Jonah was a prophet, called to Ninevah.
He said, “I won’t go, no way Jose, uh uh.
I will go to Tarshish. On a ship I’ll sail.”
God said, “That’s what you think. I have got a whale.”
Deborah was a prophetess. And she was a judge.
Told Barak to free the land, but he wouldn’t budge.
He said, “You come with me. I’m not sure just how.”
Deborah said, “I’ll come, for the Lord is with us now.”
Huldah was a prophetess. Thoughtful, good and true.
King Josiah was not sure what he should do.
He sent men to ask her what she would advise
Huldah said, “Keep being humble, good and wise.”
Just indulging in making up extra verses for the song, “Follow the Prophet”, which was written and composed by Duane E. Hiatt
Saturday, February 23, 2019
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Ephesians 4:12
I think that evangelist is not another word for patriarch.
This idea that evangelist = patriarch comes from something reputed to have been said by Joseph Smith with is recorded in History of the Church, volume 3, page 381.
That is:
AN EVENGELIST (sic) is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham. Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints, as it was with Jacob in giving his patriarchal blessing unto his sons, etc.
In other words,
1. A patriarch is, as noted, the oldest father in a family and in ancient times we can see that pattern in the Old Testament in the families of Joseph and Abraham (as well as in the family of Adam in the earlier sections of the Book of Genesis)
2. In the Old Testament, if he was doing his job, he not only taught his children, but also pronounced blessings upon them, as did Joseph and Abraham and Jacob
3. Where the church is established, there should be a patriarch, who could similarly bless the “posterity of the Saints”.
4. An evangelist is a patriarch.
Or is a patriarch an evangelist? I think that that is actually far more likely. Here’s why.
In Doctrine and Covenants 107: 39-41 we read:
“It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation--
The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.
This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in the following manner:”
(What follows is an accounting of Adam ordaining various of his posterity to priesthood)
In other words, in an ideal world, a father is a godly man, exercising priesthood responsibilities wisely, including the responsibility to be an evangelist, teaching of the gospel to his posterity (and others) along with helping to maintain the blessing of gospel teaching and and heavenly priesthood power in his family by preparing and ordaining the future fathers therein. This responsibility to teach is part and parcel of a father’s (patriarch’s) calling to being an evangelist within his own family.
This passage from Doctrine and Covenants 107, above, is cross-referenced in footnotes with Doctrine and Covenants 124:91 which reads:
“And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right;”
It looks to me like the reference maker decided that Hyrum, who was being released as a counselor in order for him to take up the office of “patriarch” was, in other words, being released in order for him to take up the office of “evangelist” and that these two words mean the same thing.
I think, rather, that the second word (evangelist) describes one of the major duties of the first (patriarch). The Lord calls many people to be evangelists (preachers of the word or messengers of good tidings) and evangelical work within his own family is a major component of the work of a godly patriarch. Abraham, Jacob and Joseph all understood that.
So, why a separate priesthood office called “patriarch”. Actually, the calling title is actually “Patriarch to the Church” in Hyrum’s case, or “stake patriarch” in the case of thousands of subsequent callings. The vast majority of the adult members of the early modern church did not have fathers who felt prepared or ordained to be “evangelists” to their posterity ie: teach them the gospel and lay their hands upon their children as had Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, and with priesthood power, pronounce blessings upon them. Ordaining Joseph Smith, Sr., and later, his son, Hyrum, to the priesthood office of Patriarch to the Church gave the “posterity of the Saints” the opportunity to receive those blessings that their own fathers were not in a position to give them. i
In the early days of the modern church, blessings, that are remarkably similar in style to the ones given by Joseph Smith Sr. and Hyrum Smith, were, in that same era, being given by some faithful priesthood fathers and grandfathers to their adult posterity. These blessings were also titled “patriarchal blessings”, were a one-time occasion, and were written down in order to be referred to in the years that followed. Two of my husband’s ancestors, a husband and wife who had lived through the Kirtland, Missouri, and Nauvoo eras of the church, treasured the “patriarchal blessings” they received in that latter era from their father and father-in-law respectively, who, as the oldest living father in the family, was their family’s patriarch. Though they lived not far from Hyrum Smith, loved him, and were his cousins, there is no indication or record of them having ever requested or received a patriarchal blessing from him. It seems that they felt that they were blessed to have a patriarch in their own family, as Abraham, Jacob and Joseph’s children had, who could give them their patriarchal blessings without them having to request them from the Patriarch to the Church, leaving Hyrum with more time available to respond to requests from saints who did not have patriarchs in their families who could do that for them.
