Indicative of anything?

37And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things. 38And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. (3 Nephi 11:37-38)

We spouses were invited to (Home, Family, and Personal) Enrichment tonight for an excellent mini-seminar on estate planning. (Extremely useful information and very enlightening.) For an opening song, we sang “Families Can Be Together Forever” (slightly quirky choice, considering the topic of death planning). I noticed that while the music conductor was using the hymnbook, the pianist was using the Primary songbook. It made me wonder whether the inclusion of Primary songs in the latest edition of the hymnbook is indicative of anything. Is it a sign that the Church wants us to be simpler-minded in our faith -- more like children? Or am I reading too much into these inclusions? How do we determine whether some phenomenon is indicative of some larger thing?

Dealing with disturbances in sacrament meeting

Yesterday, in sacrament meeting, we had a brother who is in our stake, but not in our ward, attend our sacrament meeting. I don't know this brother at all, but have seen him on several occasions. He appears to have some kind of behavioral disorder, though obviously I don't know whether he does or not.

He sat a few rows behind me and, during the sacrament, spoke with his friend next to him (apparently not a member, based on their conversation) loudly enough for nearly the entire congregation to hear. It was clearly bothering quite a few people, and just as clearly had the attention of the bishopric. No one said anything, though a number of people looked his way.

My question: what is the best course of action in such a situation? Should someone have politely asked him to keep his voice to a whisper or not to talk at all during the sacrament? Or were we all right to “ignore” his loud talking and accept it as a behavioral problem? Would your answer change if I had been sitting next to him, rather than a few rows in front? Would it be different if I were a member of the bishopric asking this question?

Resurrection

What I do not to-day, when the sun goes down, I lay down to sleep, which is typical of death; and in the morning I rise and commence my work where I left it yesterday. That course is typical of the probations we take. But suppose that I do not improve my time to-day, I wake up to-morrow and find myself in the rear; and then, if I do not improve upon that day, and again lay down to sleep, on awaking, I find myself still in the rear. This day's work is typical of this probation, and the sleep of every night is typical of death, and rising in the morning is typical of the resurrection. They are days' labours, and it is for us to be faithful to-day, to-morrow, and every day.

--Heber C. Kimball, JD 4:328-329

Well, as far as this blog goes, I certainly have not followed Elder Kimball's admonition, as I have found myself “in the rear” for quite some time now. Fortunately, we believe in resurrection. :-)

Gone fishing

Wow. Where did the time go? It's been a while since I posted anything. I haven't even been able to read much online lately. But I have been reading some good stuff offline. One of my recent favorites is Most Moved Mover, a decent (though somewhat repetitive) assertion of the value of the open view of God. The repetitiveness is probably due to the fact that it's a compilation of lectures, which probably required some degree of repetition.

So, while I'm gone on my two-week vacation to Disneyworld, read the book. Talk amongst yourselves. Discuss. I'll catch up with you at the end of the month.

Unless I just decide to move to Florida...

Fellowcitizens

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God (Ephesians 2:19)

Last night I accompanied the youth on a temple trip to do baptisms for the dead. The temple president spoke with them briefly before we got started. He compared baptism with a naturalization ceremony for those who desire to become U.S. citizens. I immediately thought of the scripture above from Ephesians. I think it's a good analogy. He talked about how the naturalization ceremony requires that we know certain things and commit to certain things, and that we are then accepted as members of the community -- the celestial community, for baptism. (And, of course, there is the implication of necessary authority.)

As I look at the Ephesians verse, I note also that it includes both "fellowcitizens with the saints" and "of the household of God". I believe "of the household" means "part of the family". I think these are both similar and distinct concepts. We become "the seed of Christ" at baptism, but we are not sealed into the family until we have received the temple covenants, and had them sealed upon us by the Holy Spirit of promise. This is a process of progression indicated in the scriptures by various relational terms describing us as slaves or servants to God, or children, or friends.

Grace to grace

11And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us. 12And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace. 13And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; 14And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. 15And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. 16And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father

(D&C 93:11-16)

What did Jesus know about himself and his mission, and when did he know it? Did it take time for the realization of his role to sink in? I had always assumed that by the time of Jesus' baptism, he had a full understanding of his mission and role and his relation to the Father. But recently, as I have been reading the New Testament in German, I wonder if that is really the case.

We have the account of the Holy Ghost descending upon Jesus in all four gospels, with some slight differences that may be a little more pronounced in German. In Matthew, we read that when Jesus came up out of the water, he saw the Holy Ghost descending upon himself, with a voice declaring, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” In Mark, we read that the heavens were open to Jesus, who saw the Holy Ghost descending upon himself, and the voice spoke directly to him: “Thou art my beloved Son, and I am well pleased with thee.” In Luke, “the Holy Ghost descended visibly in the form of a dove,” implying that this was visible to everyone, not just Jesus, but the voice spoke directly to him, as in Mark. In John, Jesus' baptism is not mentioned, and John the Baptist testifies that he saw the Holy Ghost descend like a dove upon Jesus and remain upon him. He doesn't mention a voice, but he states that the one who sent him to baptize with water (God) had already told him how to recognize the one who would baptize with the Holy Ghost.

