he fed 5000 people in Galilee and say he is kind. (John 6:1-13) It is another when I describe the peace he has given me when I plead for help with my doubts, questions, and mistakes. Frequently using prayer, scripture study, and worship in a diligent effort to find God is a slow path. It is strait and narrow. As Lehi saw in vision, those that walk it can be confused by clouds of darkness, or the attacks of those in spacious buildings. (1 Nephi 8) Ultimately, those that press forward with faith that God will answer them will find the truth. They will find the love of God.
While this may not be an enumerated list of explanations regarding all the dealings God has had with men from the days of Adam, it will provide confidence in the truth that God is never wrong. Not only is he real, but he is omniscient, omnipotent, and his influence is omnipresent. Those that press forward in faithful effort to know God do more than escape the damnation of hell, or earn the rewards of heaven... they become new.
This is the fundamental purpose of Christianity: the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Sometimes helping a person become better requires letting bad things happen to them. Sometimes it requires that they get sick, or that they lose a loved one. Sometimes it requires wars and conquests, and other times it requires peace and quiet. Sometimes it requires famines and starvation, and other times it requires feasting and plenty.
Though God uses various means at various times with various people, and though sometimes it may not make sense, or even seem incorrect, those that know God have confidence that he is not a tyrannical dictator. He is a benevolent father... and he has a plan to save us all.
I have often felt that throughout Christianity, and even in my own church, God is portrayed like a feel-good pill rather than a King. Of course this is not always the case, and Christians from many sects will from time to time express their confidence in God's abilities instead of only his compassion, but discussion of God seems unbalanced in favor of kindness.
When Christians study and invest only in the one attribute, it is easy for them to be surprised, shocked, or even shaken when their beliefs are challenged; especially so when attacks are derived from sources they accept and treasure such as the Bible. Being confronted with a version of God that kills every man woman child and beast except for those in the protection of Noah's ark seems to portray God as a cruel murderer that made a mistake.
God spoke through the prophet Samuel to King Saul giving him a cruel directive: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3) When Saul spared Agag, the King of the Amalekites, and also took animals alive, the Lord said to Samuel: "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments." (1 Samuel 15:11) After being reproved by the prophet of God, Saul sought forgiveness of the Lord. Samuel did not respond with the compassion one might expect from one speaking on behalf of a merciful God: "thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:26) Additionally, the prophet made the situation right in the eyes of God when he personally killed Agag. (1 Samuel 15:33) How can God be so loving if he ordered his people to enact genocide on a people?
There are those in the world of Christianity that dismiss these things as "old testament" even to the point of imagining that there was a "God of the old testament" in ancient times that was different from Christ in the new testament. Of course, those that embrace these excuses may be challenged as well. Ananias and Sapphira were members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the stewardship of the early Apostles. At that time, Christians gave all of their possessions to the Apostles, and were given back according to their needs. This husband and wife claimed to the Apostles that they were giving all of the money they had received from a portion of land, but in truth, they conspired to lie about the amount and keep some of the money themselves. As a reward, they were stuck dead by God. (Acts 5:1-11)
There exist Christians that are shocked and surprised when they learn these things exist in the Bible. If they know only the mercy and compassion of God that is so emphasized in contemporary Christianity, then they may even question their faith.
Indeed, it is easy to portray our Heavenly Father as a Heavenly tyrant. He sits on his throne in the high heavens and commands people to do as he says or be condemned to the torment of hell. To those who would worship him and have no other God before him, he promises rich rewards of mansions in his kingdom. He imposes his definition of good and evil on all individuals, regardless of their culture, understanding, or upbringing.
How do Christians deal with the cruel and jealous version of God portrayed in the holy scriptures?
The worst technique is to ignore it. Pretending that the flood in the ancient world, the plagues of Egypt, or the violent invasion and conquests in Israel were symbolic of something is foolish. Doubting them, or claiming that these things are "fulfilled" because Christ gave a new law provides grounds for dismissing large sections of valid scripture, and perhaps leading to selective Christianity or new-age Christianity where Jesus is not the authoritative son of God, but simply a good philosopher.
Another incorrect technique is to swing the pendulum too far the other way. I do, as all Christians should, maintain that God is never wrong. When he sent the flood or slew the Amalekites or sent famines and diseases and curses, he was right to do so. He made the correct decision. This does not mean that we may derive authority to make a posse and slay the wicked in the name of God, as may have been practiced in the dark ages.
The approach to finding the answer is important. When confronted by uncomfortable facts about God, a bad strategy is to pray to God demanding that he explain himself. If he is truly the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then he does not owe anyone an an explanation. In fact, he has gone to a lot of effort to put humanity in a situation where the eternal consequences to decisions do not occur immediately. He has invested in the creation of an environment to prove the faith of individuals. That means that not answering such demands is in his interest. The frequent emphasis on faith throughout the scriptures is not just a good idea, it is fundamental to accomplishing God's plan for humanity.
Those who insist that God "prove himself" can use the following two step process to uncover the proof they seek:
1. Wait
2. If God has not revealed himself, repeat step 1.
In the end, God will appear, and every knee will bow before him. It is just a lot better to accept him before this happens. Those that persist in demanding proof 'right now' will either not receive it, or they will receive it and it will be unpleasant so as to remind others that patience is in fact a virtue. (Jacob 7, Alma 30)
That having been said, there is a faith-based approach for recognizing the benevolence of God. In fact, I submit that this is a fundamental reason that there exists a Godhead. Almost all Christianity believes in some form of the trinity, and regardless of the interpretation, the following statements should ring true:
1. We know that God the Father is good because of the goodness of his son Jesus Christ. (John 14:6-7)
2. We know that the accounts of Christ's goodness and power in the Bible are accurate because of the witness of the Holy Ghost. (John 14:26)
While this may not seem to specifically address the examples that seemed to portray God as cruel and unforgiving, this approach does something more important. The witness of the Holy Ghost establishes something beyond the reading comprehension that is generally available by opening the scriptures; this is a mechanism for personal interaction with God. Knowing who God is personally allows an individual to make their own judgement about his character, and according to Christ, it is the definition of eternal life. (John 17:3)
It is one thing for me to point to the compassion of Christ as he fed 5000 people in Galilee and say he is kind. (John 6:1-13) It is another when I describe the peace he has given me when I plead for help with my doubts, questions, and mistakes. Frequently using prayer, scripture study, and worship in a diligent effort to find God is a slow path. It is strait and narrow. As Lehi saw in vision, those that walk it can be confused by clouds of darkness, or the attacks of those in spacious buildings. (1 Nephi 8) Ultimately, those that press forward with faith that God will answer them will find the truth. They will find the love of God.
While this may not be an enumerated list of explanations regarding all the dealings God has had with men from the days of Adam, it will provide confidence in the truth that God is never wrong. Not only is he real, but he is omniscient, omnipotent, and his influence is omnipresent. Those that press forward in faithful effort to know God do more than escape the damnation of hell, or earn the rewards of heaven... they become new.
This is the fundamental purpose of Christianity: the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Sometimes helping a person become better requires letting bad things happen to them. Sometimes it requires that they get sick, or that they lose a loved one. Sometimes it requires wars and conquests, and other times it requires peace and quiet. Sometimes it requires famines and starvation, and other times it requires feasting and plenty.
Though God uses various means at various times with various people, and though sometimes it may not make sense, or even seem incorrect, those that know God have confidence that he is not a tyrannical dictator. He is a benevolent father... and he has a plan to save us all.
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy
For those unfamiliar with the concept of a ward, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the church is divided into large areas. Each area is typically divided into Stakes (the term coming from the prophet Isaiah describing Zion as a tent held down by stakes). (Isaiah 54:2) Each Stake is typically divided into wards, which are congregation-sized units that meet together each Sunday. While there are other types of units where large congregations are not possible, the ward is the basic unit of official church organization.
Most wards consist of families and geographic boundaries. Singles wards are special units of organization that do not typically have only single young adult membership. Since one of the most fundamental teachings of the Mormon church involves eternal marriage and family relationships, in many areas, these special wards provide unique opportunities to meet other singles in addition to the typical ecclesiastical functions found in all wards. In other words, the church promotes, endorses, and attempts to facilitate marriages.