In the ensuing decades stake patriarchs continued to give such blessings, and, because they were specially called men, gradually the unique, once in a lifetime blessings they gave came to not only be a gift to those who did not have family patriarchs to teach and bless them, but also came to be regarded by members of the church as even more special than a faithful father’s blessing, just because a stake patriarch’s blessings were only available, usually, once.
But I digress. Back to the topic at hand.
So, why go to all the trouble of teasing out this relationship between “patriarchs” and “evangelists”.
Because it is pretty clear that the term “evangelist” in the New Testament, is a term that refers to a person who preaches the gospel. All four writers of the Gospels are called “evangelists”. Paul urges Timothy to be prepared to continue to preach the word of God as an evangelist as Paul realizes that his own missionary travels and ministry are drawing to a close. And Philip, “one of the seven”, who preached the gospel in Samaria and is the one who taught the Ethiopian in Gaza, is called “an evangelist”. The Greek word used means “messenger of good tidings” and all of the above mentioned men were people who traveled, preaching the gospel.
When latter-day saints who have read that opening sentence in that one unusual History of the Church statement, jump immediately to the conclusion that “evangelists” in Ephesians 4:12 means “patriarchs” and try to show that because our church has “patriarchs” that is evidence that our church has elements of the primitive church, they are, very unnecessarily, standing on pretty thin ice.
Does our church have evangelists? Of course. We call these messengers of good tidings “missionaries”. We have tons of them.
If the only reason we are insisting that “evangelists” in Ephesians 4 are “patriarchs” is because of that one non-primary sourced statement attributed Joseph Smith (much of this section of the book is taken from peoples memories or notes, not actual texts), and we have absolutely nothing to lose by deciding that all the other evidence points to the notion that “evangelist” means “messenger of good tidings” (of which we have many among our membership), then I think we should re-think this.
In our faith, a godly patriarch, the godly father of his family, teaches his family the gospel and blesses them with priesthood blessings. A godly patriarch is many things, and one of the things he is is an evangelist; a messenger of good tidings.
This idea that evangelist = patriarch comes from something reputed to have been said by Joseph Smith with is recorded in History of the Church, volume 3, page 381.
That is:
AN EVENGELIST (sic) is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham. Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints, as it was with Jacob in giving his patriarchal blessing unto his sons, etc.
In other words,
1. A patriarch is, as noted, the oldest father in a family and in ancient times we can see that pattern in the Old Testament in the families of Joseph and Abraham (as well as in the family of Adam in the earlier sections of the Book of Genesis)
2. In the Old Testament, if he was doing his job, he not only taught his children, but also pronounced blessings upon them, as did Joseph and Abraham and Jacob
3. Where the church is established, there should be a patriarch, who could similarly bless the “posterity of the Saints”.
4. An evangelist is a patriarch.
Or is a patriarch an evangelist? I think that that is actually far more likely. Here’s why.
In Doctrine and Covenants 107: 39-41 we read:
“It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation--
The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.
This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in the following manner:”
(What follows is an accounting of Adam ordaining various of his posterity to priesthood)
In other words, in an ideal world, a father is a godly man, exercising priesthood responsibilities wisely, including the responsibility to be an evangelist, teaching of the gospel to his posterity (and others) along with helping to maintain the blessing of gospel teaching and and heavenly priesthood power in his family by preparing and ordaining the future fathers therein. This responsibility to teach is part and parcel of a father’s (patriarch’s) calling to being an evangelist within his own family.
This passage from Doctrine and Covenants 107, above, is cross-referenced in footnotes with Doctrine and Covenants 124:91 which reads:
“And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right;”
It looks to me like the reference maker decided that Hyrum, who was being released as a counselor in order for him to take up the office of “patriarch” was, in other words, being released in order for him to take up the office of “evangelist” and that these two words mean the same thing.
