Saturday, August 29, 2009

The Church as Software: How Many Versions?


"In my Father's house are many mansions" (John 14:2).


I have been writing on Macintosh computers since 1984, when they first came out. Consequently, I have used every major operating system (OS) that Apple has ever released. My current computer uses OS 10 (dot something). Much has changed in the Mac, but a Mac still feels like a Mac to me. Will the Mac ever evolve into a new species? That's a side-track, because I really want to ask: If the Church were a computer operating system, then how many versions has it gone through?

The LDS Church has evolved over many years, maybe not at light speed, but the changes have been significant. Latter-day Saints believe in "continuing revelation," and thus no one in this Church should be surprised by expanded knowledge and revised practices over time. (Yet, like the Mac, the LDS Church still is the same basic species).

Over at one of my favorite blog sites, "The Mormon Organon," SteveP recently has posted an essay entitled, "The Church and the Ship of Neurath." In the post he raises the question of how many changes can you make on a ship and still claim it is the same ship. The post implicitly raises the question: Given all the changes, are we the same Church as in the past? I posted this response:


Because the LDS believe in “continuing revelation,” we are constantly rebuilding the ship of Neurath — it is an EVOLVING structure. It will always be the same ship, but it will NEVER be restricted to old technologies that have become irrelevant or obsolete. The ship can be adapted and shaped to the current conditions, staying afloat amidst the largest storms. The thing is: the ship needs to be rebuilt from time to time, lest it be stuck too strongly in the past.


In a related vein, a post by Matt W. (read his engaging self-description) at "New Cool Thang," entitled "We've had enough?" discusses the question: How do we deal with past Church teachings that are "superseded by new instruction?" Matt W.'s response to this question is:


Do we lose confidence in our Medical Doctors because they used to use leeches? Do we lose confidence in our contractors because they built with Asbestos? I say no. We have to accept instead that we are on a journey here, with ebbs and flows and we are doing the best we can.


Surely, there are eternal issues that never change. God is stable, but humans are NOT. Everything about human beings changes: our earth; our food; our likes and dislikes; and even our levels of understanding. LDS theology recognizes the dynamic changes that face human beings. Thus, our theology is sensitive to the continuing need for divine inspiration, which ultimately is revelation.

To the modern non-LDS ear, "revelation" sounds dangerous, whacky, mystical, magical, and outright anti-democratic. Yet, the Church, like science, has the need to legitimately expand its knowledge bases. There is a foundational methodology that leads to revelation, and that methodology eliminates most concerns for danger.

In a recent essay, "What Constitutes Mormon Doctrine?", the following criteria for doctrine were explained:


1. Doctrines have evidence of being "established" by a modern First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve.



2. Doctrinal statements are "consistently" (repeatedly) taught through modern official Church publications.



3. All doctrines must be based in the "standard works" of scripture, or in official declarations / proclamations affirmed by both the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve in modern times.


It is by these criteria that theological doctrine can expand with integrity. In any case, it is historical fact that the Church has evolved.

The Church might be considered as a computerized operating system that evolves and is enumerated. Given the changes in the Church, how might we number the "versions?"

Here is my listing:


Version 1: 1830 (Church established; Book of Mormon in print);

Version 2: 1835 (Apostles organized, D&C revelations updated & released);

Version 3: 1842 (Nauvoo's temple theology);

Version 4: 1852 (Reformation Mormonism and its counter-culture);

Version 5: 1890 (Transitional Mormonism; dropping polygamy; bringing Church into the mainstream);

Version 6: 1951 (David O. McKay & the international Church; temples placed abroad);

Version 7: 1978 (Spencer W. Kimball & the opening of the priesthood to all worthy males);

Version 8: 1990 (Ezra Taft Benson & the renewed emphasis on the Book of Mormon; redesign of temple ceremonies);

Version 9: 1995 (Gordon B. Hinckley & the vast expansion of temple building; improved public relations and openness).


Readers are welcome to argue with me that I have either divided the Church into too many versions, or that I have missed critical versions.

In any case, it is essential to note that the integrity of the Church is maintained by the lineage of its priesthood, which has NEVER changed. Church authority and proper identity comes from its ancient priesthood.

The Church has changed (in many significant ways), but NOT its identity, purpose, mission, commission, or divine charge. It has merely changed in order to remain relevant to contemporary problems and needs. Yes, Mormons have a dynamic Church. If so accused, then we plead guilty.



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Sometimes Less is More




Sometimes, a great truth comes in a small package. In a Sacrament meeting (a few years back) the talks ran long, and our High Councilman had only about two minutes to give his talk, the last of the meeting. So he said [paraphrasing]:



About 5 minutes ago I changed the talk that I was going to give. For years I have wondered why the Savior said on the cross in his final minutes, “Lord, Lord why hast thou forsaken me.” A few weeks ago I realized the answer. When Jesus took on the sins of the world, his Father’s spirit could not abide with Him. God the Father could not be with his Son at that crucial moment because Jesus literally took on the sins of the world. Jesus literally took on those evils, and as such, the Father had to take leave at that moment.

Think what Jesus went through. He had been in the presence of the spirit of his Father all his life. Think of the pain Jesus must have felt in losing the comforting spirit of his Father. To me, this thought makes the concept of atonement all the more powerful.


Our High Councilman’s “accordion” talk (that is, collapsed talk) was the best of the meeting, and I told him so. Sometimes short talks (and short blogs too) are better at making important points than long ones. Less is often more.



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

A Personal Philosophy on Teaching

by
S.Faux, Ph.D.


Preface: As Latter-day Saints we are often called upon to speak at the pulpit in Church. Many of us find the experience of preparing and delivering a twenty-minute "sermon" to be associated with great anxiety. It is hard to be a public speaker. Now, imagine being a university professor with the assignment of giving six to nine "fifty-minute" lectures (all on different topics) within one week's time. University professors are expected to pull off miracles. They do, and it is stressful.

The demands of university teaching are such that it is necessary to constantly reevaluate what one is doing in the classroom. The following essay may seem to be self-centered, but it was written as a self-reflection for improving my teaching.

To readers of "Mormon Insights" this essay may not directly teach you much about the gospel, but it may lend some background about the author of this "Sunday School" blog. Knowing me a little better will help readers to appropriately take my arguments with a grain of salt.

For what it is worth – here is my university teaching philosophy →



*****


Cognitive neuroscientists are supposed to be experts on the topic of “learning,” and I suppose it follows that they should be experts at teaching as well. The act of teaching humbles me far too often to deceive myself that I have mastered either learning or teaching.

Almost two decades of teaching at a university has taught me that in any given course, some portion of my students will be smarter than I am. Sure, I am more educated and more experienced than my students, but I have never presumed that I have a superior intelligence.

Respecting the basic intelligence of students applies even to struggling students. For example, some years back I caught a student cheating on an exam in one of my upper-division courses. The student had been struggling in the course all semester long. It was the last mid-term of the course, and I noticed the student peeking under the exam in a suspicious manner. I lifted the exam to determine what was underneath. I found the tiniest little crib notes imaginable, about 20 one-inch square sheets. Each small sheet had tiny laser printing (about a 3-point font). It practically took a magnifying glass to read the text. The crib notes were meticulously organized and contained some of the best summary information I had ever seen a student produce. It must have taken many hours of work to design and organize those crib notes. In a later meeting, I told the student that if the extraordinary intelligence that had produced the crib notes had been legitimately applied to studying for the exam, then a top grade would have resulted. This experience taught me to try to do a better job of finding each student’s talents and then directing those talents into academic success. You see, those illegal crib notes almost said more about the student’s intellectual abilities (even through ethically misdirected) than any exam might have measured when taken properly.

My university attracts wonderful students, and I have had good reason to be confident in their abilities. My students’ questions have often educated me. Consequently, I attempt to create a classroom atmosphere in which there is no such thing as a silly question. In fact, questions based in child-like curiosity are sometimes the very best. I will never forget my 9-year old boy’s question to me while we watched a spider crawl on its web outside of our home. He asked, “Why don’t spiders get stuck in their own webs?” It was a brilliant question that I had never before imagined. My college students sometimes come up to me after class and ask me some of the most insightful questions. Inevitably, I will answer, “What a delightful question! Why didn’t you raise that in class?” They often reply, “I was worried what others might think or that there might not be an answer. I didn’t want to put you on the spot.” Such occasions allow me to teach that good questions are often more important than “good” answers. We should NOT come to school to get “final answers” as much as we should come to learn how to ask the right questions. “Answers” are moving targets that typically become obsolete with time. The ability to ask an insightful question at the right time, it seems to me, is a far greater skill than that of being a passive receptacle of facts.

This leads to another philosophy of teaching. Science courses almost have two opposing goals: 1) “To teach students current information” versus 2) “To teach students to question and challenge that current information.” Science tries to teach facts, but it does not want students to accept those “facts” as dogma. In the past, my dilemma as a science teacher was: How can I teach foundational information and still get students to ask appropriate questions, to be skeptical, and to feel free to express contrary opinions? I wanted to teach specific scientific information and still provoke student analysis in the classroom. I had to allow controversial topics to be engaged. Students must learn to speak up. They must learn to overcome their fears of raising questions, of stating their opinions, and of objecting to ideas. Accordingly, I reorganized two of my upper-division courses several years ago to accommodate those issues.

