Pray always

This weekend we had stake conference. Elder Parmley of the Seventy presided. He spoke of the need to pray always in our hearts, and spoke of his own efforts to do so while practicing medicine. It's not clear to me that the kind of “prayer” we can have in our hearts continually is the same kind of prayer we utter vocally (or even silently, but formally). The latter seems to require a focus and mindfulness (discussed somewhat in my post on Vain Repetitions) that we cannot have while doing other things that require our attention.

Is the “prayer in our hearts” similar to driving a car: something that occupies a portion of our attention, but at a level that allows us to focus on other things until we need to focus back on what we are doing “automatically?” If so, is it really prayer? If I carry on a conversation without paying full attention to the other person (something I am, unfortunately, wont to do), it is impolite and perhaps unethical. Is this not the case with “auto-pilot” prayer?

Or is this kind of prayer more a “way-of-being-in-the-world:” an attitude and a tendency to think of God before other things? If so, how is it connected to formal prayer in which we are focused on a conversation with God?

Temporal rewards

And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual (Mosiah 2:41, emphasis added).

What are we to make of this scripture? There are many scriptures that teach that God will bless the obedient, but this is one that goes further: it claims that those blessings will be temporal as well as spiritual. So how do we think of those that are not temporally blessed? Are there people who keep the commandments but are not temporally blessed? I suspect so, but that doesn't fit with this verse.

Some attempts at resolving this might be:

Their blessings will come at some later point, possibly in the next life. There are a couple of problems with this: first, if the blessings don't come until the next life, then the term “temporal” means something different than what we typically think it means; and second, the verse loses its rhetorical impact if we can no longer “consider ... the blessed and happy state” now.

They are blessed, since everything we have comes from God. Or, a similar attempt: They are blessed, because their lives would have been much worse if they had not been obedient. The problem with both of these is that there is no reason to consider the obedient any more blessed than the disobedient. In response to the first, we point out that God “sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” In response to the second, we point out that the lives of the disobedient could have been much worse. Why could we not equally say, “Consider the blessed and happy state of those that keep not the commandments of God...?”

Is there a good resolution of this verse that preserves its rhetorical value?

Unpredictable God

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill,–at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted–by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

(The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled and edited by Dean C. Jessee, 507-509.)

The above quotation suggests to me that we cannot predict, neither based on our previous experience nor based on our own reasoning, what God will require of us. We may appeal to scriptures regarding God's “unchanging nature,” but it seems that we cannot rule out much, if anything, based on such an assertion. How can we claim that any act of God would be inconsistent with his revealed nature, if we do not “see the reason thereof till long after?”

How, then, are we to distinguish between something that is inspired of God and something that is not?

It seems that our faith and trust in God cannot merely be based in our ideas about him. It cannot simply be based in the idea that he is omniscient or omnipotent or wise or loving, because these things alone are not adequate predictors of what he may inspire -- in fact, there may not be any such predictors. In other words, we cannot say, when confronted with an “inspiration:” “God would never require such a thing!”

How can we trust such an unpredictable God? I think we can only do so when we have a real, meaningful relationship with him: when we feel his love and learn to recognize it in the same way that a child recognizes his mother's voice: “I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called” (Mosiah 5:12). It is God's love and our relationship wih him that is the foundation of our trust, not our intellectual understanding of his character and attributes.

Convert zeal

A story on NPR's All Things Considered this afternoon focused on concerns about radical Islamist terrorism in the Phillippines. One of the concerns is that many of these extremists are recent converts from Christianity to Islam. The commentator noted that it is common, not just to Islam, but across all religions, that converts are more zealous than those born in the faith.

Is this true of Mormonism? If so, why is it the case? Is it something that we should consider good or bad?

Enoch Train

If you like folk music with a real international flavor, you may want to check out Enoch Train (their new website isn't so hot, but their music is great). This group focuses on arrangements of LDS hymn tunes, but not like you've heard them before. From harmonica to Native American drums to Vietnamese dan tranh to accordion to mandolin -- well, you get the picture: it's not something you're likely to hear in sacrament meeting.

Often, two or more hymn tunes are blended together, along with other tunes, as in the track Mary Had a Shepherd, which melds “Mary Had a Little Lamb” with “Dear to the Heart of the Shepherd” and snatches of “He Shall Feed His Flock.” Styles range from New Orleans jazz to samba and a gorgeous four-recorder arrangement of “O Savior Thou Who Wearest a Crown.” Several original compositions, not based on hymn tunes, are also included.