I think, rather, that the second word (evangelist) describes one of the major duties of the first (patriarch). The Lord calls many people to be evangelists (preachers of the word or messengers of good tidings) and evangelical work within his own family is a major component of the work of a godly patriarch. Abraham, Jacob and Joseph all understood that.
So, why a separate priesthood office called “patriarch”. Actually, the calling title is actually “Patriarch to the Church” in Hyrum’s case, or “stake patriarch” in the case of thousands of subsequent callings. The vast majority of the adult members of the early modern church did not have fathers who felt prepared or ordained to be “evangelists” to their posterity ie: teach them the gospel and lay their hands upon their children as had Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, and with priesthood power, pronounce blessings upon them. Ordaining Joseph Smith, Sr., and later, his son, Hyrum, to the priesthood office of Patriarch to the Church gave the “posterity of the Saints” the opportunity to receive those blessings that their own fathers were not in a position to give them. i
In the early days of the modern church, blessings, that are remarkably similar in style to the ones given by Joseph Smith Sr. and Hyrum Smith, were, in that same era, being given by some faithful priesthood fathers and grandfathers to their adult posterity. These blessings were also titled “patriarchal blessings”, were a one-time occasion, and were written down in order to be referred to in the years that followed. Two of my husband’s ancestors, a husband and wife who had lived through the Kirtland, Missouri, and Nauvoo eras of the church, treasured the “patriarchal blessings” they received in that latter era from their father and father-in-law respectively, who, as the oldest living father in the family, was their family’s patriarch. Though they lived not far from Hyrum Smith, loved him, and were his cousins, there is no indication or record of them having ever requested or received a patriarchal blessing from him. It seems that they felt that they were blessed to have a patriarch in their own family, as Abraham, Jacob and Joseph’s children had, who could give them their patriarchal blessings without them having to request them from the Patriarch to the Church, leaving Hyrum with more time available to respond to requests from saints who did not have patriarchs in their families who could do that for them.
In the ensuing decades stake patriarchs continued to give such blessings, and, because they were specially called men, gradually the unique, once in a lifetime blessings they gave came to not only be a gift to those who did not have family patriarchs to teach and bless them, but also came to be regarded by members of the church as even more special than a faithful father’s blessing, just because a stake patriarch’s blessings were only available, usually, once.
But I digress. Back to the topic at hand.
So, why go to all the trouble of teasing out this relationship between “patriarchs” and “evangelists”.
Because it is pretty clear that the term “evangelist” in the New Testament, is a term that refers to a person who preaches the gospel. All four writers of the Gospels are called “evangelists”. Paul urges Timothy to be prepared to continue to preach the word of God as an evangelist as Paul realizes that his own missionary travels and ministry are drawing to a close. And Philip, “one of the seven”, who preached the gospel in Samaria and is the one who taught the Ethiopian in Gaza, is called “an evangelist”. The Greek word used means “messenger of good tidings” and all of the above mentioned men were people who traveled, preaching the gospel.
When latter-day saints who have read that opening sentence in that one unusual History of the Church statement, jump immediately to the conclusion that “evangelists” in Ephesians 4:12 means “patriarchs” and try to show that because our church has “patriarchs” that is evidence that our church has elements of the primitive church, they are, very unnecessarily, standing on pretty thin ice.
Does our church have evangelists? Of course. We call these messengers of good tidings “missionaries”. We have tons of them.
If the only reason we are insisting that “evangelists” in Ephesians 4 are “patriarchs” is because of that one non-primary sourced statement attributed Joseph Smith (much of this section of the book is taken from peoples memories or notes, not actual texts), and we have absolutely nothing to lose by deciding that all the other evidence points to the notion that “evangelist” means “messenger of good tidings” (of which we have many among our membership), then I think we should re-think this.
In our faith, a godly patriarch, the godly father of his family, teaches his family the gospel and blesses them with priesthood blessings. A godly patriarch is many things, and one of the things he is is an evangelist; a messenger of good tidings.