Two of my primary upper division courses are on the topics of "cognitive neuroscience" and "sensation & perception." Years ago, when I first started teaching these courses, I used a fairly standard lecture format. There was nothing particularly wrong with the lectures, except that they made it too easy for students to become passive. I needed to find a tool to make them active learners. I stumbled upon a format that has worked for me. It allows for both lecture and student interaction. The inspiration probably came from talk-radio shows that often have an “open-line Friday.” On such days callers into the show are given extra latitude on the kinds of issues that they can raise with the host. I stole that format for my courses. On Mondays and Wednesdays, I set the agenda and have certain amounts of material that need to be covered. Fridays are a different ballgame. Fridays are a seminar day, intended to be more free-wheeling and uninhibited than the lecture-days. (Incidentally, I prepare harder for Fridays, than Mondays or Wednesdays).

On Fridays, students are assigned college-level readings that go outside of standard textbooks and that intentionally are controversial and provocative. For example, in the past couple of years in the “cognitive” course I have used Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Pinker is a Harvard-based cognitive / evolutionary psychologist who argues that the foundations of human language are genetic, and who believes that the brain is a collection of innately coded modules that constrain cooperation, community, and civilization. On Fridays, I expect students to come to class prepared to argue. My standard of success for a Friday-seminar is when students do most of the talking. (I am not always successful). I have students write a “Pinker Diary” in which they record their personal reactions, chapter by chapter. I tell students not to summarize the book (for I have read it already); instead, I ask them to give reactions and opinions. “What do you like in the book and what do you hate? Why?” I did not choose the Pinker book because I necessarily agreed with it, but I chose it because the Pinker book provoked the right kinds of issues for class discussion. The “Pinker-diary” is the most successful assignment I have ever given.

For my “sensation & perception” class, I have been using V.S. Ramachandran’s book, Phantoms in the Brain, for the Friday seminar. One of my students was so intrigued by the book that she invited Ramachandran to our university to give a lecture sponsored by the Honors Program. It was a wonderful experience for my students to meet the author of the book they were currently reading and discussing.



*****


Two great intellects have influenced my teaching: Darwin and Skinner.

In all of my university courses I try to teach why the concept of evolution by natural selection (Darwinism) is central to the study of behavior and life science. Darwinian ideas been widely misunderstood by the public at-large, and I feel an obligation to teach students how to recognize those misconceptions. The topics that I teach revolve around not just “brain,” but the “evolved brain.” Of course, I cannot require students to believe in evolution, but it gives me satisfaction as a teacher to think they are educated in the ideas behind it. Also, I can be critical when appropriate. For example, sometimes theories of social evolution argue for the “status quo.” I would hope my students understand that such arguments are often fallacious.

No doubt, my teaching has been influenced by the writings of B. F. Skinner, who is another one of my intellectual heroes. Skinner believed that the best way to teach was to reward successive approximations to some designated target behavior. By contrast, he argued that punishment merely teaches the learner what not to do, while also producing a concomitant emotional response. He concluded that punishment is not as effective as reward in learning. From Skinner, I have tried to establish specific learning objectives. I have tried to be approachable as a professor. When students come to my office, I try to make it a positive experience. I keep an open door policy. When I grade papers, I try to praise good writing, even though I am obligated to identify the bad. My job as a college teacher is to help shape intellectual behavior. I cringe when I hear about professors who berate students. Students need to learn intellectual discipline, but you cannot berate them into it.

Unlike the prominent influences discussed above, the greatest influence on my teaching operates in the background. I am referring to my training in the gospel. The "gospel" does NOT teach me science, BUT it does teach me to be honest in my search for truth. It teaches me to have respect for ALL people, even those students who struggle the most. It teaches me to be sensitive to "teachable moments" outside of the classroom, and to render service to students in need. Because I teach at a non-LDS university, it is inappropriate for me to mix religion into the science content of my courses, but it ALWAYS has been necessary for me to mix religious morality into the content of my character. Contrary to the views of some, religion embedded within the scientist is NOT an intellectual defect.



*****


Of all my students, I love my first-year students the most. These are the students that need to be taught how to succeed in college. (Upper-division students rarely need such help). I love to teach first-year students how to read a college textbook, how to identify important information, and how to get the information to stick in memory. Importantly, they laugh at my jokes better than the upper-division students. Strangely, I even enjoy looking at the shocked faces of my first-year students when they get their first exam score. The reward is seeing dramatically improved scores on the second exam. The big changes seen in first-year students within a single semester make them a particularly fun population with which to work.

Fifty years from now, if my students still think of me, they will not recall my lectures or teaching activities. However, I do hope they remember my enthusiasm for the pursuit of learning and the intellect. If I have made that enthusiasm memorable and contagious, then I have succeeded as a teacher. There could be no greater teaching reward than that.


*****


Postscript: Thank you readers for indulging me in this exercise in self-reflection.



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Do Messy Offices Reflect Messy Lives?


I have often pondered that deep philosophical question.

This summer at my work I moved down the hall to a new office. Good thing, because my old office was almost uninhabitable. My desks were filled with multiple piles of paper each averaging two feet high. My bookcases were full and unshelved books were collecting on the floor. My file cabinets were full of old materials needing to be discarded. Entropy was beginning to takeover.

An opportunity came to move my office like an opportunity to repent. I took it. No, I leaped upon it. I made the resolution that henceforth my office would look clean and organized. No longer would I be a slave to the disheveled. I was going to undergo an office makeover. My walls were going to sport new pictures and posters. Even my bulletin boards would have new cartoons.

Given all these changes, would my personality be renewed as well?

My wife got into the act. "Honey, there are a lot of artifacts in the house that you could use to decorate your new place." She was itching to get rid of my world globe that was cluttering our living room. Thus, I took it. And, then there was the African statue that was a little bit scary looking. No problem; I packed it too.



My world globe.


A close facsimile to my African statue.


She said, "Take one of the framed orange crate labels." Our walls at home are filled with them. I took one to my new office. The label is "TRUTH," which somehow seems appropriate -- at least I aspire to it.



The "TRUTH." This label was used on orange crates in the 1940s.


My framed and custom designed "Seal of Melchizedek" was hanging in a family room in our basement next to a Nordictrack ski machine. It needed to be promoted to a place of honor. I took it and hung it above my office desk.



My personal design using an 8-sided star, sometimes called the "Seal of Melchizedek."


On another side of my office I hung an autographed poster of Meave Leakey, the famous paleoanthropologist. I invited her to speak to my university about ten years ago.

On the floor I threw down a nicely decorated accent rug, and I placed my world globe in the middle of it.



*****



I wish one could do to the mind what one can do in house cleaning. Reorganizing my mind is not likely to happen, but perhaps my newly decorated office will inspire my brain to new heights of creativity. For now, I better be content with a slightly enlarged sense of serenity. As they say, "cleanliness is next to godliness." Why I am suddenly thinking of the atonement?



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Mormons Must Respect Interfaith Dialogue


If we take the gospel at face value, then we must admit that the nature of God is open to all peoples all across the earth. All people are His children. If the Mormon people are "chosen," then it is only in the sense that we are servants to carry the word, serve the poor, and to perform ordinances. In other words, the role of the Mormon people, although essential, is one of humility, NOT arrogance. Great truths are evidenced across the world, and Mormons have NO claim on superiority.

I do NOT mean to downplay the importance of the Church. Again, its role is essential. But, Mormons have no purpose or reason to be haughty, arrogant, or self-righteous. There are many non-LDS throughout the world who are doing the work of God according to His purpose. Elder Anderson expressed this basic thought in this manner:


Neil L. Andersen, “Come unto Him,” Ensign, May 2009, 78–80
We must remember, my dear brothers and sisters, who we are and what we have in our hands. We are not alone in our desire to do good; there are wonderful people of many faiths and beliefs.

We are not alone in praying to our Heavenly Father or in receiving answers to our prayers; our Father loves all of His children.

We are not alone in sacrificing for a greater cause; there are others who are unselfish.

Others share our faith in Christ. There are loyal and decent fathers and mothers in every land who love each other and love their children. There is much we can learn from the good people all around us.

Yet we must not shrink from what is uniquely and singularly found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. …

Elder Andersen reminds us that we have have a good work to do, but SO DO OTHERS. Is it possible that others (non-LDS) contribute to “preparing” the earth for the Second Coming? What is the unique role of the Latter-day Saints? Below is Elder Andersen’s answer:


Neil L. Andersen, “Come unto Him,” Ensign, May 2009, 78–80
Only here is the priesthood of God, restored to earth by heavenly messengers. Only here does the Book of Mormon stand with the Bible in revealing and declaring the full divinity and gospel of Christ. Only here are there prophets of God, bringing guidance from heaven and holding the keys that bind in heaven what is bound on earth.

Our knowledge of the divine mission of the Church should not bring feelings of superiority or arrogance but should take us to our knees, pleading for the Lord’s help that we might be what we should be. But in humility we need not be timid in remembering the Lord’s words: “This is my church, and I will establish it; and nothing shall overthrow it” (Mosiah 27:13).