The principles of marriage are emphasized more in some wards than others. The reason for this is the natural sensitivity that many singles have to the subject. Few people are opposed to the idea of romantic involvement, but many singles feel that they will not have the opportunity to be married. When rejections and failures begin to accumulate, encouragement from leaders to date more frequently feels like salt being rubbed into a wound. Well-meaning individuals try to persuade singles to attempt to initiate relationships, but frequently do little more than remind singles that they are lonely.
I was personally in that situation. Being a scrawny nerdy kid in high school, I was not successful in wooing girls for whom I felt affection. Repeated failure made me feel like I had overestimated my value, especially when my friends appeared to be successful in their attempts. I decided to try and bury the nagging feeling of low self-worth by focusing on representing something larger than myself. I served a mission. When I returned home, I felt like I had a much better chance at finding a significant other. I became involved in a singles ward, which was filled with people who were a little older. Many of these people were very nice, and I enjoyed friendships, however, any time I conjured the courage to ask a girl out, it ended in rejection.
Eventually, I moved to wards where the average age was closer to my own, but the pattern of asking a girl out and having her want to be "just friends" and then finding out that "just friends" meant "keep away from me you freak" was taxing. I spent time on my knees begging God to help me in my efforts to not be alone. It seemed like something that God should have helped me with if his church focused so much on eternal families.
The nearly constant reminders of my single status from being surrounded by happy couples at work, at school, at church, and even at home when my roommates brought their girlfriends over was painful. Having some married high councilor come in to priesthood meeting and tell me that girls were upset that men were not asking them out on dates was completely inconsistent with my experience. I concluded that they might want some men to ask them out, but not me.
Trying to improve my dating techniques was an effort in which I improved from being dismally bad to just really bad. I was completely unable to "be myself", as so many people had advised me, when I was desperately worried about not coming off as too "needy." The number of failures I had experienced made it all the more difficult to summon courage to ask girls out... and when I finally did, I was a nervous wreck. The encouragement of friends and peers was negated by dates that ended without a hug, a handshake, a high-five, or even a "have a nice night." Attempts to try again were always met with impossibly difficult scheduling issues and other excuses.
It did not take long before I realized what was happening. These girls were filling their social obligation of agreeing to a first date... the "courtesy date." I never really had any chance with them, but they would allow me to think that I did... at least temporarily. The dishonesty required in these social interactions was upsetting, and it caused me to question my worth altogether. Was I really loved for who I was? After all, my parents and family had to love me because I was family. They had not chosen me based on my merits. I wondered if God felt the same way. I did not feel particularly talented or useful to him. I felt worthless.
Struggling with feelings of depression led me to vow that I would stop the practice of dating which had brought me to that condition. It was by no means a unique thing to take a break from dating to allow one's heart to heal, but I was determined that I would be done with it. I imagined what it would be like to be away from all the happy couples and the beautiful girls whose very presence taunted me. I concluded that if I had lived in the middle ages, I would have joined the Benedictine order and found quiet, humble purpose in prayer and simple work in monastic life. The concept of the monk who never had his value reduced by the rejection of women was quite appealing.
Ultimately, these thoughts became the basis for the creation of something I called "The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy." Over time, I began criticizing the dishonesty involved in the dating process more openly. Some of my friends and relatives that were feeling bad because of rejection (both male and female) would temporarily join the brotherhood. Somewhere in the snacks, the laughter, and the video games, I discovered something that had eluded me... happiness. Suddenly, it no longer mattered that I was alone, because I was voluntarily swearing off dating.
Of course, even I, the Holy Brother, was not perfectly immune to the influence of beautiful girls, particularly those that I determined might have something in common with me, but my departures from the comfort of the Brotherhood grew less frequent, and each rejection reinforced my view that dating had been invented by a liar or an idiot.
To the dismay of several of my church leaders, I began openly denouncing dating and date-promoting activities. I preached the "blessed doctrine of celibacy" to others, knowing that I was not alone in my frustrations. Many men were frustrated when girls would say things like "I would love to go out with you" when they really meant "I would tolerate you purchasing food and entertainment for me." To my surprise, a number of girls became very angry with me. They would tell me that I was fighting against the doctrine of the church because people had to date to get married, and marriage was ordained of God. Of course such simple arguments were easily refuted by pointing out examples like Isaac and Rebecca, whose marriage was not founded on dating and dishonesty. If scriptural points were insufficient, I could always silence them by asking them out. Of course, none of them wanted me to stop preaching celibacy because they had interest in me.
The disdain and frustration of some became a badge of honor. With pride and vigor I would greet people by labeling them "friends of celibacy." Some of my talented roommates worked with me to create a short film, "The Ascension of the Holy Brother" which humorously portrayed me being rejected and finding happiness in the acceptance of celibacy. People loved it.
It was not in one instant, but over the course of my notorious stent as the Holy Brother of Celibacy, I realized that this was more than just a façade. The Holy Brotherhood represented my efforts to reject rejection itself. In public speaking and bold declarations, I felt strength. It no longer mattered as much that women saw a sniveling, scrawny, nerdy, half-wit in a dating situation, because they were not seeing my strength. The self-esteem that I had so willingly given to girls only to have it trampled upon had been moved so it was mostly out of their reach.
Somewhere as this realization came, I began hanging out with the beautiful woman that would become my wife. There was no dating. There were no mind-games. There was no dishonesty. I did not feel like I had to sell the idea that I was fun, interesting, or desirable. In hanging out, not dating, we fell in love, made plans, and got married.
The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy is no longer a daily subject of preaching. I do not greet people as friends of celibacy anymore. My wife and I have a wonderful family. As important as my marriage and children are to me, and as much as I believe that God himself has blessed me to be with them, their presence is not the reason I believe that God loves me. The realization of God's love came when I rejected a system that emphasized my weaknesses and discovered my strengths. The assessments of girls I attempted to woo were far less important. The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy represented a concentrated effort to be happy as a single, and while it did not remove the sting of loneliness completely, it helped me to put it in context.
I still believe that dating is not necessarily the answer to being single. I believe that there are many people that are not able to be themselves, let alone be their best, in a dating environment. My heart is filled with empathy for people in these situations. Although I am no longer single, I still feel a bit of contempt for those that oversimplify or underestimate the problems with being single. I understand the bitter bitter taste of loneliness, and the pain of heart-break and disappointment.
For those in this situation, I encourage membership in the Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy. Of course, there is no official organization, and membership does not require any special ceremony. It means to actively seek out situations where you can play to your strengths. Where possible, cut down on involvement in situations where you are not able to be yourself or act freely and honestly. Stop doubting that God loves you, and search for the gifts he has given you.
It may be difficult to immediately see how not helping you to find a spouse is a manifestation of God's love, but in the end, it will all become clear. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) In the end, we will see his hand has been miraculously helping and guiding us all along, and in the end, he will save those that believe in him, even when it is difficult.
Most wards consist of families and geographic boundaries. Singles wards are special units of organization that do not typically have only single young adult membership. Since one of the most fundamental teachings of the Mormon church involves eternal marriage and family relationships, in many areas, these special wards provide unique opportunities to meet other singles in addition to the typical ecclesiastical functions found in all wards. In other words, the church promotes, endorses, and attempts to facilitate marriages.
The principles of marriage are emphasized more in some wards than others. The reason for this is the natural sensitivity that many singles have to the subject. Few people are opposed to the idea of romantic involvement, but many singles feel that they will not have the opportunity to be married. When rejections and failures begin to accumulate, encouragement from leaders to date more frequently feels like salt being rubbed into a wound. Well-meaning individuals try to persuade singles to attempt to initiate relationships, but frequently do little more than remind singles that they are lonely.
I was personally in that situation. Being a scrawny nerdy kid in high school, I was not successful in wooing girls for whom I felt affection. Repeated failure made me feel like I had overestimated my value, especially when my friends appeared to be successful in their attempts. I decided to try and bury the nagging feeling of low self-worth by focusing on representing something larger than myself. I served a mission. When I returned home, I felt like I had a much better chance at finding a significant other. I became involved in a singles ward, which was filled with people who were a little older. Many of these people were very nice, and I enjoyed friendships, however, any time I conjured the courage to ask a girl out, it ended in rejection.