Enoch Train has won numerous Pearl awards (LDS music awards) and there isn't another group like them that I'm aware of. Give them a listen -- it may change the way you think of our hymns.

Disclosure: Daron Bradford, who plays all of the woodwinds (yes, all of them) for Enoch Train, is my uncle. But I'm not biased, really I'm not!

God of the Old Testament

The Church teaches that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. But I have a hard time understanding what this means. It seems to me, for example, that Old Testament peoples worshipped the God of the Old Testament. Seems pretty obvious, except for what Jacob has to say about it:

For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us. Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. (Jacob 4:4-5)

It seems to me also that Old Testament peoples prayed to the God of the Old Testament -- again, seems like a fairly obvious claim, except for what Nephi says about it: “Ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ” (2 Nephi 32:9). (Leaving aside for the moment the fact that there are plenty of Old Testament prayers addressed to Jehovah.)

It seems to me also that if God is “the same yesterday, today, and forever”, then the God of the Old Testament would also be the God of the New Testament and the God of the Doctrine & Covenants. It seems to me that this would be the God we worship and pray to, except that we have also been taught to pray to the Father, rather than to Christ.

Call me confused, but it seems a little odd to me to say that someone we are not supposed to pray to or worship is God, or that someone the Old Testament peoples didn't worship or pray to was their God.

The only resolution I can come to is the idea that there are multiple Gods who have different roles. Margaret Barker's Old Testament studies suggest that pre-exilic Hebrews had such an understanding, closer to what Nephi teaches about the Father and the Son. But if this is correct, and the Hebrews recognized more than one God (and we do, too), then I'm not sure what we mean by our claim that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.

Loosed in heaven?

During today's commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the restoration of the priesthood, this well-known scripture was cited repeatedly:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)

The part about sealing/binding I think I understand pretty well: it essentially means that ordinances, properly done and recorded, are considered valid and create ties that can continue beyond this life. But I don't have a good understanding of the part about loosing. When we seal something, we do so with an ordinance. Are there ordinances that serve a loosing function? When a sealing is cancelled, is there an ordinance of cancellation of sealing, or is the cancellation simply recorded? How is the priesthood involved in loosing?

Vain repetitions

The scriptures counsel us to avoid “vain repetitions” when we pray. I understand the word “vain” in a manner consistent with its usage in the commandment not to take the name of the Lord in vain. I think this means something like what God condemned as generally true in Christianity: having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.

As a practical matter, we typically say this means not to use the same phrases in our prayers in a thoughtless manner. Repetition per se is not condemned, only vain repetition. It seems to me that we should have the same concern regarding our actions as regarding our prayers. It is easy to “go through the motions” of taking the sacrament, for example, without making it meaningful.

But one problem that arises for me, at least, and I suspect for some other people, is that repetition itself can tend to make the repeated activity routine. I suppose this can be a good thing; good habits are better than bad habits, and probably better than no habits at all. But when something is a habit, how do we avoid making it a “vain repetition?” How can we make sure that our (good) habits of scripture study, prayer, Family Home Evening, partaking of the sacrament, temple attendance, and so forth are really meaningful each time, and not vain repetitions?

LDS Infobases

Ryan Henrie has a great resource for LDS infobases. Folio Views Infobases are a full-text indexed data format for unstructured documents (like books). It's what all the LDS CD-ROM collections used before Deseret Book bought up the major players. Many CD-ROM collections use Folio Views, from Signature Books' New Mormon Studies CD-ROM to the Church's $3 LDS Church Magazines 1971-1999 CD. If you own a copy of such a CD, you can open the files offered for free download from LDSInfobase.Net.

Included in the LDS resources section are the 1830 Book of Mormon, General Conference addresses from 1897-1970, with a very handy index that allows you to search by speaker, the 26-volume Journal of Discourses, also with the ability to search by speaker, and the LDS Quad with Strong's Concordance of Biblical Greek and Hebrew. This last is what I use as my electronic scriptures.

In addition to other LDS infobases, there are numerous non-LDS infobases that are very useful, including the Apocrypha, writings of the Early Church Fathers, the complete works of Josephus, and other philosophical and religious resources. And all of this is offered free of charge. Enjoy!