Above all, we proclaim our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. All that we are—all that we will ever be—we owe to Him. While we gaze in awe at His majesty, He does not ask us to stay our distance but bids us to come unto Him. …


*****


Father's bragging point: I am quite proud of my two oldest sons, who are both attending college. As sons of a Mormon professor, they both have learned the importance of scripture study and of obtaining a college education.

Son#1 called me up a couple of days ago and told me that this fall he is taking a college religion course with the requirement of attending five religious services outside of one's own faith. He was looking forward to this experience, and he asked me what faiths I would recommend visiting. I recommended attending a Catholic Mass, a Lutheran service, a Southern Baptist or Evangelical service, and two different Jewish synagogues, perhaps one Conservative and the other Reform. He wants to be an Army LDS Chaplain serving all faiths.

Son#2, a returned missionary, is attending college as well. At his university he is President of the Interfaith Dialogue, a cooperative alliance among members of different faiths. He has actively visited the services of other faiths – always with the mindset of great esteem and reverence.

My thumbs are up to both of my sons, who seem to have learned well their lessons of interfaith respect.



*****


It is counterproductive for members of our faith to act as though there is no need to work cooperatively with other faiths, as if we have the final truth and everyone else is false and inferior. Such an attitude seems counter to a basic message of the Book of Mormon, which states:


2 Nephi 29:7, 12
7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

12 … I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.


Mormons, of all people, should not only promote their own religion BUT should also promote a respect for ANY religion that actively seeks to LOVE God.

We Mormons are not THE chosen people. Instead, we are A chosen people called upon to be servants to others in order to prepare the way for the Savior's second coming, after which peoples of ALL major faiths (those that love God) will work together in harmony and respect, as the truth of Christ is spread (see: Joseph Fielding Smith: Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3: 63-65). Today, we can work towards those ends.



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Monday, August 17, 2009

The Journal of Discourses in Brackets – 1852-56


Preface: This long essay is a study of emotional rhetoric, NOT LDS theology. As modern Latter-day Saints we often want our pioneer prophets to sound like modern ones, but that expectation is unrealistic. The earliest leaders of this Church were frontiersmen who spoke with a frontier tongue.

We modern LDS have analogous expectations about pioneer congregations. We expect pioneer audiences to be rather sedate and polite in meetings like modern ones, giving only an occasional "AMEN" at the end of prayers and talks. Yet, this modern kind of passive behavior was NOT always true in the beginnings of the Church. In the early Church there was much more audience participation, perhaps because the sermons sometimes were much more fiery.

For this study I have used the Journal of Discourses (abbreviated JD) which is a multivolume record of the primary speeches of pioneer General Authorities of the Church. Scattered throughout hundreds of these recorded speeches are editorial insertions framed by brackets or parentheses in which the editor has described the actions or words of members of the audience while the speech was being given.

I performed a computer search of these speeches looking for the “inserted” comments. Based on this search, a random sample of over twenty quotations was taken from the speeches given between 1852 and 1856 – from the first four volumes of the Journal of Discourses. The point to this exercise was to demonstrate that the "exertive pioneer Mormon personality" is sometimes better revealed within the brackets than within the main text of the speaker. Read the quotations and decide for yourself.

NOTE: In all cases I have bolded the commentary in brackets for ease of identification by the reader. Such emphasis was NOT in the original. Rare non-bolded comments in brackets are mine. Further, with only minor exceptions, the quotations are in chronological order.

WARNING: Readers will discover that when audience reactions were evoked, pioneer speakers often were making extreme or emotionally laden statements. Almost anything could be said, because remarks recorded in the Journal of Discourses were often extemporaneous. Sometimes remarks were made from tempers that had flared.

The quotations listed below contain the energy and tenor of the frontier west. They are NOT always representative of the language and perspectives exhibited in early Mormon rhetoric, let alone that of 21st century Mormons.

Furthermore, the period of history here covered led up to the so-called "Mormon Reformation," and this general period often contained rhetoric that was spiced with emotion, fear of further persecution, and hyperbole built upon hyperbole.

Study of such quotations reminds the modern Latter-day Saint of the pains and anxieties found within the beginnings of the Church. Fortunately, such ills have long-since healed.

Modern Mormonism, contrary to some critical views, is a living dynamic that has adapted to the needs of the present without being rigidly stuck in the past. Readers of this essay should keep this principle foremost in mind.



*****


In the following 1852 Conference speech from the "Old Tabernacle" (not to be confused with the extant structure begun in 1864), Brigham Young admitted to the congregation that the Church was experiencing some unusually large debts. Pay attention to Brigham's solution and to the response of the audience.


Brigham Young, JD 1: 52 - 53, April 9, 1852
Will you help us out of this thraldom, and have it credited to your future tithing? There is already a great deal more due than would liquidate all our debts, but we cannot command it now. Do you feel willing to put your shoulder to the wheel, and continue to roll it forward, and still continue, you that have faith to continue, to increase in faith? for the business of this kingdom will increase, and the responsibility also; the labor will and must grow, and continue to increase, until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and His Christ. …

It is not for any man to think he is a cipher--that what he can do will not tell in this matter, and say, "They will get along well enough without me;" but it is every man's duty to lay it to heart, and help what he can with his earthly substance; though I wish you to understand distinctly that it is no commandment--you are left to act freely.

… I do not enjoin this upon you, as you have already paid the tithing which is required of you; except in some instances in the money tithing. Had we received the money due to us, we should have had no debts; but this failure has been, and is now, in existence. I will take every kind of spare stock I have, except my cows and sheep, and wipe off these debts until they are cancelled; and now every man who will do the same, let him rise upon his feet. [The whole congregation of two thousand men rose up to a man.] … I would not cripple any man, I would rather give him five yoke of oxen, than destroy his team, and you know it. [Some of the brethren in the stand, not believing their own eyes, that the whole congregation rose, it was tried over again, to satisfy them, when the congregation all rose again to a man.]


Although one could attribute the standing in unison to group pressure, such an explanation ultimately fails. Standing is one thing, but paying the debt is another. The following year, Brigham provided this report to the Church:


Brigham Young, JD 1: 110, May 8, 1853
I now wish to say to the Latter-day Saints that which will be a great comfort to them. We laid before you our Church indebtedness a year ago, last April Conference; it now gives me great consolation to be able to say that every dime of that debt is paid, and money left, enough to answer our purpose at present. [A general expression of satisfaction in the congregation.]


*****


It was not unusual for members of the audience to answer rhetorical questions posed in a speech. Consider the following example. Speaking of the sealing keys and endowment of the temple, Orson Pratt wondered what would happen to Latter-day Saints who rejected them.


Orson Pratt, JD 1: 64, August 29, 1852
Now, let us enquire, what will become of those individuals who have this law taught unto them in plainness, if they reject it? [A voice in the stand, "they will be damned."] I will tell you: they will be damned, saith the Lord God Almighty, in the revelation He has given. Why? Because where much is given, much is required … .


In the following speech, Brigham was reacting to some soliciting being done by the Gladdenites in Salt Lake. These missionaries from a splinter group apparently were making a nuisance of themselves. Brigham reacted rather strongly.


Brigham Young, JD 1: 83, March 27th, 1853
We have known Gladden Bishop for more than twenty years, and know him to be a poor, dirty curse. Here is sister Vilate Kimball, brother Heber's wife, has borne more from that man than any other woman on earth could bear; but she won't bear it again. I say again, you Gladdenites, do not court persecution, or you will get more than you want, and it will come quicker than you want it. … I know what they have done here--they have asked exorbitant prices for their nasty stinking ribbons. [Voices, "that's true."] We broke the roads to this country. Now, you Gladdenites, keep your tongues still, lest sudden destruction come upon you.


In the same talk, Brigham referred to a dream about two mobocrats or ruffians who had broken into his home and approached his wife and children. The dream stirred extreme emotions in him, as revealed by this quote:


Brigham Young, JD 1: 83, March 27th, 1853
I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die. [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.] Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put on the line, and righteousness to the plummet. [Voices, generally, "go it, go it."] If you say it is right, raise your hands. [All hands up.] Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work.


Early Mormons had become part of the "wild west" culture, and readers should keep that environmental context in mind when reading such speeches. Once Mormon culture had had time to recover from its early persecutions, such language quickly became less acceptable, less evident, and less relevant.



*****


Imagine living in 1852 in the middle of a desert valley, barely sustaining a living, and then being asked by a member of the First Presidency to build a rather massive temple.


Heber C. Kimball, JD 1: 162, October 9, 1852
Our temple block is 600 feet square, and according to the number of people that compose the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are able to build a temple that size, and do it easier than we built a temple at Kirtland. I put the motion which is before you, that we build a temple of the best materials that can be furnished in the mountains of North America, and that the Presidency dictate where the stone and other materials shall be obtained; and that the Presidency shall be untrammelled from this time henceforth and forever. I want every brother, sister, and child to vote one way or the other. All in favour of this motion raise your right hand. [It was unanimous.]


The temple when finished was indeed about 600 feet square in area – actually ending up as a little larger.