Eventually, I moved to wards where the average age was closer to my own, but the pattern of asking a girl out and having her want to be "just friends" and then finding out that "just friends" meant "keep away from me you freak" was taxing. I spent time on my knees begging God to help me in my efforts to not be alone. It seemed like something that God should have helped me with if his church focused so much on eternal families.
The nearly constant reminders of my single status from being surrounded by happy couples at work, at school, at church, and even at home when my roommates brought their girlfriends over was painful. Having some married high councilor come in to priesthood meeting and tell me that girls were upset that men were not asking them out on dates was completely inconsistent with my experience. I concluded that they might want some men to ask them out, but not me.
Trying to improve my dating techniques was an effort in which I improved from being dismally bad to just really bad. I was completely unable to "be myself", as so many people had advised me, when I was desperately worried about not coming off as too "needy." The number of failures I had experienced made it all the more difficult to summon courage to ask girls out... and when I finally did, I was a nervous wreck. The encouragement of friends and peers was negated by dates that ended without a hug, a handshake, a high-five, or even a "have a nice night." Attempts to try again were always met with impossibly difficult scheduling issues and other excuses.
It did not take long before I realized what was happening. These girls were filling their social obligation of agreeing to a first date... the "courtesy date." I never really had any chance with them, but they would allow me to think that I did... at least temporarily. The dishonesty required in these social interactions was upsetting, and it caused me to question my worth altogether. Was I really loved for who I was? After all, my parents and family had to love me because I was family. They had not chosen me based on my merits. I wondered if God felt the same way. I did not feel particularly talented or useful to him. I felt worthless.
Struggling with feelings of depression led me to vow that I would stop the practice of dating which had brought me to that condition. It was by no means a unique thing to take a break from dating to allow one's heart to heal, but I was determined that I would be done with it. I imagined what it would be like to be away from all the happy couples and the beautiful girls whose very presence taunted me. I concluded that if I had lived in the middle ages, I would have joined the Benedictine order and found quiet, humble purpose in prayer and simple work in monastic life. The concept of the monk who never had his value reduced by the rejection of women was quite appealing.
Ultimately, these thoughts became the basis for the creation of something I called "The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy." Over time, I began criticizing the dishonesty involved in the dating process more openly. Some of my friends and relatives that were feeling bad because of rejection (both male and female) would temporarily join the brotherhood. Somewhere in the snacks, the laughter, and the video games, I discovered something that had eluded me... happiness. Suddenly, it no longer mattered that I was alone, because I was voluntarily swearing off dating.
Of course, even I, the Holy Brother, was not perfectly immune to the influence of beautiful girls, particularly those that I determined might have something in common with me, but my departures from the comfort of the Brotherhood grew less frequent, and each rejection reinforced my view that dating had been invented by a liar or an idiot.
To the dismay of several of my church leaders, I began openly denouncing dating and date-promoting activities. I preached the "blessed doctrine of celibacy" to others, knowing that I was not alone in my frustrations. Many men were frustrated when girls would say things like "I would love to go out with you" when they really meant "I would tolerate you purchasing food and entertainment for me." To my surprise, a number of girls became very angry with me. They would tell me that I was fighting against the doctrine of the church because people had to date to get married, and marriage was ordained of God. Of course such simple arguments were easily refuted by pointing out examples like Isaac and Rebecca, whose marriage was not founded on dating and dishonesty. If scriptural points were insufficient, I could always silence them by asking them out. Of course, none of them wanted me to stop preaching celibacy because they had interest in me.
The disdain and frustration of some became a badge of honor. With pride and vigor I would greet people by labeling them "friends of celibacy." Some of my talented roommates worked with me to create a short film, "The Ascension of the Holy Brother" which humorously portrayed me being rejected and finding happiness in the acceptance of celibacy. People loved it.
It was not in one instant, but over the course of my notorious stent as the Holy Brother of Celibacy, I realized that this was more than just a façade. The Holy Brotherhood represented my efforts to reject rejection itself. In public speaking and bold declarations, I felt strength. It no longer mattered as much that women saw a sniveling, scrawny, nerdy, half-wit in a dating situation, because they were not seeing my strength. The self-esteem that I had so willingly given to girls only to have it trampled upon had been moved so it was mostly out of their reach.
Somewhere as this realization came, I began hanging out with the beautiful woman that would become my wife. There was no dating. There were no mind-games. There was no dishonesty. I did not feel like I had to sell the idea that I was fun, interesting, or desirable. In hanging out, not dating, we fell in love, made plans, and got married.
The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy is no longer a daily subject of preaching. I do not greet people as friends of celibacy anymore. My wife and I have a wonderful family. As important as my marriage and children are to me, and as much as I believe that God himself has blessed me to be with them, their presence is not the reason I believe that God loves me. The realization of God's love came when I rejected a system that emphasized my weaknesses and discovered my strengths. The assessments of girls I attempted to woo were far less important. The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy represented a concentrated effort to be happy as a single, and while it did not remove the sting of loneliness completely, it helped me to put it in context.
I still believe that dating is not necessarily the answer to being single. I believe that there are many people that are not able to be themselves, let alone be their best, in a dating environment. My heart is filled with empathy for people in these situations. Although I am no longer single, I still feel a bit of contempt for those that oversimplify or underestimate the problems with being single. I understand the bitter bitter taste of loneliness, and the pain of heart-break and disappointment.
For those in this situation, I encourage membership in the Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy. Of course, there is no official organization, and membership does not require any special ceremony. It means to actively seek out situations where you can play to your strengths. Where possible, cut down on involvement in situations where you are not able to be yourself or act freely and honestly. Stop doubting that God loves you, and search for the gifts he has given you.
It may be difficult to immediately see how not helping you to find a spouse is a manifestation of God's love, but in the end, it will all become clear. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) In the end, we will see his hand has been miraculously helping and guiding us all along, and in the end, he will save those that believe in him, even when it is difficult.
Monday, August 27, 2012
God loves homosexuals, but he also loves racists
"Hate the sin but love the sinner."
This phrase seems to be increasing in popularity. Nowhere is it more popular than in debates about homosexuality. The phrase is among the more tame used to tell those that believe homosexuality is sinful that they should be more accepting of its practitioners. In less tame debates, those that condemn the practice are called "homophobic," "bigoted," "hateful," or some other unsavory name.
In more civil conversations, those that are more defensive of the homosexual position will use the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase persuasively. Particularly when they themselves are Christian and they seem to apply this principal in practice. Those that do not believe in God or in the concept of sin are far less persuasive.
The phrase is typically used to convey a sense of understanding. Those that defend homosexuality imply that they are aware of the concerns of those that view it as sinful. Those that argue against homosexuality are in a difficult situation when the phrase is used because it is true that God hates sins, but loves those that commit them. Jesus Christ himself was not afraid to mingle with those that had gone astray, although it brought disdain from the Pharisees and others of his contemporaries. To reject this argument would be to reject Christ.
The problem with this phrase is credibility. It is not difficult to tell people that they should be more accepting of a group you have already accepted. It is currently politically correct and in many circles socially acceptable to practice homosexual behavior. Defending a popular and politically correct point of view does not make those of us who embrace a more traditional view think that we are understood.
Exactly how do you hate the sin but love the sinner? Is not practicing it oneself enough? Is speaking out against the sin appropriate? If so, how does one speak out against a sin in a loving manner? How can a person express love toward an individual that embraces or perhaps even identifies themselves by their practice of something abhorrent?
Rather than tackle the homosexuality debate, I would like to discuss the difficulty of the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase by applying it do something that is not politically correct or popular: racism.
God hates racism, but loves racists. By extension, you should hate racism, but love racists.
Racism is perhaps the most politically incorrect ideal that a person can have. In fact, by writing this post, I have probably precluded myself from a political career. That having been said, I have known racist people that I would consider to be good people, certainly as much as those defending homosexuality can think of examples of good people that are gay.
I also believe that racism is a label that is frequently assigned to ideas that are not actually racist. Racism is not synonymous with prejudice. I have a bit of experience with this.
In high school, I was a scrawny-built geeky kid. As such, I occasionally feared that I would be victimized by bullying. I recall spending extra time to avoid areas where I knew certain Hispanic students gathered. It was not the fact they were Hispanic that bothered me, it was the culture of particular groups that seemed to embrace brawling that was distasteful. I also avoided the Caucasian jock culture or the Caucasian punk-rocker culture that seemed to embrace similar practices.