Wednesday, February 06, 2019
The gift of the Holy Ghost
"The gift of the Holy Ghost . . . quickens all the intellectual faculties, increases, enlarges, expands, and purifies all the natural passions and affections, and adapts them, by the gift of wisdom, to their lawful use. It inspires, develops, cultivates, and matures all the fine-toned sympathies, joys, tastes, kindred feelings, and affections of our nature. It inspires virtue, kindness, goodness, tenderness, gentleness, and charity. It develops beauty of person, form, and features. It tends to health, vigor, animation, and social feeling. It invigorates all the faculties of the physical and intellectual man. It strengthens and gives tone to the nerves. In short, it is, as it were, marrow to the bone, joy to the heart, light to the eyes, music to the ears, and life to the whole being."
Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology and a Voice of Warning, p.61.
Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology and a Voice of Warning, p.61.
Saturday, February 02, 2019
Bringing Humanity to the Gospel
In
April 1932, apostle Stephen L Richards gave a conference address
titled “Bringing
Humanity to the Gospel.”
“I
fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance
even more than I fear cigarettes, cards and other devices the
adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion... Fanaticism and bigotry
have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. …
They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is
neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for
religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors
and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their
lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees.”
Thursday, January 31, 2019
For the natural man is an enemy to God, Mosiah 3:17-21
I woke up thinking about some of the things that “so easily beset” us in general and, of course, me in particular, thwarting our personal discipleship.
When, as a teenager, I first read “For the natural man is an enemy to God...unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, full of love....” I thought about the temptations that I, personally, was most aware of amongst myself and my peers: judgmentalism, arrogance, unkindness, cliquishness, sexual promiscuity, foul language, substance abuse, dishonesty, etc.
Today I woke up mulling over the questions of what are some of the temptations that thwart some of us who have been attempting discipleship for a much longer period of time than I had been back then. And then reviewing my own life identify some of those at play in my own daily interactions and decisions.
Some of the pitfalls that I think we face at this stage of discipleship:
Some of the pitfalls that I think we face at this stage of discipleship:
Focus on screens, audio-visual media, or the printed word instead of on the people around us
Valuing efficiency more than taking careful time to accomodate requests, requirements, or others’ needs
Retreat into solitude when there is good work to be done
Self-consciousness instead of other-consciousness in formal and informal meetings
Focus on results instead of process
Measuring our worth by how well we are listened to or how insightful we are perceived to be
Giving answers more than we ask questions
Finding greater satisfaction and sense of worth in leadership than in serving in less noticed capacities
Fear
Placing our trust in financial gain
Listening to those in power or in leadership roles more than we do to those who are not
Focusing on failures in our own performance rather than on gratitude for grace
Again, the scriptural admonition to seek to become “submissive, meek, humble, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict” by coming “to a [better] knowledge of the Savior” seems like a good way for me to start making better headway against those.
Monday, January 28, 2019
Revised third verse for Hymn #19
We’ll sing the Lord’s goodness and mercy.
We’ll praise Him by day and by night,
Rejoice in His glorious gospel,
And bask in His life-giving light.
Thus, grateful and seeking to serve Him,
The honest and faithful may go
Rejoicing and speaking His gospel,
That all people their Savior may know.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Faith, Repentance, Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost
from the Introduction to First Principles and Ordinances by Samuel M. Brown
"The principles and ordinances of the fourth article of faith are familiar to most traditional Christians. Among Latter-day Saints, though, these concepts have dramatically expanded meanings. I believe that the first principles and ordinances are much more about relationships--among humans and between humans and [the Father, Son and Holy Ghost]--than is generally recognized I feel that particularly in the last fifty years, many of us Latter-day Saints have tended toward traditionally American views on faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. These traditional American Protestant views have emphasized individuals over their relationships. Faith, repentance, baptism and confirmation have sometimes been about an individual making her often lonely way toward God. In this book I describe an approach to the first principles and ordinances of the gospel that acknowledges the relationships that stand at the core of the gospel and the meaning of life...For each principle, emphasizing relationships transforms a familiar concept. As markers of relationships, the elements of the fourth article of faith point toward the temple and the grand story of connection that the temple contains. Put another way, the revelation of temple ordinances was built line upon line, precept upon precept, from the very simplest of our doctrines--the first principles and ordinances of the fourth article of faith."
I'm interested.
