A land choice above all others...

Is the United States of America a Christian nation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Music credit:  Destiny of the chosen – Immediate

 

Tolerating Unethical Behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Bible authoritative?

Is the Bible authoritative?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divorce: Portly English monarchs may be bad role models

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My mom is awesome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Didn't the prophet say the same thing last conference?

When I attended singles wards, after Priesthood sessions of conference, it was common for us to be asked by women what the prophet had said, or what had happened in conference.  Of course, they were rarely satisfied with answers such as “keep the commandments.”  The mature and responsible thing to do would have been to pay closer attention to the messages to give a better accounting, but in an effort to prolong conversations with women, I would respond that the church was planning to send proselyting missionaries to Iran, or that a Temple had been announced in Jerusalem, or some other completely false but faith-promoting rumor.

Ultimately, prophets and apostles really were persistently asking us to keep the commandments.  Whether that meant moral cleanliness, magnifying our callings, studying the scriptures regularly, or repenting of our sins, the overall message was always familiar and repetitive. 

In our last conference, (April 2013) we again heard the words of prophets and apostles.  There were no earth-shattering doctrines announced; while new temple locations were given, they did not include the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.  We do tend to hear similar information each time we listen to the prophet speak. 

Certainly the most obvious reason for repetition is that members of the church are not doing this well enough.  The repetition is frustrating to some people.  After all, isn’t the definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over again expecting different results? 

Of course one thing to note is that conference does not contain any Jedi mind tricks.  No prophet or apostle waves their hands and says “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for… oh and do your family history…”  The church leaders are not saying the same things each conference to control you… they are trying to persuade you… to plead with you to change yourself.  They expect you to find ways to heed the call to come unto Christ from your own unique circumstances and background, and provide tools to help you do it.

It is with a kind voice and with a gentle tone that President Monson said: “The knowledge which we seek, the answers for which we yearn, and the strength which we desire today to meet the challenges of a complex and changing world can be ours when we willingly obey the Lord’s commandments.”

Naturally, all of us have various challenges with this request.  Probably the majority of people that watch conference keep a large number of commandments, but they may struggle with a few, or even feel that a few are ‘unrealistic’.  Consider the Israelites as they approached the land of Canaan.  Moses sent twelve spies into the land.  Unfortunately, ten of them decided that they were not spies, but a feasibility committee.  Though they reported that the land flowed with milk and honey, they also reported that the people of the land made them feel like grasshoppers because of their size.

Keep in mind, the same God that had smitten Egypt with blood, frogs, lice, flies, the death of their cattle, boils, hail and fire, locusts, darkness, and the destroying angel, and delivered them from what was arguably the most powerful army in the ancient world by miraculously dividing the waters of the red sea, and then swallowing the chariots of Pharaoh, was the one that had sworn he would give the land to them.  Still, they were convinced that they could not possess Canaan because there were “big” people there.

Of course, it is easy for us to say that they were short-sighted.  The same short-sightedness may been seen in us though when a priesthood leader extends to us a calling or assignment.  For some people, they transform into their own “feasibility committee” and find numerous reasons why the same God that through his prophets has declared whom he calls he qualifies may not be thinking through the situation.  Certainly in some circumstances, leaders are able to follow the Spirit more accurately when they have all the information, but ultimately, we believe that a man must be called of God, by prophesy.  Those of us who have been baptized have sworn a covenant to keep the commandments.  Accepting, fulfilling, and magnifying callings are fundamental to this commitment.

Fulfilling assignments allows members to cooperate one with another in the great work of the Kingdom of God.  Even if there seems to be little value, little appreciation, and large amounts of work required, the prophets have never made a secret of the rewards that accompany obedience.  As President Monson said, “The knowledge which we seek, the answers for which we yearn, and the strength which we desire today to meet the challenges of a complex and changing world can be ours when we willingly obey the Lord’s commandments.”

Of course, it is not always a big, intimidating calling that represents the biggest challenge.  There are some people that go to great lengths to provide meaningful service, but are more easily beset by smaller obstacles.

Consider the story of Naaman, the Syrian captain.  He had been stricken with the terrible disease leprosy.  He became desperate to find healing.  One of his servants was acquainted with a Hebrew prophet named Elisha, and suggested that he might be able to help.  Naaman prepared a caravan with gold and silver and apparel to go and meet the man of God.  When he drew close to the land of Israel, instead of meeting the captain personally, he sent his servant Gehazi to meet him bearing only a few simple instructions: bathe seven times in the River Jordan.

At first, Naaman felt insulted.  He had not even been permitted to speak to the prophet directly, in spite of his journey and his prestige.  Furthermore, he preferred the fountains of his own country to the filthy water in the Jordan.  He went to leave for his home when one of his servants suggested that if the prophet had bid him do some great thing, he would have done it.  Why should he neglect this simple task?