So, to summarize, we have these features of the accounts:

	Baptism	Who saw the sign of the Holy Ghost	Who heard the voice
Matthew	Yes	Jesus only	Everyone present (ambiguous)
Mark	Yes	Jesus only	Jesus only
Luke	Yes	Everyone present (implied)	Jesus only
John	No	John only	No one

Why should these differences be interesting? It seems to me they may give some insight into what the various gospel authors thought Jesus' understanding of himself was at the time of his baptism, as well as the kind of witness that was given to the people around.

For example, only in the account of Luke do we have the implication that the sign of the Holy Ghost was public. The voice from heaven may have been more public, but is not mentioned in John (instead, John had a private prior revelation) and was directed to Jesus in two of the other three accounts.

This makes me think that the sign of the Holy Ghost and the voice from heaven were signs intended primarily for Jesus, giving him a greater understanding of his role and mission. It was followed immediately (according to the synoptic gospels) by his forty days in the wilderness, in which he is tempted with “if thou art the Son of God...” -- perhaps especially targeted at a Jesus just coming to terms with a fuller understanding of his role and mission.

And even then, I wonder if it took some time for it to sink in. In Matthew, John preaches, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” After his forty days in the wilderness, Jesus heard that John had been imprisoned, and he returned to Galilee, perhaps fearing that the same might happen to him. He began preaching the same message as John: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It seems that early on, he is in a similar role as John was. Luke has him, shortly thereafter, reading in the synagogue in Nazareth: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me... this day is this scripture fulfilled.” It seems that he may have been coming to realize the full import of what God had revealed to him since his baptism.

I think there are good reasons why modern revelation includes the teaching that Jesus “received not of the fulness at first.” Primarily, it is to allow us to identify more fully with him, as he states further in D&C 93:19-20:

19I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. 20For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

We should not be discouraged that we do not receive full understanding in short order. Jesus himself also needed to proceed bit by bit until he had a full understanding.

Jacques Derrida dead at 74

This isn't exactly a Mormon-specific topic, but since Derrida comes up frequently in conversations on LDS-PHIL, I thought it would be interesting to many in the Bloggernacle. He died today, at age 74, of pancreatic cancer.

Blog updates

After some prodding, I've installed Ebenezer Orthodoxy's Blogger Comment Hack and Recent Comments Hack. I've also updated the template a little bit to tighten up the sidebar. The Blog Club seems to have gone the way of the dodo, so I've removed it. I plan to update my Bloggernacle links any day now... really...

New blog: By Study and Also By Faith

A shout-out to new Bloggernacker Tyro, who has started up By Study and Also By Faith. Tyro has been an active participant on the Nauvoo.com forums for some time. Welcome to the Bloggernacle, Tyro!

New book on the JST

Scott Faulring, Kent Jackson, and Robert Matthews have edited a new book on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible: Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts. From the description on the site I linked to:

This volume – the work of a lifetime – brings together all the Joseph Smith Translation manuscripts in a remarkable and useful way. Now, for the first time, readers can take a careful look at the complete text, along with photos of several actual manuscript pages. The book contains a typographic transcription of all the original manuscripts, unedited and preserved exactly as dictated by the prophet Joseph and recorded by his scribes. In addition, this volume features essays on the background, doctrinal contributions, and editorial procedures involved in the Joseph Smith Translation, as well as the history of the manuscripts since Joseph Smith’s day.

The page I linked to above also includes a transcript of an interview with two of the editors, who describe the process of getting access to, and preserving, the original manuscripts, which belong to the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS Church).

It sounds like an excellent project, and they reportedly plan to release a CD next year with digital images of the original manuscripts.

UPDATE: The book, which was originally estimated to be available toward the end of the year, is now available.

Bottom-up, again

No, this is not a post about drinking games.

Back in April, I asked about whether a bottom-up approach to things in the Church fits with our model of revelation. My recent reading has led me to consider this topic again.

I'm reading The Price of Government: Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis, and enjoying it quite a bit. One of the principles discussed is Budgeting for Outcomes, or, in other words, determining what the desired results are (and what their priorities are), what the available budget is, and then allocating budget toward achieving those results. The authors emphasize that the desired results are not those desired by the governor or political parties, but by the public at large.