I definitely pre-judged these groups. It is possible that the members of these cultures in high school might have treated me with respect and dignity in spite of my social ineptitudes and lanky build, but I was afraid to take that chance. My prejudice was not based on race, it was based on culture. In fact, I had friends that were Hispanic, black, and Asian with whom I got along well. They were typically the less popular and more studious types to whom I could better relate, and by whom I felt less threatened.
True racism is a prejudice based on no other characteristic other than race.
During my high school years in southern California, a controversial proposition appeared on the state ballot that dealt with preventing illegal aliens from obtaining health and education benefits. There were a large number of Hispanics that came to school with their faces painted or wearing shirts that had the no symbol over the proposition number, 187. Many of them decried the measure as racist. Rumors spread even to less social circles such as my own that there would be an attempt by those in opposition to the measure to walk out of school. During my PE class, I recall seeing a series of automobiles drive past the school brandishing large Mexican flags and shouting at us. Since I did not speak Spanish, I did not understand many of the things that were shouted, but I do recall one. I was standing next to a black boy and several Hispanics when I heard a passenger in one of these cars shout "F___ you white boy! F___ you n_____! Viva Mexico!!"
I found it ironic that they were out protesting a measure they considered racist, but had no problems judging myself or using the n-word to refer to the black boy in my class. That having been said, it was not difficult for me to dismiss this behavior. While I knew such racism was wrong, I did not feel compelled to shout back a suggestion that they not yell demeaning slurs regarding the race of others. Perhaps because I was afraid that such action would subject me to some retaliation after school, and perhaps I believed that the measure would likely fail anyway. In the end, proposition 187 passed, but was later declared unconstitutional. The very next year in high school, most students had forgotten about it life returned to normal.
I recall another instance of racially motivated violence at my high school between a black boy and a Hispanic boy. There were many expletives and slurs used before the two brawled, but the tamer among them involved the black boy telling the Hispanic boy to "go back to his country" and the Hispanic boy replying that the black boy should "go back to Africa." I did not have any desire to interfere in the conflict.
While the behavior in the previous examples is genuinely racist, the more socially detestable forms of racism are those that are held by whites against minorities. I know of individuals that have harbored such feelings.
I recall a conversation with an individual that believed he had been robbed by a group of Hispanics. The one experience had caused him to view all Hispanics as thieves. He told me that he did not want to be racist, but that they "made" him racist. Even though I was young at the time, I knew that it was probably an unfair generalization to make. I was certain that my Hispanic friends did not participate in theft, and seemed to be good religious people. I also knew the man that confessed his racist feelings to me was also a good man that selflessly helped others. Should I have shouted "racist" at the top of my lungs and never spoken to him again? Should I have tried to quote the Book of Mormon where it says "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile"? (2 Nephi 26:33) I did nothing.
Outside my rather mild anecdotal sources, there are more serious accounts of racism. There exist people that believe crimes against certain people are justifiable because of their race. There are those who do not wish to have others in their neighborhood because of their ethnicity. There are those that ridicule, humiliate, and abuse others for no reason but their skin color.
It is easy and politically correct to see the harm that can exist when race becomes a criteria for judging someone. That having been said, I believe that God loves racists. God loves people that do awful things. God cares about the well being of those that abuse others. God truly hates the sin, but loves the sinner. With respect to a sin that is nearly universally despised, who will stand up and tell people that they ought to love racists? Who will tell people that decry racism that they should be more loving and kind toward the KKK or neo-Nazis?
What about the people that have racist beliefs that feel they cannot help it? What about the people that feel others made them racist? You and I may believe it is a choice, but perhaps those that have racist feelings genuinely do not. It could even be argued that racism is a naturally occurring feeling that has existed in many civilizations throughout recorded history, just as there are those that make claims about the natural existence of homosexuality.
In the end, these arguments do not matter, because racism is wrong. Modern prophets have been clear regarding the position of Mormons and racism: "The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church)
The ultimate question is how to hate the sin but love the sinner. The type of sin is not important to this principal.
Are those that stand up in defense of homosexuality in the name of loving the sinner as eager to stand and defend those that commit sins they recognize as wrong? Or are those that oppose homosexuality really being asked to hate the sin but love the sinner as long as the sin is trendy and/or politically correct?
If you do not believe that racism is a sin, then substitute racism for some other practice that you believe is sinful. How do you show Christian love and fellowship to someone while simultaneously denouncing the sins they embrace?
There is no perfect answer to the question. Even God uses different approaches with different people. Consider the following:
Perhaps there are cases when people ought to condemn that which is wrong boldly. Perhaps there are other cases when avoiding conflict is preferable. The constants however must be maintained.
In no case are we to begin hating the sinner. God said "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10) He also said "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." (Matthew 5:7)
In no case are we to begin loving the sin. Alma taught "for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." (Alma 45:16) Jesus himself said "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23)
In the end, there was only one who did not have a problem with loving sin and hating sinners. Everyone else can benefit from the advise to hate the sin and love the sinner.
This phrase seems to be increasing in popularity. Nowhere is it more popular than in debates about homosexuality. The phrase is among the more tame used to tell those that believe homosexuality is sinful that they should be more accepting of its practitioners. In less tame debates, those that condemn the practice are called "homophobic," "bigoted," "hateful," or some other unsavory name.
In more civil conversations, those that are more defensive of the homosexual position will use the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase persuasively. Particularly when they themselves are Christian and they seem to apply this principal in practice. Those that do not believe in God or in the concept of sin are far less persuasive.
The phrase is typically used to convey a sense of understanding. Those that defend homosexuality imply that they are aware of the concerns of those that view it as sinful. Those that argue against homosexuality are in a difficult situation when the phrase is used because it is true that God hates sins, but loves those that commit them. Jesus Christ himself was not afraid to mingle with those that had gone astray, although it brought disdain from the Pharisees and others of his contemporaries. To reject this argument would be to reject Christ.
The problem with this phrase is credibility. It is not difficult to tell people that they should be more accepting of a group you have already accepted. It is currently politically correct and in many circles socially acceptable to practice homosexual behavior. Defending a popular and politically correct point of view does not make those of us who embrace a more traditional view think that we are understood.
Exactly how do you hate the sin but love the sinner? Is not practicing it oneself enough? Is speaking out against the sin appropriate? If so, how does one speak out against a sin in a loving manner? How can a person express love toward an individual that embraces or perhaps even identifies themselves by their practice of something abhorrent?
Rather than tackle the homosexuality debate, I would like to discuss the difficulty of the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase by applying it do something that is not politically correct or popular: racism.
God hates racism, but loves racists. By extension, you should hate racism, but love racists.
Racism is perhaps the most politically incorrect ideal that a person can have. In fact, by writing this post, I have probably precluded myself from a political career. That having been said, I have known racist people that I would consider to be good people, certainly as much as those defending homosexuality can think of examples of good people that are gay.
I also believe that racism is a label that is frequently assigned to ideas that are not actually racist. Racism is not synonymous with prejudice. I have a bit of experience with this.
In high school, I was a scrawny-built geeky kid. As such, I occasionally feared that I would be victimized by bullying. I recall spending extra time to avoid areas where I knew certain Hispanic students gathered. It was not the fact they were Hispanic that bothered me, it was the culture of particular groups that seemed to embrace brawling that was distasteful. I also avoided the Caucasian jock culture or the Caucasian punk-rocker culture that seemed to embrace similar practices.
I definitely pre-judged these groups. It is possible that the members of these cultures in high school might have treated me with respect and dignity in spite of my social ineptitudes and lanky build, but I was afraid to take that chance. My prejudice was not based on race, it was based on culture. In fact, I had friends that were Hispanic, black, and Asian with whom I got along well. They were typically the less popular and more studious types to whom I could better relate, and by whom I felt less threatened.
True racism is a prejudice based on no other characteristic other than race.