Monday, December 03, 2018
Grace
When
I look up the word “grace” in various dictionaries, the meanings
of the word are multitudinous. Sometimes a dictionary will
include archaic or obsolete definitions, and one of those that
comes up occasionally is “ready willingness to help”.
This
relates strongly to a theological concept that was a part of early
separatist (Puritan) theology in the 1600s in England. David
Clarkson (1622-1686), a well known separatist minister in England,
wrote and preached and described God’s grace as a great willingness
of the part of God “to do good freely, willing to help in
time of need”, going on to discuss the throne of grace and the
mercy-seat of God as description of a God full of both grace and
mercy, writing “And what is mercy but a willingness to pity
and relieve? And what is grace but a willingness to do it freely,
a free willingness”.
His
writings were widely published and studied for the next two
centuries, including during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. You can find
this subject outlined in volume 3 of his works which was published by
a group of Presbyterian scholars in 1865 in Edinburgh. (Works of
David Clarkson, volume 3, p. 140-141)
In
the LDS Bible Dictionary, as well as in many modern Protestant
glossaries, the focus of the definition of grace is on the divine
means of help or strength given through the bounteous mercy
and love of Jesus Christ, It is portrayed as the means by which
we receive divine assistance or it is portrayed as as the enabling assistance or power itself.
However,
by Clarkson’s definition, what that Bible Dictionary is describing
as grace is actually not grace, but rather it is the result
of grace in a believer’s life. To Clarkson and others grace is God’s
great willingness
to extend His powerful help and strength to us.
I
find that when I read the scriptures with that more obsolete
definition in mind, my understanding of God takes a slight change,
and I read the passages of grace reflecting more in the very nature
and willingness of God to help, instead of simply the majesty and
power of that help which He bestows.
It transforms my relationship with Him and my understanding of
His approachability.
I
think it not unlikely that Joseph Smith would have been familiar with
that Clarkson/Presbyterian definition
of grace as he translated the Book of Mormon, considering his various
family members who had been “proselyted to the Presbyterian church”
and had joined it.
And
considering the huge plethora of situations outlined in the Book of
Mormon where good people
face very difficult and often fearful personal or community problems
that they plead to God for help with, it seems fitting that this
older definition and understanding of grace would be appropriate
for its translation as well.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Instead of Praise to the Man
Praise to the Lord. Our Savior, Redeemer,
Praise for His love which removes our doubt and fear.
Blessed by His grace, we receive hope and mercy.
His name forever and ever revere.
Chorus:
Jesus, our Savior, Hosannah forever!
Forces of darkness will fight Him in vain.
We love His teachings, His plan of salvation,
And His atonement which heals our grief and pain.
Great is His power and endless His glory;
Son of the Father whom prophets foretold.
Son of the Father whom prophets foretold.
Blessed by His gospel, we follow our Savior.
May we be counted the sheep of His fold.
Chorus
Praise for His mercy. He offers salvation.
Faith, hope and love are the essence of His plan.
Grateful, we join now with all who adore Him,
Speak of His gospel, and serve their fellow man.
Chorus
Monday, November 26, 2018
I have never been fond of goals
But that is likely because I do not have a very healthy relationship with them.
This week I found the following written by Leo Babauta. I think this is good advice for me as I contemplate making that relationship more helpful and healthy.
This week I found the following written by Leo Babauta. I think this is good advice for me as I contemplate making that relationship more helpful and healthy.
The Usual Way of Working With Goals
The first way to work with sailing to a certain port is the traditional goal-setting way:
- You fix your sights on that port (the goal) and map a route to get there.
- But things don’t go as planned (maybe you didn’t work hard enough, got distracted, or other things came up) and now you feel discouraged.
- You can either give it up entirely, because the goal is making you feel pretty bad about yourself … or you can hold firm to the goal and resolve to do better.
- A storm hits you, then your boat starts falling apart, and you get sick during the journey. You start using your lack of progress towards you goal to beat yourself up more, feel shame, think of yourself as a failure, get frustrated with the world.
- Maybe you give up, or maybe you firmly stick with the destination and get some new resolve.
- But maybe you learn more about this destination as you travel toward it, and learn that it’s not really what you want. Maybe you find other ports that would actually be better to sail toward, that you didn’t know about before.