How to prepare a talk

One of the things I love about the participatory nature of the Church is that we are given the opportunity at a young age to learn public speaking by giving talks in Primary. (Oh, you thought this was going to be about sacrament meeting talks? Nope.) I think learning to give a talk in Primary can be one of the most beneficial aspects of the Primary program. Some kids are uninhibited: they'll march right up to the podium, yank the microphone halfway down their throat, and belt out a talk. Others will freeze unless prompted by their parents -- and in some cases, the parents end up giving the talk for them.

We have five young boys; two of them have given talks in Primary. One of them was very shy about speaking in front of people, but we used a great method to prepare him to give his talk and he got right up and got through it on his own. My mother came up with this method when I was in Primary, and I think it will work for most young children. Here's how it works:

Fold a piece of unlined paper in half so that the short edges of the paper meet. Fold in half again in the same direction. Now fold in half the other way. When you unfold the paper, you will have eight squares (okay, they're really rectangles, but close enough) defined by the folds. (For older children, you can fold it so you end up with 12 or 16 squares.) Sitting with the child, talk about what she wants to say and draw a picture in each square to represent that part of the talk. It shouldn't be anything fancy, just one or two iconic images that can help the child remember that part of the talk. Make them big enough to fill up most of the square. (For older children who are beginning to read, you might add a word or three.)

Now go through the talk with the child several times, pointing at the pictures as you go along. Have the child repeat what you say. Then have her do it on her own, with help from you as she needs it. It's amazing how quickly children pick up on this, and how much they will remember. It is not essential that she memorize it word for word (though this works better for some children); the key is that she knows the concepts associated with each picture and can express them. Then have her practice several times in front of the family. Set up a music stand or a stool or something as a stand-in for the podium, and have the family sit and listen (Family Home Evening is a great time to do this).

On the day of the talk, go over it a few times right before leaving for church (and if Primary is after sacrament meeting, maybe right before the end of sacrament meeting). Go to the Primary sharing time where she will be giving the talk and stand in the back of the room, where she can see you. You can silently prompt from there if she gets stuck, and she will be reassured by your presence and praise, but will be on her own in front of the group.

I think most children will succeed with this approach, and they will learn some great skills: memorization, public speaking, outlining; and they will develop greater self-confidence. Hey, it worked for me: I love to give talks!

Contradictory revelations

A couple of years ago, President Faust and his wife separately made the same point during a Regional Conference in our area. They spoke of the fact that sometimes it is appropriate to turn down inspired callings. Sister Faust gave an example from her experience where she was inspired to call a sister to a position; this sister turned down the calling and was right to do so.

This seems to me to be yet another caution in how we interpret personal and institutional revelation (a theme that seems to pop up frequently in my posts), particularly with regard to their comprehensiveness and finality. In a case such as this, we have examples of apparently contradictory revelation to two different people, but both being inspired by God.

Are we willing and able to live with this kind of “messiness?” I must admit that it is difficult for me; I like to have things neatly resolved and reconciled. But maybe this “messiness” is inescapable, even in eternity, and that's part of what God is trying to teach me here...

Historicity and faith

Why is the issue of scriptural historicity important? One answer I have heard is that it's a matter of truth: that it's important to know whether they are historical or not so that we don't believe something false. And yet, as a matter of truth, historicity generally seems pretty unimportant. For example, it doesn't much matter to me whether the story of the good Samaritan was just a story Jesus made up to teach a principle or a historical event. The point is not the history, it is the message of the story. And it seems to me that most scripture fits into this category.

But are there matters in the scriptures where the point is the history? The one that I think has the strongest case is the historicity of the atonement of Jesus Christ, including his death and resurrection. Why is the historicity of these events important? It seems to me that one primary reason is that belief in their historical reality encourages hope, faith, and repentance.

What makes this particularly interesting, though, is that in the Book of Mormon, we have the story of people who lived prior to Jesus, who were able to exercise faith and hope in him. Historicity was not the driving factor of their faith; it was a forward-looking faith. Their faith was efficacious even though Jesus had not yet gone through his suffering and resurrection. How was this possible?

Unless we are willing to posit some strange backwards causation to the atonement (which may not be so far-fetched?), it seems that their faith, even in the absence of an already-wrought atonement, was sufficient to secure their salvation -- with the exception of a physical resurrection. If they were able to exercise redemptive faith without the historical events having occurred, would the same be possible for us?