Persuaded by the wisdom of his servant, he went to the River Jordan.  He dipped himself into it again and again as Elisha had instructed.  After the seventh time, when he arose from the water, he found that no trace of the disease remained with him.  He had been completely cleansed of the disease.  (2 Kings 5)

There are also examples demonstrating the consequences of ignoring the simple commandments.  We learn in the Book of Mormon that there were many Israelites that would not look at the brazen serpent that Moses had set up to be healed of their wounds because it was so simple, and that they perished for their neglect. (1 Nephi 17:41)

Certainly among the most basic tasks that are recommended by the prophet is daily scripture study.  Perhaps Harry Potter has more drama than 2^nd Nephi.  Perhaps it seems unimportant that Arphaxad begat Salah who begat Eber who begat Peleg who begat Reu who begat Serug who begat Nahor who begat Terah.

I might compare these attempts to read the scriptures to Naaman dipping himself in the Jordan River the first six times.  Persistence will eventually lead to eye-opening experiences.  To this day, nothing is as bold or powerful as Elijah calling down fire from heaven on Mount Carmel and humiliating the priests of Baal.  The confidence of David shouting down Goliath, or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego holding their ground in the face of Nebuchadnezzar and his fiery furnace gives me confidence.  The humility of Gideon who wanted to be certain that he was doing what the Lord wanted when he fought the Midianites persuades me to seek the will of God in my dealings.  I understand the feeling that Joseph Smith had when he was moved by James 1:5 as much as I understand why the people were astonished at the power of Jesus Christ himself after he delivered the Sermon on the Mount.

Perhaps the most remarkable use of scripture is that of Jesus Christ himself when he was tempted by Satan.  Though he was the God that had given the law and inspired the prophets, he answered every request of the devil with words from the Holy Scriptures.  He used them as a shield against evil.

It could be said that “The knowledge which we seek, the answers for which we yearn, and the strength which we desire today to meet the challenges of a complex and changing world can be ours when we willingly obey the Lord’s commandments.”

Seeing the importance of commandments large and small inevitably causes us to reflect on our pasts.  Only Christ lived every commandment without mistake.  Repentance is a principal as old as time.  Prophets have always been instructed to call people to repentance… and have even gotten into trouble when they have not.

Consider the experience of Jonah.  He was called by God to go to Nineveh and proclaim repentance.  Perhaps he thought that it was a dangerous task, but whatever his reason, he decided to run away.  He boarded a ship for Tarshish as if he could flee from the Lord.  Of course he could not.  God sent a terrible tempest that threatened the ship and its passengers.  Reluctantly, the others on board cast Jonah off the ship.  A great fish swallowed Jonah, and after three days, spit him out on the land again.  God again called Jonah to preach repentance to Nineveh, to which Jonah responded obediently.  He warned Nineveh that if they did not repent, they would be destroyed.  To Jonah’s surprise, they did repent, and they were spared.

God knew the value of the people of Nineveh even if Jonah did not immediately see it.  He has never sent his prophets to mince words regarding the importance of returning back to him.  Said Lehi to Jerusalem: repent or be destroyed.  Said Jeremiah to Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah: repent or be destroyed.  Said Isaiah in the reign of Manasseh: repent or be destroyed.  Said Moses to the children of Israel: repent or be destroyed.  Said Noah to the world: repent or be destroyed.  Warned the apostles to the fledgling church: repent or be destroyed.  Of course we know that when Christ returns, it will not be to have a big discussion.  Those that do not repent, will be destroyed.

In spite of our proximity in the fullness of times to the return of Jesus Christ and his victory over evil in the earth, he surprisingly does not send his prophets to warn “repent or be destroyed.”  I do not recall President Monson warning about how our enemies will invade… our old men will bury our young men… our mothers will bury their infants...  I recall no warning of plagues, famines, droughts, and disasters as consequences for sin or for failing to repent in time.

The perception that conference seems to be dull, repetitive, or redundant is largely shaped by context… but only the context of other conferences.  In the context of all time… it becomes clear that Jesus Christ is sending his prophets to say something new and different before he returns…  He sends them to say ‘please try a little harder’, ‘please be a little kinder’, ‘please be more forgiving’, and ‘please believe that God loves you.’  He sends them to say ‘please take advantage of Christ’s sacrifice.’

Essentially, Jesus Christ, the most High God that is coming in power and glory to reign and establish a paradise that has not been known since the days of Eden, is begging us to accept the very thing for which we should be begging him.