*****


The context of the following 1853 quotation was the Salt Lake temple, yet to be built. Brigham Young in the talk declared: "This I do know -- there should be a Temple built here" (JD 1: 132). Moments later he made this prophetic remark: "I have never looked upon that ground, but the vision of it was there" (JD 1: 133).


Brigham Young, JD 1: 136, April 6, 1853
I know what was done at Nauvoo; it was all right. Everything is right with me. There the Twelve were called to lay the North West Corner Stones, if I mistake not. However, it is no matter, they were just as well there, as anywhere else. But to take up the Priesthood in its perfect order and form, you perceive that the Apostleship circumscribes everything in the Church of God on earth. This is the order, and I have endeavored to carry it out before you, that you all might know hereafter, what is the true order, as far as it can be exhibited in the laying of Corner Stones. So far as simply laying a corner stone is concerned, one corner is just as good to me as another.

I will give you the explanation why we proceeded as we have. It was suggested to me, that perhaps the Twelve would feel better to lay the second stone. When I told them the fourth stone was the stone they should lay, it struck my mind that I was ordained an Apostle; and I still belong to the Apostleship; did you ever cut me off, brethren? [Voices in the stand, No.]


*****


In some cases the comments from the stands altered the direction of talks. Notice that in the quotes given below that the speakers, Brigham and Heber, assumed everyone in the audience could hear the side-comments as they reacted to it.


Brigham Young, JD 1: 170, July 31, 1853
"Brother Brigham, do you really think we shall ever need them [secure forts]?" YES, I DO. All the difficulties there is in the community this year, is not a drop in comparison to the heavy shower that will come. "Well, and where is it coming from?" From hell, where every other trouble comes from. "And who do you think will be the actors?" Why, the Devil and his imps. [W. W. Phelps in the stand, We could not do very well without a devil.] No, sir, you are quite aware of that; you know we could not do without him. If there had been no devil to tempt Eve, she never would have got her eyes opened. We need a devil to stir up the wicked on the earth to purify the Saints.


Another example is:


Heber C. Kimball, JD 1: 208 - 209, Oct. 8, 1852
I do not care what I am told to do, … ; if I am doing the will of God, if I am doing the will of him who sent me to do it, it is none of my business nor yours. It is for us to do that which we are told to do. … Don't you judge those men--that is for brother Brigham to do; if we need thrashing, he is capable of thrashing us, it is none of your business; and we will sit down and bear it like good fellows, and not move our tongue; if it should move, we will take it between our teeth, and give it a nip, and say, "Stay there, you little fellow." As for the Twelve, and brother Brigham, and brother Willard, they are all men of God; and there never were better men than the Twelve that live in these last days--better men never lived. [A voice in the stand, "True."] It is true, and I know it.


As Heber C. Kimball continued this talk, an "Amen" from the stand seemed to remind him that maybe it was time to end the speech.


Heber C. Kimball, JD 1: 209, October 8, 1852
I love to talk about these things. I love the Saints, they are the pride of my heart. As for the world, its gold or silver, or any thing that pertains to it, my heart is not upon it, but upon this Church and kingdom, and it never will be overcome, worlds without end. [A voice in the stand, "Amen."] Although we may be scattered to the four quarters of the earth, we will gather again, never to be removed any more, henceforth and for ever. Amen.


*****


The General Authorities often made comments during each other's talks:


Heber C. Kimball, JD 1: 247, September 23, 1852
I never had any wish, but to do that which is right all the time. Considering the character of my calling, connected as I am and have been with the Prophet, Apostles, and Patriarchs of Jesus Christ, and with holy men of God, I do not consider that anything else but doing right is the character of such a man, it is the nature of his calling and office to be an Apostle, and issue forth the light and truth of God, from this time henceforth and forever. These are my feelings, brother Brigham, all the time. [President Brigham Young, "I know it."]


Heaven forbid that there should ever be a Mormon bachelor. Please note that the commentator, Brigham Young, was not about to be contradicted by Orson Hyde.


Orson Hyde, JD 2: 84, October 6, 1854
There are many living now who are bachelors. I do not complain of the very old men, for they cannot help themselves at all times, but I am going to complain of the old bachelors; and I tell you what it is, if you do not step forward and marry, and try to carry on the great work of Jehovah, it will be left for a better man to do than you. [Voice in the stand, "There is but one old bachelor in the Territory, and he has gone to the States."] O! I beg your pardon; President Young says he does not know of but one old bachelor in all the Territory of Utah, and he has gone to the States; therefore I have nothing more to say on this particular point.


*****


Early Utah Mormons had an edgy frontier humor often revealed in Conference talks.

Orson Hyde reported to a Salt Lake Mormon audience that a newspaper editor had asked him how he could believe in Joseph Smith when the Mormon people ended up in an uninhabited salt land (Salt Lake). Hyde gave this retort to his audience:


Orson Hyde, JD 2: 69 - 70, October 8, 1854
Do we have bread, and plenty of it? Yes! We have had fine crops of wheat since the cricket and grasshopper war was over, and our waters are sure, for here we have them flowing down every street, in the midst of summer, and they are not salt waters either, but they are fresh and good. How applicable are these sayings of he Prophet to the Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake Valley. Their habitation is the "munitions of rocks," and they ask no odds of the world, but they are subject to God, who has redeemed this Basin, and put salt enough in it to save us. It is not a dry and barren ground, for we can make it rain when we please, and they cannot in Long Island. The Bible says, "Have salt in yourselves;" we have it here, and if there comes along a villain who is worthy of it, we can salt him up in Salt Lake too. [Laughter.]


*****


In the following quote, Orson Pratt speaks of the Law of Consecration, as it was understood in the mid-19th century. The view was that everything was the Lord's. The somewhat insensitive wording in this quote (by modern standards) makes women and children sound like chattel. Unfortunately, the quote lacked the commutative symmetry that men are just as much lent to women as women are lent to men.


Orson Pratt, JD 2: 98, September 10, 1854
In the first place how shall we get at this order? In what manner and by what means shall we begin to lay the foundation of this equality? The Lord has told us, that it is required of every man in this Church to lay all things, not one tenth alone, but to lay all things before the bishop of His Church; consecrate the whole of it--everything he has--his flocks and herds--his cattle, horses, and mules--his gold and silver--his wearing apparel, watches, jewellery, and everything he possesses; consecrate it; not keep back a portion like Annanias and his wife, but give everything--make a full consecration to begin with. [Voice in the stand, "Wives and children."] Yes, give wives and children of course: the wives have given themselves to their husband, and he has to consecrate them; they are the Lord's, He has only lent them to us.


*****


It is nice to have a supportive witness, identified by both the speaker and editor, who can verify miraculous claims:


Heber C. Kimball, JD 2: 233 - 234, December 17, 1854
As to the circumstance brother Grant was speaking of in Montrose [Iowa], I was with brother Joseph, and so was brother Brigham and many others, and hundreds were healed, and leaped out of their beds, and followed us. If you do not believe it, call on many of those that were sick nigh unto death at that time, and are now living in these valleys, enjoying good health. … Yes; and there are numbers of people here that were sick nigh unto death, and brother Orson Hyde is a witness that they were just ready to die, and they are now here in a robust state of health. [Orson Hyde, "It is true."] True? Yes, as true as that God reigns in the heavens; and there are thousands more in the Church who know it is true.


*****


In the following quotation Brigham Young talked about selling property in order to support the poor of Utah.


Brigham Young, JD 3: 5 - 6, September 16, 1855
I have property for sale, and say, if any man in England, or anywhere else, will expand his heart and loosen his purse strings to buy sixty-two thousand dollars' worth of my individual property, I have it for sale to help the poor. I do not want it destroyed, or to go into the hands of a mob, but I want it to go to the building up of the kingdom of God. I would prefer to let it go into the hands of the Saints, and use it to pay off those who have drafts against me. Here is brother Duel, he has a good house, and there are many others, go and buy their property, and they will take your drafts and hand them to me. [Here many voices were heard in a low tone, saying, "Yes, take my property."] Why do I hear such responses on every side? Because they know me and understand "Mormonism" as they ought. Go and throw out your drafts, it is better for you to do this than to have the money and let it go to destruction, and perhaps you with it.


The actual willingness of the audience to sell portions of property for the benefit of the poor was probably more "good-hearted" than practical.



*****


In the following Heber C. Kimball reminisced about the ardors of leaving Nauvoo, Illinois under duress and persecution. He said, "I would rather die, than undergo what I have already undergone in the travel from Nauvoo to this place [Utah], under the same circumstances" (JD: 3: 163). The topic provoked hyperbole, fanfaronade, and high emotions.


Heber C. Kimball, JD 3: 163, February 25, 1855
When we left that city, between one and two hundred souls were attached to me, and looked to me for bread, and I had to travel to this land, when it seemed as though I could not live under the load. And President Young was in the same situation, with another company attached to him, and thus we travelled through sorrow, misery, and death.

Now, if any persons wish to begin another scrape, and desire to again break us up, and to corrupt this people, and to bring death, hell, and the devil into our midst, come on, for God Almighty knows that I will strive to slay the man who undertakes it. [The congregation said, "Amen."]