During my high school years in southern California, a controversial proposition appeared on the state ballot that dealt with preventing illegal aliens from obtaining health and education benefits. There were a large number of Hispanics that came to school with their faces painted or wearing shirts that had the no symbol over the proposition number, 187. Many of them decried the measure as racist. Rumors spread even to less social circles such as my own that there would be an attempt by those in opposition to the measure to walk out of school. During my PE class, I recall seeing a series of automobiles drive past the school brandishing large Mexican flags and shouting at us. Since I did not speak Spanish, I did not understand many of the things that were shouted, but I do recall one. I was standing next to a black boy and several Hispanics when I heard a passenger in one of these cars shout "F___ you white boy! F___ you n_____! Viva Mexico!!"
I found it ironic that they were out protesting a measure they considered racist, but had no problems judging myself or using the n-word to refer to the black boy in my class. That having been said, it was not difficult for me to dismiss this behavior. While I knew such racism was wrong, I did not feel compelled to shout back a suggestion that they not yell demeaning slurs regarding the race of others. Perhaps because I was afraid that such action would subject me to some retaliation after school, and perhaps I believed that the measure would likely fail anyway. In the end, proposition 187 passed, but was later declared unconstitutional. The very next year in high school, most students had forgotten about it life returned to normal.
I recall another instance of racially motivated violence at my high school between a black boy and a Hispanic boy. There were many expletives and slurs used before the two brawled, but the tamer among them involved the black boy telling the Hispanic boy to "go back to his country" and the Hispanic boy replying that the black boy should "go back to Africa." I did not have any desire to interfere in the conflict.
While the behavior in the previous examples is genuinely racist, the more socially detestable forms of racism are those that are held by whites against minorities. I know of individuals that have harbored such feelings.
I recall a conversation with an individual that believed he had been robbed by a group of Hispanics. The one experience had caused him to view all Hispanics as thieves. He told me that he did not want to be racist, but that they "made" him racist. Even though I was young at the time, I knew that it was probably an unfair generalization to make. I was certain that my Hispanic friends did not participate in theft, and seemed to be good religious people. I also knew the man that confessed his racist feelings to me was also a good man that selflessly helped others. Should I have shouted "racist" at the top of my lungs and never spoken to him again? Should I have tried to quote the Book of Mormon where it says "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile"? (2 Nephi 26:33) I did nothing.
Outside my rather mild anecdotal sources, there are more serious accounts of racism. There exist people that believe crimes against certain people are justifiable because of their race. There are those who do not wish to have others in their neighborhood because of their ethnicity. There are those that ridicule, humiliate, and abuse others for no reason but their skin color.
It is easy and politically correct to see the harm that can exist when race becomes a criteria for judging someone. That having been said, I believe that God loves racists. God loves people that do awful things. God cares about the well being of those that abuse others. God truly hates the sin, but loves the sinner. With respect to a sin that is nearly universally despised, who will stand up and tell people that they ought to love racists? Who will tell people that decry racism that they should be more loving and kind toward the KKK or neo-Nazis?
What about the people that have racist beliefs that feel they cannot help it? What about the people that feel others made them racist? You and I may believe it is a choice, but perhaps those that have racist feelings genuinely do not. It could even be argued that racism is a naturally occurring feeling that has existed in many civilizations throughout recorded history, just as there are those that make claims about the natural existence of homosexuality.
In the end, these arguments do not matter, because racism is wrong. Modern prophets have been clear regarding the position of Mormons and racism: "The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church)
The ultimate question is how to hate the sin but love the sinner. The type of sin is not important to this principal.
Are those that stand up in defense of homosexuality in the name of loving the sinner as eager to stand and defend those that commit sins they recognize as wrong? Or are those that oppose homosexuality really being asked to hate the sin but love the sinner as long as the sin is trendy and/or politically correct?
If you do not believe that racism is a sin, then substitute racism for some other practice that you believe is sinful. How do you show Christian love and fellowship to someone while simultaneously denouncing the sins they embrace?
There is no perfect answer to the question. Even God uses different approaches with different people. Consider the following:
- To Ninevah, God sent Jonah saying that within forty days the city would be overthrown (Jonah 3:4)
- To Jerusalem in the days of Zedekiah, God sent Lehi to tell them they would be destroyed (1 Nephi 1:13, 18-20)
- To the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul wrote "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Corinthians 2:9)
- To the seven churches of Asia, the Apostle John wrote "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:21)
- To the people of Israel, Isaiah wrote "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18)
- To the people of Israel, Isaiah also wrote "But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." (Isaiah 57:20-21)
- When his Apostle Peter tried to tell Christ he would not be killed, Jesus rebuked him saying "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew 16:23)
- When a sinful woman came and worshipped him, Christ forgave her in spite of the disaproval of the Pharisee in whose house he was saying "Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." (Luke 7:38)
Perhaps there are cases when people ought to condemn that which is wrong boldly. Perhaps there are other cases when avoiding conflict is preferable. The constants however must be maintained.
In no case are we to begin hating the sinner. God said "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10) He also said "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." (Matthew 5:7)
In no case are we to begin loving the sin. Alma taught "for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." (Alma 45:16) Jesus himself said "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23)
In the end, there was only one who did not have a problem with loving sin and hating sinners. Everyone else can benefit from the advise to hate the sin and love the sinner.
Monday, August 13, 2012
God Actually Has Given Us the Spirit of Fear
I have heard and read in several places recently a suggestion or pet-peeve of many Christians both within and without the LDS church regarding the fear of God. Almost every time I have heard "fear of God" or "God-fearing" or some other similar phrase, it has been accompanied by a recommendation of avoidance. Frequently it is also used in connection with a passage in the New Testament: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Timothy 1:7)
When I sit down and try to think of the last time I have actually heard the phrase sincerely used by anyone other than myself, I am unable to recollect any examples in the past ten years. I have not heard people compliment the piety of others by describing them as God-fearing except as examples of 'what not to say' in lessons. I do not recall an instructor or speaker recommending that their audience ought to fear God, excepting that the immediately clarify and say they mean to 'respect' God.
Perhaps my experience is not completely representative, but it seems that a lot of effort is expended in getting people to avoid a phrase that no one uses.
The ironic element of the fear of the fear of God is that it is partly based on a misunderstanding of the passage in 2 Timothy. Paul continues in verse 8: "Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God." (2 Timothy 1:8) Paul was talking about the fear of affliction in the passage, or feeling shame because of Christ; he was not at all talking about the fear of God.
People have used the passage 2 Timothy to discourage discussion of topics that might lead us to believe that God might ever do something besides make people feel warm and fuzzy. While it is true that the emphasis of prophets and apostles in the LDS church seems to highlight the love, mercy, and forgiveness of God, ignoring the wrath and power of God leaves Christians lacking context and understanding.
Implying that ideas that might provoke fear are never from God leaves Christians with a consistency and credibility problem. Under the assumption that anything that inspires fear must not be from God, consider the following conclusions:
For those that are surprised that God uses fear, threats, and destruction to accomplish his purposes, know that you are not alone. Even prophets of God have experienced similar shock. Consider the burden of Habakkuk in the Old Testament. When he learned that God was using the wicked Chaldeans to destroy Israel, he was shocked that God might use something he felt was evil. (Habakkuk 1)
I believe that many people have become too cavalier in their view of God, or in assessing their relationship to him. Some of my own pet peeves include the following (commentary not italicized):
Fear in the sense of humility is what Jesus taught when he told the following parable:
"And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 14:7-11)
God actually has given us the spirit of fear. He wants us to be worried about our thoughts, our words, and our deeds. (Mosiah 4:30) He has made no secret of his intention to annihilate the wicked when he returns. (D&C 45:47-50) He has openly declared that he will reign over the earth. (Revelation 19:11-16) He is also clear that we ought not feel secure about our current position. (2 Nephi 28:21) The facts imply that we should be a bit fearful.
What he does not want is a paralyzing fear that makes people want to avoid him. This is where the emphasis of modern prophets and apostles becomes important. An understanding that he could wipe us all out should add something to the fact his prophets are pleading with us to "be a little better." (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/09/the-quest-for-excellence?lang=eng)
Ultimately, the context of fear and humility gives power to everything else we receive from him. When we fear him, his love means more. When prophets beg us to repent, it represents not just a good life strategy, but the request of the Most High God that we accept the very thing for which we should be begging him.