More on issues of historicity coming soon...

Local hierarchy

A few years ago, I had a question of doctrine & practice that I took to my bishop. He informed me that it wasn't important, and that if it were, we'd hear about it from President Hinckley in General Conference. I was very unsatisfied with that answer -- it was (and is) important to me, even if nobody else considered it important.

A few months later, I had a temple recommend interview with a member of our stake presidency. I took advantage of it to ask him my questions on the same matter. He told me that he wasn't sure and suggested that we consult various references, including the Church handbook and Joseph Fielding Smith's Answers to Gospel Questions. The next day, he called me at home, having done some research into my question, and gave me a very positive answer, quite different from the discouragement I had received from my bishop.

The bishop, who has since moved away, never knew that I had “gone over his head,” so to speak, to get my question answered (but the stake presidency member knew that I had spoken with the bishop and was not satisfied with his response).

Is this a good approach to such an issue? How far can one take this approach? What if the stake presidency member had given me a similarly unfavorable response?

Commenting change

Blogger has recently added free commenting that doesn't have the same comment size limitations as Haloscan. The main disadvantage, as far as I'm concerned, is that it requires commenters to register in order to display their names, email, etc. The reason for this is to discourage spam comments. I'm going to switch over to Blogger's commenting system and allow anonymous commenting for now, so you don't have to register if you don't want to. But I encourage you to register as a Blogger commenter. You can then use the same profile on all the Blogger blogs you comment on, and your name and other information will show up with your comments here.

I'm going to see what I can do about migrating the old comments over into the new system. During the migration, you'll see links for both Haloscan and Blogger comments. Feel free to read the Haloscan comments, but please post using the Blogger comments. Thanks.

[Update: I've been playing with the Blogger comment system a bit now, and it has a few more drawbacks than I initially thought. While it doesn't have the same size limitations as Haloscan, it doesn't do paragraph separation (!!) and deleting a comment leaves a deletion notice in its place. It doesn't have an RSS feed like Haloscan does, and doesn't offer comment editing. Please leave a comment on this thread to let me know which commenting system you prefer.]

Mothers' Day talk

Mothers' Day can be very hard for some people. I had that in mind when I gave a talk in sacrament meeting for Mothers' Day last year; hopefully it's meaningful for those who struggle with Mothers' Day. It's too long to post here, so I'll provide a link instead.

Mothers' Day 2003

Peripheral revelation

One of the misunderstandings some people have of revelation is that it should consistently reflect “the mind and will of the Lord.” After all, isn't the point of revelation that God reveals his mind and will to us? Yes, but sometimes that can only go so far because of our own situation and preparation. I use the analogy of peripheral vision to illustrate why the Lord might reveal something to us that isn't exactly right.

Imagine that God wants me to move in a particular direction, but I am currently facing 180º away from where he wants me to go. God tries to get my attention focused in the direction that he wants me to go, but because I am so focused in my own direction, suggestions of the Spirit to that effect seem strange to me, to the point that I do not recognize them as being of divine origin. They are out of the range of my vision. So, instead, God inspires me to turn to something that is in my “peripheral vision”: something I am willing and able to consider. As I turn in the right direction, other things come into my peripheral vision. This process can continue until I have turned around to where God wanted me to be going in the first place.

I have had this kind of experience in my life, where I have felt led in one direction (toward schooling or a career path, for example), only to discover later that it was just a step in the right direction, eventually leading to a situation that I felt was where God wanted me to be.

It seems to me that this idea has significant implications for how we view revelation not only in our personal lives, but also to the Church. Things that we consider relatively stable may really just be a step in the right direction, eventually leading us to where God wants us to go. Perhaps if we think about things in this way, we may be able to get some inspired hints as to where these things may be leading...

Demographic homogeneity

Eugene England, in his book, Why the Church is as True as the Gospel, points out that the geographic organization of the Church puts us in contact with people we might not otherwise choose to serve or choose to serve with, and that this stretches and develops us. This practical aspect of the Church can transform us as much as the doctrinal beliefs can.