*****


It was not unusual in 1856 to hear speeches with the resound of hellfire and damnation. Brigham Young in this sermon was concerned about Mormon men who were not living their religion and who were working against the "kingdom." Clearly, he was angry and carried away by his emotions. His words are painful to the modern ear, but we should admit they were occasionally expressed on the Utah frontier.


Brigham Young, JD 3: 240, February 24, 1856
Men who love corruption, contention, and broils, and who seek to make them, I curse you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; I curse you, and the fruits of your lands shall be smitten with mildew, your children shall sicken and die, your cattle shall waste away and I pray God to root you out from the society of the Saints. To observe such conduct as many lawyers are guilty of, stirring up strife among peaceable men, is an outrage upon the feelings of every honest, law abiding man. To sit among them is like sitting in the depths of hell, for they are as corrupt as the bowels of hell, and their hearts are as black as the ace of spades. I have known them for years; I know where they were begotten and by whom, and how they were brought forth, and the history of their lives. They love sin, and roll it under their tongues as a sweet morsel, and will creep around like wolves in sheep's clothing, and fill their pocket's with the fair earnings of their neighbors, and devise every artifice in their power to reach the property of the honest, and that is what has caused these courts. I say, may God Almighty curse them from this time henceforth, and let all the Saints in this house say, Amen [a unanimous Amen from 3000 persons resounded through the house] for they are a stink in the nostrils of God and angels and in the nostrils of every Latter-day Saint in this Territory.


It may be easy to dish out harsh judgment against such language, but before we do so, let us remember in this modern culture we are still enamored by the World Federation of Wrestling, the bone jarring NFL, and the punishment of kick-boxing in a wire cage. True civilization has yet to be obtained even by us moderns. All things in perspective, the early Mormons built a Deseret Zion largely based in peace and harmony – despite a few verbal blowups.



*****


The following speech was given in the Bowery on Sunday, April 6th, a date special to Mormonism. Contrary to modern practice, it was not unusual for the sacrament to be administered in the middle of a speech. In fact, the speaker might keep speaking as the emblems were passed.


Orson Pratt, JD 3: 304, April 6, 1856
If you will be strict to carry out those plans and measures, and constantly hearken to all counsel from the proper source, you will become the richest of all people upon this earth. Why? Is it because this country is so much better than any other? No; but because the people are better calculated to develop the riches of the country than any other people upon the earth; and even if the resources were not half so great, the people here, if they abide counsel, can unitedly turn everything to the best advantage, and thus far surpass other countries of much greater facilities in other respects. [Blessed the sacramental cup.]


The speech continued for several minutes before ending. When Orson Pratt, an apostle and scientist, alluded to a "great microscope" of the devil that "magnified the faults" of neighbors and the "weaknesses and imperfections" of priesthood leaders, Brigham Young shouted out, "[T]hat is the devil's looking glass."



*****


In this 1856 talk by Heber C. Kimball, he made reference to a visionary experience of evil spirits obtained during his 1837 missionary service while living on the corner of Wilfrid and Fox Streets in Preston, England.


Heber C. Kimball, JD 4: 2, June 29, 1856
Where will those go to that reject this Gospel? Why, in reality they will not go anywhere. [A voice from the stand: They will not go anywhere else, for they have no other place to go to.] They will remain where they are, in hell, where my spirit was for a short time, when I was in England. Where was my body during that brief period? It was in Preston, on the corner of Wilford-street, but my spirit could see and observe those evil spirits as plainly as it ever will after I die. Legions of disembodied evil spirits came against me, organized in companies that they might have more power, but they had not power over me to any great extent, because of the power that was in and sustaining me.


In the same talk, Elder Kimball complained about the lure of the west coast.


Heber C. Kimball, JD 4: 3, June 29, 1856
Thousands of this world, with large herds of cattle and much substance, are fleeing to California or Oregon to escape the troubles, but they will be caught in the snare. [President B. Young: They will, and they will fall into the pit.]


Further, he complained about some general grumbling in the valley.


Heber C. Kimball, JD 4: 4, June 29, 1856
There are those here who will censure brother Brigham and me, notwithstanding all that we have done for them. [President B. Young: We do not care what they say about us, if they will not steal.] There is but little left in this Territory, so far as bread is concerned. Brother Brigham and I have had to put our families on half rations, in order that we might have wherewith to feed the destitute, and they now say that they feel better than they did before; and I judge, from the testimony that they have given, that it is best to keep them on short rations, for they are fat and fair, and enjoy a good portion of the Spirit of God.


Again, early Mormon talks typically were extemporaneous with few preparations, exposing a stream of consciousness and a flight of ideas. Almost anything could happen in such talks, and Mormon audiences of the time knew it.



*****


I am unclear as to the motive of Brigham Young as he engaged in the following exercise. Perhaps he was simply engaging in a method to get the Saints to reaffirm or to recognize their commitments.


Brigham Young, JD 4: 43, September 21, 1856
I feel to call upon this congregation to know whether any of them, or whether all of them wish salvation. If they do, I have the Gospel of salvation for them; and I call upon the people to know whether they are the friends of God, or only of themselves individually. I do not know of any better way to get an expression from the people, as to whether they wish the Gospel preached to them, whether they desire to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, to obey his counsels, and live to his glory, denying themselves of worldly lusts and of every thing that is sensual and contrary to his Gospel, and feel as though they wanted to be Saints of the Most High, than to have the brethren and sisters, those who so wish and desire, manifest it by rising upon their feet. You will observe all who do not rise. [The vast congregation all responded by standing up.] Take your seats again. You have manifested that you want to be Saints, and I am happy for the privilege of talking to such a people.


*****


This last quotation to be given exemplifies the service nature of the Mormon religion that has always existed. When push comes to shove, Mormonism is a religion of "doing."

In October of 1856 the Willie and Martin handcart companies were a significant distance from arriving at the Salt Lake valley. Early snowstorms had made continuing travel by handcart almost impossible. In Conference on the 5th, Brigham Young declared, "[M]any of our brethren and sisters are on the Plains with hand-carts, and probably many are now seven hundred miles from this place, and they must be brought here[;] we must send assistance to them" (JD 4: 113). Heber C. Kimball followed with these words:


Heber C. Kimball, JD 4: 122, October 5, 1856
Now, brethren, what do you say? This is the word of the Lord to us, that we rise up and gather up our teams and start forthwith, not with loads, except feed; take hay and deposit it in different places, so that you can have some when you come back, and bring in those brethren and sisters, and you will have a pleasant time, and God and His angels will go with you, and you will be prospered, upheld, and sustained.

That man that drops down his head under his wife's arm, and says, "I guess they don't see me;" and that wife that says, "O, my husband, I cannot spare you, I cannot sleep alone, for when night comes I shall get cold;" O, the poor little things.

I say that those who will take counsel and prepare themselves to go back on this mission shall be blest; and if a man has but one yoke of cattle, let him put that on with those of some other person.

I now want every man that will actually go and help, and not say he will go, and not go, to rise up.

[One hundred and fourteen teams were volunteered, and reported ready to start forthwith.]


Rescuing these people, as Brigham Young declared, "is my religion" (JD 4: 113).



*****CONCLUSIONS*****


Admittedly, not all quotations, discussed above, will comfort and inspire the modern reader. Because of their emotional flavor, one should remember that these quotations are not representative of the entire Journal of Discourses. Further, one must remember that early Mormonism arose under intense persecution. Large communities were driven from their homes in Kirtland, Ohio, Jackson County, Missouri, and Nauvoo, Illinois. Homes were burnt and innocent Latter-day Saints were killed. To understand the fiery rhetoric of early Mormonism, one must remember this overall context.

Mormonism was not founded in passive resistance. Survival of the religion sometimes meant taking a gun in hand. This defensive posture was often reflected in pioneer speech.

Given the extensive problems that these pioneers faced, it is understandable why audience members often shouted out their feelings. In fact, it is remarkable that Mormon meetings did not evolve to take on more of a Pentecostal flavor.

Again, it is worth remembering that NOT every statement from a Church leader establishes binding doctrine. (Please see my previous post: “What constitutes Mormon Doctrine?”).

As controversies and persecutions diminished, Mormon speech evolved over time to become more sedate and serene. Today, the VAST majority of Mormon speech in Church settings appears to be driven by a scriptural precept given in 1831: "Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by the constraint of the Spirit" (D&C 63: 64). Our pioneer ancestors, good people as they were, sometimes learned the wisdom of this advice the hard way. [For that matter, this same conclusion might be applied to some modern LDS bloggers as well -- ;) ].

Civil comments, positive or negative, from readers are welcome.



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

LDS Evolutionists Have a Seat in Church


For the vast majority of my last 35 years I have been associated with LDS faculty members in the life sciences (biology & psychology) that were active evolutionists. Perhaps as a consequence, I have seldom felt any great tension between science and religion.

Some of these mentioned LDS evolutionists have assumed high leadership in the Church at local levels. I am thinking about these things because last Sunday I lost a colleague (who died of a heart attack) with whom I worked on the same floor for 17 years. He was a retired Professor of Biology and a former Stake President. In the university classroom he was an ardent advocate of evolution, but at the Church meetinghouse he understood that evolution was a tangential topic to avoid.