When I sit down and try to think of the last time I have actually heard the phrase sincerely used by anyone other than myself, I am unable to recollect any examples in the past ten years. I have not heard people compliment the piety of others by describing them as God-fearing except as examples of 'what not to say' in lessons. I do not recall an instructor or speaker recommending that their audience ought to fear God, excepting that the immediately clarify and say they mean to 'respect' God.
Perhaps my experience is not completely representative, but it seems that a lot of effort is expended in getting people to avoid a phrase that no one uses.
The ironic element of the fear of the fear of God is that it is partly based on a misunderstanding of the passage in 2 Timothy. Paul continues in verse 8: "Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God." (2 Timothy 1:8) Paul was talking about the fear of affliction in the passage, or feeling shame because of Christ; he was not at all talking about the fear of God.
People have used the passage 2 Timothy to discourage discussion of topics that might lead us to believe that God might ever do something besides make people feel warm and fuzzy. While it is true that the emphasis of prophets and apostles in the LDS church seems to highlight the love, mercy, and forgiveness of God, ignoring the wrath and power of God leaves Christians lacking context and understanding.
Implying that ideas that might provoke fear are never from God leaves Christians with a consistency and credibility problem. Under the assumption that anything that inspires fear must not be from God, consider the following conclusions:
- Noah's ark is not true since God would never threaten to destroy all but eight human beings (Genesis 6-7)
- The ten plagues with which God cursed Egypt must not have been real, since God would never threaten his children (Exodus 7-12)
- Elijah was not a real prophet since he took people of another religion to a river and slaughtered them (1 Kings 18:40)
- Jeremiah was not a real prophet of God, since he threatened the people of God with utter destruction (Jeremiah 16:1-15)
- Zephaniah (and almost all of the other minor prophets in the Old Testament) were not real prophets because they foretold God sending great destruction and death (Zephaniah 1:14-18)
- Jesus was probably just kidding about the signs of destruction and sorrow that would appear before his second coming (Matthew 24)
- Paul was probably just kidding when he foretold the wrath of God and the times of peril that would appear in the last days (2 Thessalonians 1-2)
- John was using artistic symbolism when he described the son of God returning in glory and slaying all the wicked (Revelation 19)
- Lehi in the Book of Mormon was definitely not a prophet because he told the people of Jerusalem that if they did not repent, they would be destroyed (1 Nephi 1)
- When King Benjamin was just a fear-monger because he embellished the punishments that God places on the wicked to manipulate his people (Mosiah 2:37-39)
- Captain Moroni was an unholy angry man, because God would never threaten to kill people (Alma 44)
- When Jesus said that the gates of hell stand open to receive those that do not accept his doctrine, he probably meant the gates of a bureau of guidance counsellors that will lovingly help people understand what is right since he is God and God is love (3 Nephi 11:38-40)
- The Book of Ether was probably just made up since it depicts God using wars to wipe people off of his promised land, which a loving God would never do (Ether 15)
- Joseph Smith was probably just having a bad day when he had the revelation on marriage recorded. After all, God wouldn't actually say "For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed." (D&C 132:14)
For those that are surprised that God uses fear, threats, and destruction to accomplish his purposes, know that you are not alone. Even prophets of God have experienced similar shock. Consider the burden of Habakkuk in the Old Testament. When he learned that God was using the wicked Chaldeans to destroy Israel, he was shocked that God might use something he felt was evil. (Habakkuk 1)
I believe that many people have become too cavalier in their view of God, or in assessing their relationship to him. Some of my own pet peeves include the following (commentary not italicized):
- Jesus is my elder brother - The concept may be true. He is the Son of God, and we are children of God, ergo he is our elder brother... but that relationship really does not earn any points. After all, his 'brothers' mocked him, spit on him, beat him, betrayed him, and murdered him. Jesus declared that "whosever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." (Mark 3:35) In claiming brotherhood with Christ, is it the intention of an individual to announce "I'm doing the will of God!" Maybe they are, but it seems arrogant.
- God is love - The famous scripture in 1 John 4:8 was not given to say that God is a human emotion, it was given to teach people that we ought to show love and kindness for one another. Do not be fooled into reducing God into an emotion. He is a person. While Jesus Christ truly showed love, he was not afraid to identify and condemn hypocrisy, sin, and irreverence. Perhaps it was love of his father and the Temple that motivated him to make a whip and drive the thieves and money changers out, but it is obvious that God is more complicated than a single human emotion.
- The spirit makes me feel happy - This could also be God makes me feel happy or some other phrase that ties God to happiness. Unless you worship Prozac, God is not depression medication. You don't 'take God' and then 'feel better.' Does this mean that a person who is not feeling happy must not have the spirit or must not be close to God? Or could it mean that God isn't doing his job, which is apparently to make you happy. This again seems arrogant.
- Jesus Christ is my personal savior - I've already addressed my dislike of the overuse of the term 'savior'. The addition of the terms 'my personal' makes this even more annoying because it implies ownership. While most people that use it probably do not intend to claim that they 'own' Jesus, I would try very hard to make sure I was not implying any entitlement to the power produced in the infinite and incomprehensible sacrifice of Christ. If Jesus feels like I have truly accepted him, he will at his own discretion and judgement offer forgiveness for my sins.
- When I pray, I talk to God like he is my friend - That's right up their with claiming Jesus is your brother. Maybe other people are better than I am, but I do not want to claim to be chums with God. I don't envision approaching his throne and offering a fist-bump. I am not expecting him to offer me a cold beverage and talk about old times. I expect to be on my knees... and my head will probably be lowered. Maybe that's old fashioned, but that's how I would approach a being that is all-powerful, and knows every weakness I have and every mistake I have made. We ought to think of God less like a chum or a pal and more like... a God.
Fear in the sense of humility is what Jesus taught when he told the following parable:
"And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 14:7-11)
God actually has given us the spirit of fear. He wants us to be worried about our thoughts, our words, and our deeds. (Mosiah 4:30) He has made no secret of his intention to annihilate the wicked when he returns. (D&C 45:47-50) He has openly declared that he will reign over the earth. (Revelation 19:11-16) He is also clear that we ought not feel secure about our current position. (2 Nephi 28:21) The facts imply that we should be a bit fearful.
What he does not want is a paralyzing fear that makes people want to avoid him. This is where the emphasis of modern prophets and apostles becomes important. An understanding that he could wipe us all out should add something to the fact his prophets are pleading with us to "be a little better." (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/09/the-quest-for-excellence?lang=eng)
Ultimately, the context of fear and humility gives power to everything else we receive from him. When we fear him, his love means more. When prophets beg us to repent, it represents not just a good life strategy, but the request of the Most High God that we accept the very thing for which we should be begging him.
Monday, March 12, 2012
God's Investment
Many people are familiar with the story of Elisha when he and his servant found themselves surrounded by the Syrian army. His servant feared that they would be killed, but Elisha seemed confident. The man of God offered a famous and profound statement: "Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them." (2 Kings 6:16)
Elisha then prayed that God would open the eyes of his servant. The servant then beheld the mountain filled with horses and chariots of fire protecting Elisha. Elisha prayed that blindness would be put upon the Syrians, and then led them into the land of Israel where they were forced to surrender.
The next part of the story is not as well known. Ben-hadad, the king of Syria gathered his armies and laid siege to Samaria. The Bible indicates that this caused a severe famine in the land. It got so bad that a donkey head was sold for 80 pieces of silver and a portion of dove droppings were sold for 5 pieces of silver... as food. (2 Kings 6:25) When the king of Samaria found that his subjects were resorting to cannibalism, he rent his clothes and swore that he would have the head of Elisha for causing this famine. (2 Kings 6:31)
The king's guards rushed to capture Elisha and, blaming God, one of them declared "...this evil is of the Lord; what should I wait for the Lord any longer?" (2 Kings 6:33)
Elisha prophesied that the following day, food would be so plentiful that a measure of fine flour would be sold for a shekel and two measures of barley for the same. (2 Kings 7:1) This was such a radical change in value from circumstances that sold donkey heads and bird droppings that it was too much for some of them to accept.
One of the king's trusted advisers said "Behold, if the Lord should make windows in heaven, might this thing be?" (2 Kings 7:2) Elisha reprimanded him because of his lack of faith as he told him that he would see it with his own eyes, but he would not eat.