So I started to wonder to what extent we can and should take this kind of approach in the context of Church government. I asked my wife, who is on the ward activities committee, if the committee has a good sense of what the ward members want from ward activities. She answered, “No, but we have a good idea of what the bishopric wants.” Apparently, the bishopric has given fairly specific direction about what ward activities should accomplish and how they should do so (as well as what not to do).

Given our model of revelatory stewardship, I think we have to have room for this kind of top-down direction to some extent. But if the ward members aren't getting what they want from ward activities, they simply won't come. Then, no matter how inspired the bishopric's counsel is, very few people will benefit from it. So I thought perhaps the activities committee could come up with a survey of ward members, asking them what they wanted out of ward activities. The question is, even given decent feedback, how is this best meshed with the bishopric's stewardship?

It seems to me that this approach is modeled at the highest levels of the Church, who have done surveys for many years. In fact, the Church has an official online survey website at www.ldsfeedback.org (apparently an invitation “coupon” is required to register for the site). The Welfare Plan was developed after the Church conducted a survey of members. The changes to the temple ceremony in 1990 may have been influenced by the results of a 1988 survey that included questions about the temple. More recently, in May, 2001, the Church surveyed women members about their experience in the Church.

The Church seems to be setting an example of “studying it out in your mind” as an essential part of the revelatory process. Can we effectively do the same at the local level?

And, of course, this applies to far more than the activities committee. One of the biggest struggles we had in our “Perfect the Saints” priesthood committee was figuring out what we were supposed to do. While I thought we came up with some pretty decent ideas, and had some direction from the bishopric, I think we could have been much more effective if we had been able to know from ward members how they felt we could best help them. And the same goes for Relief Society (imagine Enrichment nights based on a survey of what sisters want Enrichment nights to be like!), youth organizations, and so forth.

So don't delay; find out how you can be more effective by getting your organization to do a survey of your ward (or stake) members. Oh, and let me know how it goes...

As far as it is translated

Adam Greenwood started an interesting discussion over at Times & Seasons about how different approaches to “close reading” of the scriptures affect the conclusions we may reach from our reading. This brought up the question whether close reading is helpful, especially given the limitations of language to express revelation.

On that thread, I commented:

Perhaps the great value in close reading is not so much what we conclude, but the process of questioning, exploring, learning, pondering, and asking God for further light and knowledge. In the meantime, we can make tentative conclusions, as long as we recognize that we may be wrong.

Last night, I did some reading in the scriptures in German. I had to concentrate more than I do when reading in English (which I think is a value in itself). I found that as I read with concentration and focus, certain points of the text struck me differently than they do in English, and I learned some new things. I'm sure those of you who know multiple languages have had similar experiences. I think this is an excellent illustration of the principle I outlined above.

We don't claim that the Church's translation of the Doctrine & Covenants into German is divinely inspired. Yet a close reading of the German text may influence me to understand the scriptures differently than the English text does. I don't think this is because one is necessarily more “correct” than the other; I think it's just the natural consequence of different languages, with all the associated history, connotations, linguistic connections, and so forth.

We can ask whether the German text is faithful to the English, but that breaks down at a certain point. As Clark noted in his post on Umberto Eco on translation, being overly “faithful” to the source text may be a negative thing. Inevitably, what is said in German, no matter how much effort is made to express the same ideas as the English text, will be different. And I think this is a very positive thing, not a negative one.

The idea of an open canon applies as much on the level of a verse as it does on the level of an entire book. There are a couple of quotes on this subject that I like very much, from Dallin H. Oaks' article, Scripture Reading and Revelation:

Our belief in an open canon also includes private revelations to individual seekers of the meaning of existing scriptures. Such revelations are necessary because, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve observed, “Each pronouncement in the holy scriptures ... is so written as to reveal little or much, depending on the spiritual capacity of the student” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985, p. 71)...

The Lord promised Nephi: “Unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have” (2 Ne. 28:30; see also Matt. 13:12). That verse capsulizes the Latter-day Saint belief in the importance of continuing revelation as we read and interpret the scriptures. Even if there were no additional revelations to be added to the published canon, an open canon would still be an essential part of our belief and practice in scripture reading...

The idea that scripture reading can lead to inspiration and revelation opens the door to the truth that a scripture is not limited to what it meant when it was written but may also include what that scripture means to a reader today. Even more, scripture reading may also lead to current revelation on whatever else the Lord wishes to communicate to the reader at that time. We do not overstate the point when we say that the scriptures can be a Urim and Thummim to assist each of us to receive personal revelation.

The problem with not valuing close reading is that we close off a great avenue for further revelation and understanding. When we read closely, we recognize that we don't have all the answers, and we begin to ask questions of the scriptures, and to allow them to raise questions for us. Different translations (such as the JST, modern Bible translations into English or any other language, etc.) can encourage this process, not necessarily because they necessarily bring us to more correct conclusions of themselves, but because they get us asking questions.