I can think of four LDS leaders of whom I have had some close connection (academically and/or ecclesiastically) who were active evolutionists. One was a Bishop and a Professor of Entomology; another was a Bishop, a Mission President, and a Professor of (Experimental) Psychology; another was a Stake President and a Professor of (Experimental) Psychology; and finally, my Stake President and colleague, mentioned in the previous paragraph.

My point is that it is especially hard for me to think of evolutionists as evil people or evolution as a dangerous topic.



*****


I have already written numerous essays under the label of evolution. I do not believe the Church has taken an official doctrinal stance on the topic, but I certainly understand that evolution creates some theological problems that have yet to be unraveled. R. Gary at "No Death Before the Fall" is one of the most active LDS bloggers in pointing out these problems.

I recently posted this comment on R. Gary's blog site:


I appreciate your faithfulness, persistence, and testimony. Little or nothing is more important. I am just grateful to be in a Church where we can disagree about the peripheral issues. Evolution is clearly a peripheral issue. I hope it is, at least.



This fall I will be teaching a semester-long university course on human evolution. At the same time I will be teaching out of the priesthood manual on Sundays. I will be putting my best efforts into all these lessons. Further, I will love the priesthood lessons the most.



I believe in Adam & Eve. I believe we live in a "fallen" world. Much of the story, to me, is clearly metaphorical and symbolic. Whatever the truth of the story, it is essential and meaningful. How these individuals fit into the scientific scheme of evolution I would NOT even pretend to know.



What I do know is that the fossil record is systematic, not random. What I do know is that DNA sequences allow for a reconstructed evolutionary tree. I know that dinosaurs existed in the distant past. I know that humans share all the general characteristics of mammals, without skipping a beat.



Thus, I wonder why God would allow nature to lie to us about our past. I don't believe that God lies.



I am left with trying to think of some scriptural verses as metaphorical. I WILL NOT do as some scientists have done, like Dawkins, and turn to atheism. I cannot reject gravity. I cannot reject evolution. I cannot reject God. 



So, R. Gary (and you other anti-evolutionists), I just hope you will let us humble evolutionists sit beside you in priesthood meetings on Sundays. There are quite a few of us.


He wrote back for me to save a seat for him.



*****


I am not a good enough theologian to be able to suggest how evolution can be made compatible with the LDS religion. Further, such a suggestion would be outside my station in the Church. What I can proclaim with authority is that evolution is NOT going away. Further, there can never be an LDS-based science that pretends evolution does not exist. (For example, evolution is actively taught in the life sciences at BYU).

How important is evolution to the life sciences? If the topic were subtracted from our knowledge bases, then the field of biology would be crippled. It would be like taking away the notion of gravity from the field of physics.

Should Mormons stop becoming biologists, biochemists, psychologists, and physicians? All of these areas require a significant understanding or appreciation of evolution. Obviously, great harm would result if Latter-day Saints were steered away from the sciences.



*****


I am grateful that when I attend Church no one seems to care that I am an evolutionist. Out of respect for others, I do not advertise the fact in a Church setting. The chapel needs to promote Christ not Darwin.

But, it is worth remembering that it takes all kinds to make a Church. Both evolutionists and anti-evolutionists need a seat. Further, both categories of people can be (and are) faithful.



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Monday, August 10, 2009

What constitutes MORMON DOCTRINE?


As one who speaks in front of many different audiences, I hope to speak only truth. Yet, I know mistakes will happen, and occasionally (maybe regularly) I know I will stick my foot in my mouth. To compound the problem, listeners taking notes will write poorly, write the wrong information, or will miss the information altogether. The same fundamental human problems occur when a prophet speaks and an audience listens. The process of communication is difficult and errors happen. Given this reality, how can Latter-day Saints distinguish truth from error, especially as we teach one another in Sunday Schools or even as we write blogs?

We live in a world fallen from perfection. Only one perfect being has ever walked the earth, Jesus. Everyone else and much of everything else, including scripture, falls short of perfection. How can human words fully capture the mind of God? We do have the word of God, but some things are more clear than others.

Latter-day Saints do believe in ancient scripture and in modern revelation through authorized prophets. For example,


8th Article of Faith
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9th Article of Faith
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.


Latter-day Saints do NOT believe in infallibility, or in creeds or catechisms that would confine our expanding knowledge. Although Latter-day Saints claim to have the fullness of knowledge necessary for salvation and exaltation, we also realize that religious knowledge has the capacity to grow over time.

All of these issues discussed above legitimately raise many questions. For example, which beliefs are on a firm foundation and which are built on sand? How can Latter-day Saints distinguish doctrine from educated opinion, or even from speculation?

I suspect most Latter-day Saints could answer these questions (with some study), but it is nice to have an official source to cite. An official post in the LDS "Newsroom" entitled "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," provides some well worded and thoughtful definitions.

It is highly recommended to read the entire document, but to me, the most important paragraph is the following:


Newsroom: The Official Resource for News Media,
"Approaching Mormon Doctrine," May 4th, 2007

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.


The statement goes on to say:


Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. … [T]he Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.


These short quotations given above provide some very useful criteria for distinguishing doctrine from non-doctrine. Those criteria are:

1. Doctrines have evidence of being "established" by a modern First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve.

2. Doctrinal statements are "consistently" (repeatedly) taught through modern official Church publications.

3. All doctrines must be based in the "standard works" of scripture, or in official declarations / proclamations affirmed by both the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve in modern times.


Teachings from individual General Authorities are NOT binding as "Church doctrine" if they are isolated from meeting the above three criteria.

The "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" document extends this invitation to all members of the Church [emphasis mine]:


Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.


Notice that the Church is NOT against members thinking (using their brains) about what they have been taught. Ultimately, each individual must come to their own conclusions about what they accept as truths that are relevant to their own lives.

BYU professor Valerie M. Hudson has written a fascinating article in reaction to the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement. (See: "The 4 May 2007 Statement of the LDS Church: 'Approaching Mormon Doctrine,'" SquareTwo, Vol. 2 No. 2, Summer, 2009). In the article, she states:


In cases where we struggle, we should first ask, in accord with the 4 May statement, “Is this really Mormon doctrine? Is it in the standard works, and has it been consistently taught unto the present in official Church publications?” It may be that the answer is no, and there the struggle may have a natural end—there is no mandate to believe something that is not Mormon doctrine; such things are not “officially binding for the whole Church.” And there is no requirement to sit on one’s hands in Sunday School when things that are not Mormon doctrine are preached to be such. Several of my students have found great peace as they have understood that the LDS doctrinal hearsay that all will practice polygamy in the celestial kingdom is actually not Mormon doctrine as defined by the 4 May statement.


It is tempting to make a long list of favorite Mormon folk beliefs that do NOT reach full status as "doctrine." However, such an exercise would be extremely presumptive on my part. Each individual must engage in their own study of scriptures, Conference talks, official proclamations, etc. Each individual on his or her own efforts must decide what is to be believed. As we engage in that process, of course, we are all well advised to carefully listen to authorized modern prophets.

I am comforted by the following words from Joseph Smith:


Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121
The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.


Such is the doctrine taught most often in the Church, and in such is my greatest confidence. All else is subordinate, ancillary, and collateral. Sometimes these other matters are necessary appurtenants (when meeting the 3 criteria given above), but others could be little more than superfluous distractions.

At the personal level, making distinctions ultimately involves a spiritual framework in which "reason and faith work together." I can live with that.


*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Review: Julie & Julia

Julie & Julia is a sweet and scrumptuous movie about a blogger determined to cook all 524 recipes in Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking within a year. The movie is based upon the real life story of Julie Powell, the cooking blogger, determined to master the art of her cooking hero, Julia Child.

The movie is rated PG-13. It has some occasional language, the kind one might use when a relished dish in the oven burns. It also has some sensuality, done in good taste (what else).

Husbands really need to take their wives to see this movie. The show is best enjoyed if one grew up watching Julia Child on TV. Meryl Streep absorbs the role of Julia Child. It is glorious to watch a master of acting.

The movie cuts back and forth between the stories of Julie and Julia. Both stories are engaging, and I felt like I had enjoyed two movies in one.

I am tired of “bang em up” and “shoot em up” movies. It was a very pleasant experience to see a movie about ordinary women who go far beyond the ordinary.

The movie has had some weak reviews elsewhere. But, any movie about cooking is going to lose appeal to a fair portion of the viewing public.

Actually, this movie is about MUCH more than cooking. Cooking is just a medium through which we can appreciate the captivating personalities of J.P. and J.C.

We Latter-day Saints like to complain about Hollywood movies, but there is NOT much to complain about this one. Good movies need to be supported if we expect Hollywood to make better movies.

I would give this movie four out of five stars. It deserves some significant recognition.



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Some LDS Scientists Appreciate Skinner & Behaviorism


It may be a surprise to some, but there are quite a few Latter-day Saint scientists who would describe themselves as "behaviorists." My essay will try to explain why.