That night, four lepers determined that their fate was not much different if they went to the Syrians as it was if they stayed in Samaria. When they left the city, they found that the Syrians had left in such a rush that they had abandoned all their supplies including their food. The lepers ate and gathered treasure, until finally they decided they should let the city know the siege was over.
Naturally the abundance of supplies immediately drove down the prices of food, just as Elisha the prophet had predicted. The king's advisor that had doubted Elisha saw the prices before the hoards of hungry trampled him to death and he could obtain it to eat.
The economic principles of supply and demand changing the value of commodities is not a difficult concept to understand for societies that embrace any principles of the free market. Determining the value of something even in modern society, or anticipating values, are not always as easy.
Not long ago, I read of a man that was referred to as an idiot for selling a safe he could not open on eBay for $123. The buyer was able to open the safe and found $26,000 inside. If only he had been able to correctly perceive the value of what he had before he unloaded it on eBay to make some quick money...
A person that can correctly interpret or predict the value of items has a great advantage in business. This is so much the case that trading stocks when in possession of insider information has been criminalized, which is why Martha Stewart served time in prison.
I submit that not all insider information is bad however.
What if there was someone who perfectly knew everything that had ever happened, all that would happen in the future, and everything that is currently happening? What if it was possible to know what that person valued? Likely, having this kind of information, what this person valued would be something that remained valuable in spite of supply or demand fluctuations, or the perceptions of others.
There is such a person. We call him our God. His most precious possessions are not stocks, safes, or commodities; he values the race of men. He values humanity.
For someone who could raise the dead, heal the blind, make the deaf hear, and make the lame walk almost instantaneously, he invested a substantial amount of time and effort just in making things ready for men. He divided his creative work into days where he made the light, dark, sky, sea, plants, animals, the sun, and the moon. After all other things were created, then he said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:26-27) God loved them. God blessed them. Not idly did he command that we should love our neighbors as we do ourselves. (Matthew 22:39)
The atheist or the faithless might contradict this claim by saying that if God truly loved mankind, then why is it that people suffer so. Why is it that good people struggle to find work, or are forced to endure sickness and infirmity? Why is it that people who are abusive or hurtful seem to prosper in many cases? If God did care, has he not abandoned us?
To these claims I would respond that God has not abandoned men. He has sent you to care for them. He believes that you will love your neighbor as yourself. He believes that you will lift up the hands that hang down. He believes that you will strengthen the feeble knees.
Those that have been baptized may not make an oral promise, but a promise is made nonetheless. We learn from the pages of the Book of Mormon that this means a commitment not only to obey the commandments of God but to "... bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things..." (Mosiah 18:8-9)
Brethren who have received the priesthood in so doing swear to God that they will see that there is no lying, evil speaking, or back biting. They swear that they will invite people to pray vocally and in secret. The swear that they will watch over the church. As appropriate, they call down the powers of God himself to give strength, comfort, power, and even to heal the sick.
It is not always easy to be Christian. There are times when any of us become burdened with difficult circumstances, or when pride prevents us from loving our neighbors as God does. When such times come, let us try to remember God's investment.
Everything he does is to help mankind. He spends every waking minute listening to our prayers and sending people to help each other... every waking minute... and he never sleeps. He commands his church to help people among every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. He is calling priests in every unit of his kingdom. The worth of souls is great in the sight of God. (D&C 18:10)
Do not be as the idiot who sold his safe and missed the true value. Do not doubt God as the advisor to the King of Samaria who missed out on the reward because he refused to believe. Finally, do not forget the words of Elisha the prophet during times when it is difficult to help others... "Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them."
Christ, who is the ultimate investment that God has made in us, is coming again. And when he does, he will surely save us all.
Elisha then prayed that God would open the eyes of his servant. The servant then beheld the mountain filled with horses and chariots of fire protecting Elisha. Elisha prayed that blindness would be put upon the Syrians, and then led them into the land of Israel where they were forced to surrender.
The next part of the story is not as well known. Ben-hadad, the king of Syria gathered his armies and laid siege to Samaria. The Bible indicates that this caused a severe famine in the land. It got so bad that a donkey head was sold for 80 pieces of silver and a portion of dove droppings were sold for 5 pieces of silver... as food. (2 Kings 6:25) When the king of Samaria found that his subjects were resorting to cannibalism, he rent his clothes and swore that he would have the head of Elisha for causing this famine. (2 Kings 6:31)
The king's guards rushed to capture Elisha and, blaming God, one of them declared "...this evil is of the Lord; what should I wait for the Lord any longer?" (2 Kings 6:33)
Elisha prophesied that the following day, food would be so plentiful that a measure of fine flour would be sold for a shekel and two measures of barley for the same. (2 Kings 7:1) This was such a radical change in value from circumstances that sold donkey heads and bird droppings that it was too much for some of them to accept.
One of the king's trusted advisers said "Behold, if the Lord should make windows in heaven, might this thing be?" (2 Kings 7:2) Elisha reprimanded him because of his lack of faith as he told him that he would see it with his own eyes, but he would not eat.
That night, four lepers determined that their fate was not much different if they went to the Syrians as it was if they stayed in Samaria. When they left the city, they found that the Syrians had left in such a rush that they had abandoned all their supplies including their food. The lepers ate and gathered treasure, until finally they decided they should let the city know the siege was over.
Naturally the abundance of supplies immediately drove down the prices of food, just as Elisha the prophet had predicted. The king's advisor that had doubted Elisha saw the prices before the hoards of hungry trampled him to death and he could obtain it to eat.
The economic principles of supply and demand changing the value of commodities is not a difficult concept to understand for societies that embrace any principles of the free market. Determining the value of something even in modern society, or anticipating values, are not always as easy.
Not long ago, I read of a man that was referred to as an idiot for selling a safe he could not open on eBay for $123. The buyer was able to open the safe and found $26,000 inside. If only he had been able to correctly perceive the value of what he had before he unloaded it on eBay to make some quick money...
A person that can correctly interpret or predict the value of items has a great advantage in business. This is so much the case that trading stocks when in possession of insider information has been criminalized, which is why Martha Stewart served time in prison.
I submit that not all insider information is bad however.
What if there was someone who perfectly knew everything that had ever happened, all that would happen in the future, and everything that is currently happening? What if it was possible to know what that person valued? Likely, having this kind of information, what this person valued would be something that remained valuable in spite of supply or demand fluctuations, or the perceptions of others.
There is such a person. We call him our God. His most precious possessions are not stocks, safes, or commodities; he values the race of men. He values humanity.
For someone who could raise the dead, heal the blind, make the deaf hear, and make the lame walk almost instantaneously, he invested a substantial amount of time and effort just in making things ready for men. He divided his creative work into days where he made the light, dark, sky, sea, plants, animals, the sun, and the moon. After all other things were created, then he said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:26-27) God loved them. God blessed them. Not idly did he command that we should love our neighbors as we do ourselves. (Matthew 22:39)
The atheist or the faithless might contradict this claim by saying that if God truly loved mankind, then why is it that people suffer so. Why is it that good people struggle to find work, or are forced to endure sickness and infirmity? Why is it that people who are abusive or hurtful seem to prosper in many cases? If God did care, has he not abandoned us?
To these claims I would respond that God has not abandoned men. He has sent you to care for them. He believes that you will love your neighbor as yourself. He believes that you will lift up the hands that hang down. He believes that you will strengthen the feeble knees.
Those that have been baptized may not make an oral promise, but a promise is made nonetheless. We learn from the pages of the Book of Mormon that this means a commitment not only to obey the commandments of God but to "... bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things..." (Mosiah 18:8-9)
Brethren who have received the priesthood in so doing swear to God that they will see that there is no lying, evil speaking, or back biting. They swear that they will invite people to pray vocally and in secret. The swear that they will watch over the church. As appropriate, they call down the powers of God himself to give strength, comfort, power, and even to heal the sick.
It is not always easy to be Christian. There are times when any of us become burdened with difficult circumstances, or when pride prevents us from loving our neighbors as God does. When such times come, let us try to remember God's investment.
Everything he does is to help mankind. He spends every waking minute listening to our prayers and sending people to help each other... every waking minute... and he never sleeps. He commands his church to help people among every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. He is calling priests in every unit of his kingdom. The worth of souls is great in the sight of God. (D&C 18:10)
Do not be as the idiot who sold his safe and missed the true value. Do not doubt God as the advisor to the King of Samaria who missed out on the reward because he refused to believe. Finally, do not forget the words of Elisha the prophet during times when it is difficult to help others... "Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them."