- Nope! You have to stick to the port you originally chose! No flexibility, the goal is the most important thing.
- Maybe (if you’re tenacious and also lucky) you get to your port. You feel a momentary happiness at your accomplishment, but this destination isn’t what you envisioned it to be. It’s not the solution to all your problems, not the joy you hoped it would be, and you feel let down.
- You immediately start thinking about your next destination, and barely notice the one you made it to.
As you can see, there are a lot of elements here that aren’t helpful:
- Using the goal to beat yourself up and create shame, guilt, disappointment.
- Sticking firmly to the goal even when you learn about better opportunities along the way, with no flexibility.
- Thinking that there’s something magical about reaching the goal that will change your life in some way (rarely true).
- The forward looking mindset (instead of looking at the present) will not end when you reach the goal, but will cause you to look toward the next goal immediately (maybe even while you’re heading toward the first goal).
So what’s a more helpful way? An intentional, conscious way of working with goals.
An Intentional Way of Working with Goals
Imagine instead that you aimed for sailing for that port … but worked with that aim in a more intentional, conscious way:
- You think of this goal as an intention that you’re setting as you start out, a way to guide your direction in the current moment, not a fixed path.
- You don’t think of the port (the goal) as a fixed outcome that you need to hold onto tightly, but rather just a way to guide yourself right now.
- When you do notice yourself attached to the fantasy of your goal, you practice loosening your grip on it, and focus instead on the present moment. What action can you take right now that’s aligned with your intention?
- Regularly check in with yourself, “What’s the most loving act I can take right now? What action right now would be aligned with my intention? What can I appreciate about this moment?”
- Allow yourself to be flexible — if you’re not tightly attached to the goal, you can shift as you learn more, as you sail on your journey and understand the journey more, as you find new opportunities that might be more aligned with your deeper purpose.
- If/when you do arrive at your destination, stop and be present with it, appreciating your journey, appreciating where you are, without immediately turning to the next thing.
This is a more flexible way of working with goals, and a more present-focused way of working, more intentional. The goal doesn’t become the most important thing — though it is helpful — the present moment and your actions and appreciation in the moment become the most important things.
zenhabits.net/intentionality/
zenhabits.net/intentionality/
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
FDR’s second inaugural address, 1937
Some quotes from that address that seem particularly pertinent to us now and in the coming years:
“To hold to progress today, however, is...difficult. Dulled conscience, irresponsibility, and ruthless self-interest already reappear. Such symptoms of prosperity may become portents of disaster! Prosperity already tests the persistence of our progressive purpose.”
“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality pays.”
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
“Government is competent when all who compose it work as trustees for the whole people. It can make constant progress when it keeps abreast of all the facts. It can obtain justified support and legitimate criticism when the people receive true information of all that government does.
“If I know aught of the will of our people, they will demand that these conditions of effective government shall be created and maintained. They will demand a nation uncorrupted by cancers of injustice and, therefore, strong among the nations in its example of the will to peace.”
You can find the full address at the web site below.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
“...and we shall be brought to stand before God” Alma 11:43-44,45
No matter what your politics, or whom you believe, the following is true.
When we desperately hope that the actions we took and the practices we indulged in did not cause us to do something stupid and that someone might find out about them...when we we fear that our actions may have led to harm to ourselves more than we fear that they may have harmed others...when we obfuscate in order to avoid discussing the things we did that might have led, with without our intending to, to harming others or ourselves, whether or not they actually did result in harm, we are on the very human, but very slippery and soul killing slope of fear, pride, dishonesty and loss of integrity.
It takes immense courage and nobility of soul to avoid that slide and face the loss of power, the derision, the sense of shame and and the terrifying sense of personal failure that will result if we speak the full truth about ourselves.
Almost all of us are not fully capable of instinctively rising to that level of courage and honesty. For almost all of us, our first and strongest instinct is preservation of our sense of ourselves and our actions being acceptable, or at least, excusable.
But we whether we choose to speak the truth about our stupid habits or our awful actions, or our fully consciously chosen sins now, and suffer the frightening, ominous consequences now (and experience the freedom that comes from that truth speaking as well), or not, we are guaranteed that we will be irrevocably required to fully understand the truth about all of those things and that they will be, at a completely unavoidable time, fully, and completely publicly known.