Latter-day Saint college students often take introductory psychology, but they too often walk away from the course rejecting B. F. Skinner and his principles of behaviorism. The usual reason is that Skinner's radical behaviorism seems to eliminate any concept of free agency and a role for the "cognitive mind." According to Skinner, learned behavior is strictly a product of the environment.

Actually, behaviorism is just a conservative scientific perspective that restricts itself to observed behavior. This approach to the study of behavior avoids inferences about what is happening inside the head. "Mental" events or private events may exist, but they are merely behaviors (needing their own explanation); they should NOT be viewed as causes of behavior.

Behaviorists are interested in how one can predict and control behavior by manipulating the environment and the organism's history within the environment. Skinner was particularly interested in how behavior is changed by its consequences – such as positive and negative reinforcements.

Behaviorists would simply proclaim that they are interested in cataloging what works in controlling behavior. They are unconcerned about generating fancy theories about what is percolating inside the head.

The concern of behavioral science is what works. Latter-day Saint scientists should NOT be against what works – as long as procedures are performed ethically.

Let me give a simple example:

My mother was (and is) a faithful Latter-day Saint with a career as a 3rd grade teacher. She actively used behavioral principles in controlling her classroom.

For example, she kept a Mason jar prominently placed on her desk, partially full of marbles. When her students were quiet and doing their work, she would announce to the class that she was putting five more marbles into the jar. When the students were noisy, disruptive, and failing to do their work, my mother would threaten to remove five marbles from the jar – and sometimes she did.

Why did this procedure control the classroom? My mother had set up a contingency. The class knew that once the jar was completely full of marbles they could have a short party (consisting of milk, cake, and other simple treats).

Putting marbles in the jar reinforced "good" classroom behavior. When my mother threatened to take marbles out of the jar, the classroom immediately policed itself. Students would shout out, "Quiet down" or "Do your work."

I directly observed these procedures work, as my mother allowed me to watch her on occasion while I was a college student. (I even considered becoming an elementary school teacher).

Again, behaviorists are interested in cataloging such techniques and documenting how well they work. They would be very interested in how the technique improved overall education.

Skinner would have been very proud of my mother. Who could be against that?

Now I suppose there are LDS philosophers who would be upset that such principles neglect agency and the children's individual thoughts and personality. But, if I were a 3rd grade teacher I would be more concerned that my students had an effective environment in which to learn. The "internal" issues raise by the philosophers are just distractions.

Admittedly, there are plenty of Latter-day Saint psychologists who say they reject behaviorism. Interestingly, these individuals often accept behavioral data (such as in my mother's example above). This is strange to me, because behaviorism is in THE data.

Given my respect for behavioral principles that work, I wrote a few verses for my own entertainment. Those who have taken some psychology courses and who have read Ecclesiastes will understand some of the nuances.



"Verses of Ecclesiastes Shaped Especially for a Behaviorist"
By S. Faux

To every thing there is a Skinner, and a schedule to every reinforcement under heaven.

A time to press levers, and a time to rest; a time to peck and a time to eat seed.

A time to reward and a time to punish; a time to build up, and a time to break down.

A time to laugh and a time to cuss. A time to damn the golf club, and a time to dance on the green.

A time to cast away the golf ball, and a time to find it in the rough.

A time to win, and a time to lose. A time to teach Skinner, and a time to teach ...
EVEN more Skinner.

A time to move, and a time to stay still. A time to speak, and a time to be spoken to.

A time to love the RIGHT and a time to hate the WRONG. A time of war and a time of peace.

What profit ye worketh as a Behaviorist wherein ye laboreth!!!!! Whatsoever works in in Skinnerianism .... IS NOT IN VAIN.


*****


Now, I am prepared for readers to make comments to the effect that, "S.Faux, this is just one more area in which you have LOST YOUR MARBLES." No problem. I am pleased to be the lone voice in the wilderness on occasion.

Science ultimately can have no bearing on Church doctrine. Behaviorism is no different. Even so, Latter-day Saints need not fear "marbles in a jar." If science works and does no harm, then there is no rational reason to reject it.

Just as I would urge non-LDS individuals to keep an open "mind" about the Latter-day Saints before jumping to conclusions, … I would urge the same to the LDS about behaviorism. Learning is good (thank you to Wade Carpenter for reminding me). It is best not to avoid it.



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Do Mormons have a Cult Religion?


The current English Standard Version: Study Bible (Crossway Bibles: Wheaton, Ill., 2008) has an article entitled "The Bible and religious cults," and the first "cult" it summarizes (p. 2631) is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)." The article defines cult as follows:


[A] “cult” is any religious movement that claims to be derived from the Bible and/or the Christian faith, and that advocates beliefs that differ so significantly with major Christian doctrines that two consequences follow: (1) The movement cannot legitimately be considered a valid “Christian” denomination because of its serious deviation from historic Christian orthodoxy. (2) Believing the doctrines of the movement is incompatible with trusting in the Jesus Christ of the Bible for the salvation that comes by God's grace alone (Eph. 2:8–9).


In other words, if "you" are NOT following "us," then you are a cult. The ESV definition (above) fits my favorite definition of cult, which is "the other guy's religion." Usage of the term "cult" evokes prejudicial reactions in readers, and arguably should be stricken from scholarly vocabulary. Yet, the term is used quite commonly.

I regret that the ESV: Study Bible has the chapter on cults, as it otherwise sets a high standard in scholarship. I own the book and use it considerably.



*****Are There Fair Criteria for Cult?*****"


John A. Saliba takes a critical view of various definitions of "cult" in his book Understanding New Religious Movements (Eerdmans Pub Co., 1995; and a 2nd Ed., AltaMira Press, 2003). Saliba specifically criticizes (see his chapter 1) a set of criteria proposed by A. James and Marcia R. Rudin in their book Prison or Paradise: The New Religious Cults (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). I have listed the Rudin criteria below, but it is worth noting that Saliba concludes that, "It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a single new religious movement to which even a few of the mentioned characteristics are applicable."

James and Marcia Rudin in the links provided are listed as leaders in the International Cultic Studies Assocation. I have taken their 14 criteria for defining a cult (numbered and shown in italics) and tried to honestly discuss which of these criteria apply to Mormonism.

The point of this exercise is to demonstrate the difficulties in finding objective and fair definitions of "cult" that have any scholarly or useful meaning.



*****The Rudin Criteria and Mormonism*****


Do the Rudin criteria apply to Mormonism? My answers are below, but obviously each reader can and will make their own determination. (I have no interest in brainwashing readers).

1. Members swear total allegiance to an all-powerful leader who they believe to be the Messiah.

ANSWER: Guilty as charged: Yes, we believe in Jesus, and so does every Christian church. Contrary to popular misconception, Mormons do NOT believe the prophet is either all-powerful or the Messiah. While Mormons "sustain by common consent" the prophet, they do NOT swear total allegiance. Mormons are far too cranky to take orders like soldiers. For evidence, ask any LDS Bishop. The domain of Church leaders is religion, NOT politics, science, or most other human endeavors. (See my essay, "Mormons are thinkers").

2. Rational thought is discouraged or forbidden.

ANSWER: To the contrary, the LDS Church emphasizes formalized education. Many top scientists and leaders have come out of the Church. Although there are some core beliefs that define Mormonism, a Mormon has considerable latitude in believing whatever he or she wants. A brief review of the Mormon Blog-World would verify that claim. (I am a university educator at a Midwest non-LDS university, if that counts as rational -- an arguable point, I know).

3. The cult's recruitment techniques are often deceptive.

ANSWER: The LDS Church does have an active missionary program, predominantly involving 19-year old men (boys) who are called for a two-year duty. The program is organized and highly structured. Are there occasional young missionaries who go out of bounds and are deceptive? Yes, but I think such behavior would be extremely rare and would flirt with grounds for dismissal, depending upon severity. Missionary techniques (as set forth in Preach My Gospel) are NOT deceptive. Missionaries are trained what to say and how to say it. No, this third criterion does not apply.

4. The cult weakens the follower psychologically by making him or her depend upon the group to solve his or her problems.

ANSWER: Our Church emphasizes self-reliance and agency. True, there are rare individuals who rely upon Church welfare. However, this practice of the Church would be better labeled as humanitarian charity than cult control.

5. The cults manipulate guilt to their advantage.

ANSWER: There is plenty of guilt in this Church, but it is mostly self-induced. The purpose of Christ's atonement is to allow repentance and the removal of guilt. Individuals (in any organization) who try to induce guilt to persuade others may be doing so unethically and inappropriately.

6. The cult leader makes all the career and life decision of the members.

ANSWER: This criterion is NOT even close to being applicable.

7. Cults exist only for their own material survival and make false promises to work to improve society.

ANSWER: This would be true if the LDS Church recruited members merely in order to increase the tithing revenues. By contrast, our Church does extensive missionary work in poor countries like South America in which the new members often become a financial burden to the Church. There are many Wards (congregations) in the Church that must accept fast offering money from Salt Lake headquarters. In such cases, the Church assists individuals to find employment, to obtain education, and to be a contributing citizen in both Church and country. The Church attempts to improve society-at-large by creating active and responsible citizens.