Christ, who is the ultimate investment that God has made in us, is coming again. And when he does, he will surely save us all.
Monday, October 10, 2011
God Hates You And Probably Wants To Kill You
I recall a time as a high school student when I was not feeling very happy. I was running an errand at a local Wal Mart, and some random woman stopped and asked if I was OK. I was kind of surprised, but I said that I was fine. Then she surprised me further by saying, "Well just remember... God loves you..." I nodded and continued on. I recall thinking to myself, 'so what? God loves everyone... That puts me in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, and Woodrow Wilson.'
Since that time, I noticed how many times religious leaders and teachers emphasized that point. "God loves you." It seems a particular area of emphasis when it comes to lessons and talks directed toward women of the LDS church. I frequently hear comments about lessons that point out subjects such as individual worth and divine nature from reports on Relief Society.
Perhaps I have a slightly different perspective for a couple of reasons.
One session of our General Conference is dedicated to priesthood holders, which are all men. While these subjects are mentioned to the men, it many times feels as though the emphasis is on obedience and repentance, and the tone is in the spirit of 'quit playing for the other team.' For example, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said during his talk in the aforementioned session "You cannot travel down what Lehi called “forbidden paths” and expect to guide others to the “strait and narrow” one—it can’t be done." It represents a contrast with the "God loves you" that is found in Relief Society talks.
Another reason comes from my own personal study of the scriptures. I find that there is an abundance of quotation in manuals and lessons for the scriptures that emphasize the love of God, the promise of forgiveness, or the hope of mercy. A more in-depth study of the scriptures finds that there are many scriptures of a somewhat darker tone that seem to be intentionally omitted by almost all Christian curriculum.
Some passages that portray God in a less benevolent light include the following:
"For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." (Malachi 4:1)
"The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung. Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord’s wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land." (Zephaniah 1:14-18)
Although these passages clearly describe the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, there may be those who dismiss these verses as harsh because they come from the Old Testament. Examine the following from the New Testament:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-36) (I might add these are the words of Christ himself.)
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great." (Revelation 19:11-18)
There may be those who are quick to dismiss the intense style of ancient scripture. Modern revelation however is not all lollipops and rainbows:
"But, behold, I say unto you that before this great day shall come the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall be turned into blood, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and there shall be greater signs in heaven above and in the earth beneath; And there shall be weeping and wailing among the hosts of men; And there shall be a great hailstorm sent forth to destroy the crops of the earth. And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not. Wherefore, I the Lord God will send forth flies upon the face of the earth, which shall take hold of the inhabitants thereof, and shall eat their flesh, and shall cause maggots to come in upon them; And their tongues shall be stayed that they shall not utter against me; and their flesh shall fall from off their bones, and their eyes from their sockets; And it shall come to pass that the beasts of the forest and the fowls of the air shall devour them up." (D&C 29: 14-20)
The scriptures are indeed full of passages that promise death and destruction to the enemies of God. Since all men are guilty of some sin or another, it might be easy to conclude that God does not love people. In fact, it might not be unreasonable in this light to say "God hates you, and probably wants to kill you."
The truth behind this lies in context. When we incorporate the scriptures that promise reward and mercy with those that threaten death and destruction, we begin to see more clearly the nature of the Most High.
God does not hate us, nor does he desire our demise. The effort he invested in creating the world, and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ are proof of this. That having been said, it is also totally inaccurate to only emphasize the love of God and pretend that his wrath and power do not matter. The warnings and prophecies of prophets in all generations are evidence that God is not simply there to make people feel good. We need more than love. We need power to overcome the problems that confront us.
In my youth, it was easy to misinterpret the phrase "God loves you". I was thinking in terms of "God loves you" or "God loves you". Neither of these forms are unique. Many people love. Some people can be very helpful, but there are some things that no other man or woman can heal with their love. You may have significance in a small circle of influence, but in the end, there are so many people, and you are only one.
The more valuable emphasis is "God loves you". It is not some idle sympathy of a stranger at Wal Mart... not the empathy of a friend... not even the bond or affection of a parent or sibling... it is the same one before whom thousands of people have fallen... it is the same one that sent the great plagues upon Egypt to free his chosen... it is the same one that personally defeated death and hell... There is no problem that is to difficult, no task to great, no person beyond his knowledge and strength... If God loves you... that makes all the difference.
Since that time, I noticed how many times religious leaders and teachers emphasized that point. "God loves you." It seems a particular area of emphasis when it comes to lessons and talks directed toward women of the LDS church. I frequently hear comments about lessons that point out subjects such as individual worth and divine nature from reports on Relief Society.
Perhaps I have a slightly different perspective for a couple of reasons.
One session of our General Conference is dedicated to priesthood holders, which are all men. While these subjects are mentioned to the men, it many times feels as though the emphasis is on obedience and repentance, and the tone is in the spirit of 'quit playing for the other team.' For example, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said during his talk in the aforementioned session "You cannot travel down what Lehi called “forbidden paths” and expect to guide others to the “strait and narrow” one—it can’t be done." It represents a contrast with the "God loves you" that is found in Relief Society talks.
Another reason comes from my own personal study of the scriptures. I find that there is an abundance of quotation in manuals and lessons for the scriptures that emphasize the love of God, the promise of forgiveness, or the hope of mercy. A more in-depth study of the scriptures finds that there are many scriptures of a somewhat darker tone that seem to be intentionally omitted by almost all Christian curriculum.
Some passages that portray God in a less benevolent light include the following:
"For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." (Malachi 4:1)
"The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung. Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord’s wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land." (Zephaniah 1:14-18)
Although these passages clearly describe the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, there may be those who dismiss these verses as harsh because they come from the Old Testament. Examine the following from the New Testament:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-36) (I might add these are the words of Christ himself.)
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great." (Revelation 19:11-18)
There may be those who are quick to dismiss the intense style of ancient scripture. Modern revelation however is not all lollipops and rainbows:
"But, behold, I say unto you that before this great day shall come the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall be turned into blood, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and there shall be greater signs in heaven above and in the earth beneath; And there shall be weeping and wailing among the hosts of men; And there shall be a great hailstorm sent forth to destroy the crops of the earth. And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not. Wherefore, I the Lord God will send forth flies upon the face of the earth, which shall take hold of the inhabitants thereof, and shall eat their flesh, and shall cause maggots to come in upon them; And their tongues shall be stayed that they shall not utter against me; and their flesh shall fall from off their bones, and their eyes from their sockets; And it shall come to pass that the beasts of the forest and the fowls of the air shall devour them up." (D&C 29: 14-20)
The scriptures are indeed full of passages that promise death and destruction to the enemies of God. Since all men are guilty of some sin or another, it might be easy to conclude that God does not love people. In fact, it might not be unreasonable in this light to say "God hates you, and probably wants to kill you."
The truth behind this lies in context. When we incorporate the scriptures that promise reward and mercy with those that threaten death and destruction, we begin to see more clearly the nature of the Most High.
God does not hate us, nor does he desire our demise. The effort he invested in creating the world, and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ are proof of this. That having been said, it is also totally inaccurate to only emphasize the love of God and pretend that his wrath and power do not matter. The warnings and prophecies of prophets in all generations are evidence that God is not simply there to make people feel good. We need more than love. We need power to overcome the problems that confront us.
In my youth, it was easy to misinterpret the phrase "God loves you". I was thinking in terms of "God loves you" or "God loves you". Neither of these forms are unique. Many people love. Some people can be very helpful, but there are some things that no other man or woman can heal with their love. You may have significance in a small circle of influence, but in the end, there are so many people, and you are only one.
The more valuable emphasis is "God loves you". It is not some idle sympathy of a stranger at Wal Mart... not the empathy of a friend... not even the bond or affection of a parent or sibling... it is the same one before whom thousands of people have fallen... it is the same one that sent the great plagues upon Egypt to free his chosen... it is the same one that personally defeated death and hell... There is no problem that is to difficult, no task to great, no person beyond his knowledge and strength... If God loves you... that makes all the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)