However, as the country has seen formal segregation change to informal segregation, with minorities concentrated in dense urban areas and the more affluent occuping the suburbs, it seems the Church feels the effects of this, and it lessens the potential England discusses. I lived just outside Baltimore, Maryland, for a couple of years, and the demographics of our suburban ward were very different from the demographics of the downtown Baltimore wards -- and the problems we had to solve were also very different. The impact of this kind of separation on the Church is likely strongest where there is a high concentration of Church members (and each ward is therefore geographically smaller). For example, my parents live in Lindon, Utah (about 20 minutes north of BYU). The few neighborhoods that comprise their ward are very homogenous, with a few minor exceptions as children inherit from their parents.

England's point still holds true to some extent. Unlike other churches, we generally don't choose the congregation we prefer to go to. (I say “generally,” but when we moved to Minnesota, the ward was a factor in our decision of which area of the city to move to.) This ensures that there will at least be some diversity in our approaches to the gospel. But we may miss out on other productive tensions as our wards reflect the relative homegeneity of the geographical area in which we live.

Should the Church try to find ways to mitigate this? Is the Church trying to do so? If so, how? What might be some good suggestions? Do we have an additional individual responsibility to step out of our comfort zone to serve those who are different from us?

Covenanting

When I was on my mission, the idea of “covenanting” became popular for a while. The idea was that a companionship would set some goals and say, essentially, “Okay, Lord, this is what we're going to do, and in return we expect such-and-such results (usually a certain number of baptisms).” A member of the Area Presidency did a mission tour and forcefully put a stop to the practice. I have often heard it taught that, in a covenant, God sets the terms and our options are to accept or to reject them. We do not have the right to set the terms of the covenant.

The story of Jacob seems to put a little twist on this idea, though. In Genesis 28:20-22, we read:

And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

This sure sounds like Jacob is setting the terms of a “deal” with God: “You do all these things for me and I'll worship you, build a house for you, and even pay tithing. How can you refuse?” There are other scriptural passages that run similarly, and we hear the same kind of language in war stories told by general authorities (“Lord, if I get out of this alive, I'll serve you for the rest of my life”).

Is this offensive to God? Does he get upset when his children try to make a deal with him? And if King Benjamin is right that “if [we] should serve him with all [our] whole souls yet [we] would be unprofitable servants,” then why would God honor such a request? Yet he appears to do so in the case of Jacob. Would he not do similarly today?

Universalism and exclusivity

We seem to have an interesting tension in Mormonism (and traditional Christianity, too) between universalism and exclusivism. On the one hand, we have a very inclusivist soteriology, in which all except a very few sons of perdition will be saved in a kingdom of glory. On the other hand, there are exclusive ordinances that must be performed by an exclusive priesthood authority in order to receive the highest salvation.

This tendency manifests itself in a variety of ways, scripturally and in the practice and teachings of the Church. A brief list might include:

Inclusive	Exclusive
The First Presidency declaration that God inspires all peoples The Book of Mormon teaching that God gives scripture to all nations The Book of Mormon teaching that everything that leads to good is inspired of God The Book of Mormon teaching that all are alike unto God The inclusive vision of degrees of glory	Proselytization and baptisms for the dead The claim of exclusive priesthood authority The claim of being “the only true and living church” Temple ordinances by recommend only The view of Zion vs. Babylon (also known as “in the world, but not of it”)

The story of the City of Enoch seems to epitomize this tension: The scriptures tell us that “there were no poor among them” (emphasis mine). Does this mean there were no poor on the whole face of the earth? I don't think so. It seems that there was some exclusion going on, but that this did not prevent the city from being taken up to God. But we tend to view exclusion as a bad thing today. Are we justified in believing that?

This tension is also manifest in the seeming contradiction of Christ's words in the gospels: on the one hand, he is recorded as saying, “he that is not against us is on our part,” but on the other, he is recorded as saying, “He that is not with me is against me.”

What are we to make of this tension? How far should our desire to be inclusive go? When is exclusion desirable, necessary, ethical?

Evolution: The Real Issue Revisited

Traditional Christian arguments against human evolution are unnecessary. As far as I can tell, human evolution poses no threat to traditional Christianity (except for literalistic and inerrantist scriptural interpretations, but there are plenty of other things that are at least as threatening to them as is evolution). The classic traditional Christian theological argument against human evolution, made popular in the Church by Joseph Fielding Smith, is “No Adam, no Fall; no Fall, no Atonement.” In other words, if there was no literal Adam as described by the Biblical account, who brought death into the world for the first time with the Fall, there is no need for Christ's atonement.