8. Cult members often work fulltime for the group for little or no pay.

ANSWER: We do not have a paid clergy. No one is getting rich by doing Church work. However, clergy in the Church do have paid jobs outside of the Church. Church work is part-time. No one is trapped by virtue of working for the Church.

9. Cult members are isolated from the outside world and any reality testing it could provide.

ANSWER: As an Iowan, I am not opposed to the argument that Utah might be out of touch with reality, but that statement is not objective reality. As for me, I have lived literally coast-to-coast. Having done so, I probably wish I had just stayed in touch with Utah mountains.

10. Cults are antiwoman, antichild, and antifamily.

ANSWER: This statement is mostly inapplicable. However, some critics accuse Mormons of being anti-women because of the past history with polygamy and because of the exclusion of women from the priesthood. Personally, I do not think we do badly, but I also know we could do better! I would love to see, for example, a LDS priesthood manual devoted to the study of prominent LDS women (of whom we have a lot). I love the manuals we currently use, but it is time to expand. (Just stating my opinion).

The LDS devotion to family is well summarized in: The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

11. Cults are apocalyptic and believe themselves to be the remnant who will survive the soon-approaching end of the world.

ANSWER: Well, after all, we are the Latter-day Saints. However, the statement above does not apply: 1) We only claim to be in the last dispensation, because we do not know when Christ will return. 2) During Christ’s Millennial reign the LDS believe that all major religions will be present. The LDS believe that all kinds of people will survive the last days.

12. Many cults follow an "ends justify the means" philosophy.

ANSWER: Such a philosophy has no place in this Church. Any such practice would be a violation of all that is godly.

For me, the single best summarizing statement of Church leadership is: D&C 121: 36-43.

13. Cults, particularly in regard to their finances, are shrouded in secrecy.

ANSWER: The Church has an independent Accounting Department that gives a report at each Conference. However, detailed accounting reports are not available to the general membership. Even so, how Church funds are spent is no secret: Church buildings and operations, missionary work, Church colleges and universities, the Church Educational System, humanitarian efforts, etc. There are Church-owned businesses, like Deseret Book, that report earnings for tax purposes.

14. There is frequently an aura of or potential for violence around cults.

ANSWER: Not applicable.



*****Conclusions*****


I am generally opposed to attaching the label "cult" to any religious group, even at the extremes. Why? The term is pejorative and promotes a pre-judgment. It is a prejudicial term that does not mean much more than “the other guy’s religion.”

Concerning the 14 criteria above, I do not believe that they effectively describe the LDS religion. Critics may disagree. Even so, tossing around the term "cult" in the context of the Latter-day Saints does not amount to more than name-calling.

For more discussion on "cults" from a non-LDS perspective, see: "Too Good to Be True: Resisting Cults and Psychological Manipulation" by Marcia Rudin.

I am a Latter-day Saint. Probably no one wants to think they belong to a cult. Regardless, I think my answers have captured the essence of the truth, even if not perfectly.



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

A Key to Obedience is Listening


Preface: Parent's (like me) should be given some latitude when it comes to bragging about their own children. This essay has some of that. The good news is that embedded within is a strong message about how obedience is tied to listening, which is worth knowing.

The talk posted below is a youth talk that was given in a Sacrament meeting in 2006. The speaker was my Son#3, who was twelve at the time. This was his first Sacrament meeting talk. Although he is intellectually precocious, he did receive help from me in composing the talk. It was a collaborative project. (Of course, the text is much more polished than could be written by a solitary twelve-year old).

Following the text of the talk, I have written some "behind the scenes" commentary, which I recorded later that day.


Talk on Obedience: 8/13/06

Men and woman are that they might have joy.

Although life always has its challenges, the greatest happiness comes from obedience to the gospel principles of Jesus.

Obedience in the gospel means something more than going through the motions. Jesus often expressed concern that the Pharisees were just going through the motions. They worried about how many steps they could take on the Sabbath; when they fasted they were sure to brag about it to others; and they also liked to brag about their famous ancestors.

In the scriptures the Hebrew word for obedience is “shama,” which really means “to listen.” The English word for “obey” comes from the Latin “oboedire” which also means “to listen.” A key element of gospel obedience is listening to the Lord.

It is NOT full obedience just to come to Church. We must come and LISTEN.

It is NOT enough just to fast or to partake of the sacrament. We should try to listen to the LORD while we fast or while we partake of the sacrament.

The commandments of God are not given so that we can be mindless. They are given so that we can have opportunities to listen to God. As we listen and try to understand we will be happy.

Every gospel principle has associated blessings connected to it.

A famous scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants says:


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


The Word of Wisdom teaches that smoking is bad. If we obey that principle, then we will NOT harm our lungs.

Proper obedience to gospel principles may keep us from harm, but they may also allow us to prosper by bringing us closer to God. However, we must learn to listen to the spirit.


*****

An important story in the Bible is about the woman at Jacob’s well in the 4th chapter of John (verses 7-23). This is how the story goes:

A woman from Samaria went to Jacob’s well to get some water. There she found Jesus who asked her, “Give me some water.”

She was surprised by this request, because she thought that all Jews hated Samaritans. She asked, “Why do you ask me for water? I am a woman from Samaria.”

Jesus answered, “If you were really listening, you would know who I am and would pray to God and he would give you living water.”

The woman did not quite understand and she could not believe that he would be willing to drink out of her cup. She said, “But Sir, you do not have a cup and the well is deep. How will you get the living water?” She asked, “Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob who also drank from this well?”

Jesus tried to explain: “Everyone who drinks water from this well will just be in need of it again. But, whosoever takes the water I give will never be in need of drink again.”


*****

This simple story teaches a lot of lessons. It teaches us that the gospel is for ALL PEOPLE, even the Samaritans. It teaches that the gospel is living water that will enrich all of our lives for a lifetime. It teaches us that when we come face to face with God we REALLY need to BE LISTENING.

Another important part of the story is repentance. As the story continues, Jesus understood that the woman had been breaking the law of chastity. We do not know much about this woman, but the gospel of John tells us that she became a believer (see John 4: 39-42).


*****

The Book of Hebrews 5:8 teaches that Jesus “learned obedience from the things which he suffered.” If Jesus learned obedience, then so must we. But, we must learn the special kind of obedience required by the gospel. The Book of Hebrews 8:10 says, “I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts.” In other words, we obey laws because they are written into our hearts.

I pray, Brothers and Sisters, that we will all obey the gospel by truly listening with our minds to the spirit of God, and I pray for His strength… in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.



*****Behind the Scenes Commentary*****

On the way to Church I ask Son#3, "Are you nervous?" He replied, "No, I am bulletproof." This was a kid that would not go into a bathroom because a tiny moth was flying around. Yet, he had nerves of steel before talking in front of 200 people!

At Sacrament meeting Son#3 passed the sacrament. He was designated "Bishop's helper" for the meeting, and so after the sacrament, he sat behind the Bishop. His job was to run errands for the Bishop in case he needed anything during the meeting. He looked real sharp in his dark suit and tie, further magnified by sitting on the stand with all the officials.

Finally, it came to his turn to give his talk. He marched up to the podium like he had done it a thousand times. He laid out his papers and then said while looking at the audience, "My talk today is going to be on obedience." A newcomer might have thought, "Wow, they have a child preacher in this Church!"

Then came the talk. Seated in the back, I crossed my fingers. There were any number of words that could throw him. "Pharisees," the Latin word "oboedire," "Samaritan," or " irrevocably," to name just a few. But, Son#3 never skipped a beat. He never stumbled on a word. He never stuttered. He read slowly. He looked up at the audience. He put emphasis into certain important words to help carry the message. He stood up straight and tall. He spoke loudly but not too loudly. His voice was natural and it did not sound like he was just reading. He gave the talk like he had preached regularly at the pulpit every week.

After the talk, my wife and I turned to one another and I said, "Wow!" A man seated behind us, said, "You can say that again," and just chuckled. As Son#3 maneuvered to sit behind the Bishop, the Bishop shook Son#3’s hand. Both had big smiles on their faces.

Son#3 then looked over at us (his parents) in the congregation. He gave us a smile and a thumb's up and we gave one back.

The next talk was from the 1st Counselor in the Bishopric who was filling in for someone who had called in sick. Thus he had to give his talk extemporaneously. During his talk he kept referring to Son#3's talk. He would say things like: "As Brother Faux eloquently stated ... ".

Then , the Bishop's 2nd Counselor, who was running the meeting, got up and said, "The next hymn will be on page 57 and the next speaker will be Brother Jones." Then, looking at me on practically the last row of the chapel, he said, "Brother Faux you can be real proud of the talk your son just gave."

Finally, the meeting ended. As I walked in the hallways various people were congratulating me for the fine talk that Son#3 gave. I wondered what was happening to Son#3, since he was in a different part of the building.

In priesthood meeting another friend came up to me and said, "That was the finest youth talk I have ever heard. What college does your son go to?"

At the end of all the meetings I finally met up with Son#3, and he was still receiving compliments. He told me, "I wish people would stop. I am starting to feel famous."

I told him not to get a big head – although as an overly proud parent, mine had already burst.



*****


Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.


Blogged.com Blog Directory


Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****

Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.