It is my hope that we will do as he asks… that we will be receptive to his pleadings… that we will magnify our callings… that we will diligently study our scriptures… that we will sincerely repent of our sins… that we will truly keep his commandments to take advantage of the promise of his living prophet:

“The knowledge which we seek, the answers for which we yearn, and the strength which we desire today to meet the challenges of a complex and changing world can be ours when we willingly obey the Lord’s commandments.”

 

Honestly, you don't want me to be honest...

As a parent, I try to encourage honesty in my children.  Voluntary confession of wrongdoing generally wins leniency in matters of discipline, whereas dishonesty or concealment results in the loss of more privileges.  Many parents implement similar policies to encourage honesty and communication with their children.

As much as parents may value honesty in their children, the standard is somewhat relaxed in other situations.

Many people are familiar with the scenario of a larger woman showing her outfit to her boyfriend and asking the question "does this make me look fat?"  Of course, what would the point of that question be since a "no" is expected whether it is honest or not.

On the other side of the coin, men seem comfortable increasing the length and weight of the fish that they caught on their last fishing trip, particularly when describing them to people they want to impress, or with whom they want to compete.

In societies where marriage is not arranged, both men and women become frustrated with one another over the dishonesty that seems inherent in the dating process.  I have spoken to women who express frustration when men promise to contact them for future romantic excursions when they have no intention of fulfilling such commitments.  I have personally experienced frustration when, while single, I worked up the nerve to ask a girl out, and was informed that while she "really wanted to" that she had scheduling conflicts due to "important" tasks such as "being busy."  I can empathize with those that are told after a couple of dates that the person in whom they have interest is "not ready for a relationship" only to see them engaged to someone else a short time later.

Ultimately, the motivation that causes otherwise honest individuals to lie is typically compassion.  The person wanting to avoid the date does not want to be or seem hurtful, so their fictitious schedule becomes quickly packed.  The boyfriend wants his girlfriend to feel appreciated, or at minimum to continue being his girlfriend in spite of a dress of incorrect size.  The man who caught a fish "as big as him" probably seeks respect from individuals for whom he feels respect.

The number of scenarios where "white lies" or "fibs" are better than the truth seems to increase all the time.  Please don't misunderstand, I am by no means advocating the cruel flavor of honesty that prevails due to the anonymity of the internet.  There, while people feel free to spout the filthiest and mot hurtful slurs, curses, or threats under the guise of "guest" on the forum or the mask of username "kingofhell1432" in a chat room, human decency is lost.  Increasingly, even without anonymity on sites such as Facebook or Twitter, people honestly express the most vulgar or hateful sentiments, and do not seem to worry about the feelings of others.

The truth is that honesty and compassion do not need to be enemies as much as we make them.  God finds value in all of his sons and daughters.  There is no person, however vile, disagreeable, or awkward they may seem, that Christ excluded from his infinite sacrifice. 

More to the point, does the boyfriend need to like every dress for him to express that the girlfriend is beautiful?  Does the man need to exaggerate the size of his catch to express that he values the respect of his peers?

That having been said, if honesty and compassion are at odds, the correct choice is honesty.  I certainly would have appreciated being told by girls that "would love to go out" but were "busy that day" actually meant "not interested in going out any day" if for no other reason than not to have to work up the nerve to call them again.  While it is not great to be undesirable, the feeling of having wasted a lot of time and effort needlessly combined with feeling undesirable is worse.

To say that God is similarly concerned with truth is an understatement.  Truth is so important to Christ that he assumes it as part of his identity: "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6)  Additionally, John states: "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)

There were times when Jesus stood up for what was right and true.  He was perfectly honest when he exposed the money changers at the temple as making his Father's house a "den of thieves." (Matthew 21:13)  Jesus also knew when to avoid answering questions to maintain his honesty. (Matthew 21:23-27)

God's hope is that his children will come to value honesty as he does.  It is for this reason that he asks questions to which he already knows the answers.  Consider the example of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden:
"And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.  And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:8-13)

Of course, God already knew where Adam was, what he had done, and why he had done it... but he asked anyway.  Both Adam and Eve responded truthfully, and while the consequences of their actions have had lasting impact, God obviously valued their family, as he was willing to sacrifice his only begotten son to provide an opportunity to save them. (John 3:16)  He provided Adam and Eve opportunities to be honest in asking these questions.

A culture that values honesty is a culture that values the truth.  As a Christian, I believe the truth, ultimately, is not a cold and harsh thing.  The truth is that we are children of God, and that he loves us.  The truth is that the difficulties of mortality are temporary, and that adherence to principles of the Gospel bring lasting happiness.  Jesus Christ does want us to be honest, and he proved it is possible to be compassionate while doing it.  In the end, it is just as he said... "if ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."