But I think this is a weak argument. All of us are mortal and all of us are sinners, regardless of whether this fact came about by a historical Fall or not. I need an atonement even if there was no historical Adam and Eve. This and other Christian arguments against human evolution have been thoroughly addressed and can be reconciled fairly easily, in my view. These are the kinds of questions that have been discussed in Mormon venues for the past few decades.

But what has not been addressed well at all, to my knowledge, is how human evolution seems to challenge uniquely Mormon doctrines. At Times & Seasons, Nate Oman correctly pointed out that the pinnacle of Mormon salvation is divine fecundity. Exaltation is fecundity: the “continuation of the seeds”. And this is where the really Mormon questions about human evolution arise.

Mormonism believes in an exalted human God, consisting of man and woman united in eternal marriage. As Erastus Snow put it:

There can be no God except he is composed of the man and woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, nor ever will be, a God in any other way. I have another description: There never was a God, and there never will be in all eternities, except they are made of these two component parts; a man and a woman; the male and the female.

(Journal of Discourses, 19:270-271.)

If this is the case, and if these exalted beings are capable of procreation, then the uniquely Mormon question regarding human evolution seems to be: Why would a God capable of procreating to create bodies in his own likeness and image for his spirit children resort to the long, involved, and messy process of evolution to provide bodies? Why not give birth to their bodies?

I think it is no coincidence that Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, and others taught that Adam was literally the son of God. This fits perfectly with Mormon teachings about exaltation, but it seems difficult to reconcile with human evolution. Is there a good reconciliation of this question? I've never really even seen it addressed.

Final judgment?

Steve Evans asks a good set of questions about “second chances” over at By Common Consent. Underlying some of the comments there, and underlying much of our common understanding about receiving according to our works and desires in the next life is the assumption of a “final judgment.” This is a term we hear relatively frequently, but where did it come from? The scriptures never speak of the “final judgment.” The closest they get is referring to the judgment at “the great and last day.”

But in what sense is this judgment final? Are there really no more judgments after it? I doubt it. I think this is an interim judgment, just like the many interim judgments we have had prior to and during our earthly lives. And the “last day” referred to isn't really the last day -- there are other days that follow it; it's just “last” in a sense: in relation to a certain sphere. Similarly, I suspect that the “final judgment” is also only “final” with respect to a certain sphere, but that there are other spheres beyond.

What might these other spheres be? And isn't it just speculation that there even are other spheres beyond what we know about? I can't answer the former question, but it is not just speculation that there are spheres beyond those we know about -- it's scriptural. From Doctrine & Covenants 130:9-11 (emphasis added):

This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known; And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.

Steve asks why it is that “this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God,” if there really are “second chances.” I think the reason is that given in D&C 130:19: “If a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.” I think it is also reflected in the parable of the prodigal son. And really, we're all the prodigals. We should be glad that there are second chances, because we all need them, and probably will for a good long time to come.

Bottom-up or top-down?

This may seem trivial, but as one of the priests was preparing to say the sacrament prayer today, he pulled too hard on the little pull-out microphone and it made a kind of popping sound. He was obviously embarrassed at not having pulled it out quietly enough. My wandering mind started to wonder: how did it come about that we have these little pull-out microphones at the sacrament table as standard features in chapels? Was this an idea that started somewhere local and spread popularly, was recognized higher up in the hierarchy as a good idea, and then adopted as standard? Or was it the idea of someone at the top that was propagated down to the local level?

I rather suspect it was the former. But so what, you ask? Well, there have been some programs that have been started on a local level and, when successful, became a standard part of the official Church program. This seems to be quite accepted, despite the perception of the Church as a very “top-down” organization. Does this say anything about how we should perceive the workings of revelation and the Spirit in the Church? Are there doctrinal or “theological” examples of “bottom-up” influence? If not, does this point to a distinction between doctrine & practice contra some suggestions in the relatively recent Belief and Practice thread at Times & Seasons?

Is either “bottom-up” or “top-down” influence preferable? Can both fit the model of revelation in the Church?

Blessed business

Some years ago, my brother in law told me:

When I was younger, I thought that college students really knew what they were doing. When I became a college student, I thought that business people really knew what they were doing. When I became a business person, I realized that nobody knows what they're doing; we're all just making it up as we go along.

Recently, in the hall at church, I mentioned this to one of our high councilors, who does organizational development for a living. He told me that in his line of work, he's discovered how true it is. He mentioned that there are very high levels of incompetency in American business, and then said something interesting: he said that the economic success of the United States is not due to greater competency here than in other countries, but because the Lord has chosen to bless America.

A few questions that come to mind in thinking about this exchange: Does God alter the natural consequences of our actions when he blesses us? Should we view the economic success of America as evidence of divine favor? Is it true of spiritual matters as well as temporal that we're all just bumbling along?

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated--And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. (D&C 130:20-21)

If this high councilor is right, what might be the laws America is obeying to warrant God's blessings of economic prosperity? Does the United States fit the requirements outlined in the Book of Mormon?

Behold, do ye not remember the words which he spake unto Lehi, saying that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land? And again it is said that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. (Alma 9:13)

The Church prospers

President Hinckley tends, generally, to project a very positive outlook regarding the state of the Church and how we are perceived by the world. This was particularly evident around the time of the Olympics, but has been a consistent theme during his presidency.

This seems intended to reassure the Saints, but seems to stand in sharp contrast to quotes such as this one from Brigham Young:

I am satisfied that it will not do for the Lord to make this people popular. Why? Because all hell would want to be in the church. The people must be kept where the finger of scorn can be pointed at them. Although it is admitted that we are honest, industrious, truthful, virtuous, self-denying, and, as a community, possess every moral excellence, yet we must be looked upon as ignorant and unworthy, and as the offscouring of society, and be hated by the world. What is the reason of this? Christ and Baal can not become friends. When I see this people grow and spread and prosper, I feel that there is more danger than when they are in poverty. Being driven from city to city or into the mountains is nothing compared to the danger of our becoming rich and being hailed by outsiders as a first-class community.

(Journal of Discourses, 12: 272-273.)

Are Brigham Young's and Gordon Hinckley's views reconcilable? Is one of them preferable? What is the view the world has of Mormonism? Does it more closely match the positive message articulated by President Hinckley or the way President Young said it must always be? What is the effect of relative prosperity on the Church in the U.S.?

Book of Mormon Geo Challenge

The current issue of Sunstone has a number of essays on issues dealing with Book of Mormon geography. Brent Metcalfe contributed an essay (PDF) outlining some of the difficulties with the limited geography interpretation. The limited geography interpretation points out the difficulties with the hemispheric interpretation. Trent Stephens explains the difficulties with recent DNA-based criticisms (PDF). Ralph Olsen proposes a Malay setting for the Book of Mormon (PDF). (But in that case, what are we to make of the prophesied Columbus figure, etc.?)

It seems that no matter how you slice it, there are difficulties in trying to place where the Book of Mormon events happened. So here is the Book of Mormon geo challenge: Does the text of the Book of Mormon itself give enough information to know, even generally, where the "promised land" was? Asia? Africa? Malaysia? Mesoamerica? New York? Australia? Greenland? If someone picked up the Book of Mormon without knowing anything about it, without knowing any of the prophetic statements about it or the story of its origin, would they have any idea where it took place?

Lesson resolved

So, this is what I did to resolve the dilemma of my disagreement with the lesson manual: The manual had a story about a young boy who was given the charge to train a horse for farm work. They could accomplish much more together than either of them could separately, but only if the boy was in charge. I emphasized the idea that the body gives us far greater power than we would otherwise have, and that we need to learn to control it, but without couching it in terms of a “war” between body and spirit.

We did go through the passage in Galatians quite thoroughly, and I gave my view that “the flesh” referred to was not the body itself, but the influence mortality (including the body) has on our spirits, causing us to desire “the works of the flesh.” I also used sports analogies: learning to shoot free throws and the discipline involved in practice, and training with weights that impede us or slow us down but simultaneously make us stronger.

Almost everything I taught came from the manual, but I de-emphasized the areas I disagreed with and tried to avoid even bringing up anything that would cause me to point out my disagreement. Was it the right approach? I'm not sure, but I felt good about it, and it felt like a good and effective lesson.

Teaching from the manual

An interesting discussion was started in early March on the Nauvoo.com Forums, about what to do when you, as a teacher, come across something in the manual that you don't agree with. Specifically, the questions asked were:

Suppose that you are a teacher in Church (whether of Sunday School, Primary, RS, MP or whatever). You are preparing your lesson for next week. In reviewing the lesson manual, you discover that the manual includes statements or assertions that you do not know to be true. What is the best way to handle such a situation?

Does the answer differ if, instead of not knowing something to be true, you actually believe it not to be true?

Do you resign your calling? Teach the lesson but steer around that particular point? Ask to have someone else teach that entire lesson? Decline to respond to questions addressing the point you have an issue with? Teach what the lesson manual says even if you think it to be wrong?

I was faced with precisely this situation a couple of weeks ago as I prepared to teach the deacons quorum. The lesson was on spirituality, which the manual defined in David O. McKay's words: “the consciousness of victory over self, and of communion with the Infinite.” The lesson focused on controlling our bodies.

Some of the phrasing of the manual suggested a struggle between body and spirit for control, especially this quote from Brigham Young:

If the spirit yields to the body, the Devil then has power to overcome the body and spirit of that man, and he loses both.

Recollect … every one of you, that when evil is suggested to you, when it arises in your hearts, it is through the [body].

Problem is, I don't believe it is correct to say that the body and the spirit are struggling against each other for control, though I do believe that the spirit does struggle in trying to control the body. I think the idea of a “war” between spirit and body is carried over into Mormonism from the incorrect view of much of the Christian world that matter is evil. So I had to figure out how to approach this issue. The manual also centered on a scriptural passage, Galatians 5:16-25, using an interpretation I am not sure is correct. It suggested that the “works of the flesh” in this passage were the works of the body, and the “fruits of the Spirit” were the works of our individual spirits in control of our bodies. I think the correct interpretation is that “the flesh” refers to our mortal, fallen condition, and “the Spirit” refers to the Spirit of God, which can lift us out of our fallen state.

A few questions: If you were in my situation (assuming you shared my views), how would you have approached teaching this lesson? Do you think this is an important enough issue even to worry about? Do you think the body and the spirit are at war with each other, vying for control?

(Soon, I'll post what I actually did in teaching the lesson.)

Baptismal interviews

It's been a while since my baptism at age eight, and I don't remember my baptismal interview. My oldest son, Dallin, recently turned eight and will be baptized this Saturday. As I talked to him about his upcoming baptismal interview, I anticipated that the bishop would ask him what baptism meant, why he wanted to be baptized, if he was choosing for himself, if he had a testimony of Jesus, and so forth. So I was quite surprised Sunday after his baptismal interview to hear that the bishop hadn't asked him any of these things. Instead, he asked him what the sacrament bread and water represented, talked to him a little bit about baptism, filled his pocket with candy, and sent him on his way.

Should the bishop be ensuring that eight-year-olds are deciding for themselves to be baptized, that they have a testimony of Jesus, and that they understand what baptism means? Or can he assume that because our family is active and Dallin has been attending primary regularly that he has these things down? Should I have expected something different? A couple of weeks before his interview with the bishop, Dallin had a talk with me in which I asked him those questions about his testimony, the meaning of baptism, and his decision to be baptized. Is that where the primary responsibility really lies: with the parents? If so, what role does the bishop really play in baptisms of children of record?

Orson Hyde on the Kingdom of God

I frequently hear the question, as Kim Siever wonders over at Our Thoughts, “Why is it that children are sealed to parents? What meaning can this have eternally if children are sealed to their own spouses?”

While I don't have a definitive answer, the early Latter-day Saints apparently did. Orson Hyde drew up and published a Diagram of the Kingdom of God, with an accompanying editorial in which he explained that the Kingdom of God is organized hierarchically according to the Patriarchal Order.

I think this kind of idea is acceptable to our modern LDS minds if each branch is considered to be a couple with their own spirit children, but when we start placing the children we have here on earth into sub-branches, it begins to be uncomfortable for us. Why is this the case? Can and should we re-interpret what the sealing of children to parents means, when the Patriarchal Order is so central to LDS temple theology?

Doubt not

Thomas S. Monson, in the priesthood session of October 2000 General Conference, said, “Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Cast out doubt. Cultivate faith.”

How does one do this? Are there really people out there who don't doubt? (If so, have they really examined their faith?) How does one stop doubting? “Just believe” doesn't work for me, and even if it did, is it really admirable to just set aside our doubts rather than resolving them? Do all our doubts have to be resolved in order for us to have faith?