We may choose: now or later.
Those who understand the freedom to change and the freedom from fear that comes from full self-knowledge and acknowledgement of stupidity, thoughtlessness and sin will choose it sooner, in spite of the immediate and sometimes extreme pain and difficult consequences it causes to themselves and to those who hoped they were better than they are.
Those who do not will continue to add to the pile of destructive speech and actions that haunt them, consciously or subconsciously, and the obfuscations, and the misplaced hope that nothing bad resulted, until that final, guaranteed, irrevocable unveiling of the full truth and all its consequences happens.
No wonder Zeezrom trembled when he began to see.*
There are two questions that come to each of us from this truth.
Which path will we choose?
And how will we teach the rising generation?
*Alma 11:43-44, 46
When we desperately hope that the actions we took and the practices we indulged in did not cause us to do something stupid and that someone might find out about them...when we we fear that our actions may have led to harm to ourselves more than we fear that they may have harmed others...when we obfuscate in order to avoid discussing the things we did that might have led, with without our intending to, to harming others or ourselves, whether or not they actually did result in harm, we are on the very human, but very slippery and soul killing slope of fear, pride, dishonesty and loss of integrity.
It takes immense courage and nobility of soul to avoid that slide and face the loss of power, the derision, the sense of shame and and the terrifying sense of personal failure that will result if we speak the full truth about ourselves.
Almost all of us are not fully capable of instinctively rising to that level of courage and honesty. For almost all of us, our first and strongest instinct is preservation of our sense of ourselves and our actions being acceptable, or at least, excusable.
But we whether we choose to speak the truth about our stupid habits or our awful actions, or our fully consciously chosen sins now, and suffer the frightening, ominous consequences now (and experience the freedom that comes from that truth speaking as well), or not, we are guaranteed that we will be irrevocably required to fully understand the truth about all of those things and that they will be, at a completely unavoidable time, fully, and completely publicly known.
We may choose: now or later.
Those who understand the freedom to change and the freedom from fear that comes from full self-knowledge and acknowledgement of stupidity, thoughtlessness and sin will choose it sooner, in spite of the immediate and sometimes extreme pain and difficult consequences it causes to themselves and to those who hoped they were better than they are.
Those who do not will continue to add to the pile of destructive speech and actions that haunt them, consciously or subconsciously, and the obfuscations, and the misplaced hope that nothing bad resulted, until that final, guaranteed, irrevocable unveiling of the full truth and all its consequences happens.
No wonder Zeezrom trembled when he began to see.*
There are two questions that come to each of us from this truth.
Which path will we choose?
And how will we teach the rising generation?
*Alma 11:43-44, 46
Friday, August 17, 2018
Watching a perfect parent. Matthew 5:48
If God, our Father, is the model for parenting a child, it is good to consider what kind of a parent we have noticed that He is.
A father who:
answers our requests and questions,
provides watchcare over us,
helps us to overcome our challenges,
is patient with our incomplete understanding,
is willing to forgive,
responds with welcome when we turn to Him,
comforts us when we are sad,
has patience with and compassion for our weaknesses,
is ready and willing to help us,
encourages us and expresses appreciation for our imperfect efforts to do good,
is completely and compassionately honest and worthy of our trust,
gives wise guidance and parameters,
asks honest questions,
provides books that teach truth and offer thoughtful guidelines
That looks like a good list of characteristics and actions to carefully try to incorporate in my own parenting and grandparenting.
A father who:
answers our requests and questions,
provides watchcare over us,
helps us to overcome our challenges,
is patient with our incomplete understanding,
is willing to forgive,
responds with welcome when we turn to Him,
comforts us when we are sad,
has patience with and compassion for our weaknesses,
is ready and willing to help us,
encourages us and expresses appreciation for our imperfect efforts to do good,
is completely and compassionately honest and worthy of our trust,
gives wise guidance and parameters,
asks honest questions,
provides books that teach truth and offer thoughtful guidelines
That looks like a good list of characteristics and actions to carefully try to incorporate in my own parenting and grandparenting.
This is one of my very favorite photos of a listening parent. I love the look of careful attention in the adult's face.
I don't know who took it, but you can find it on this web page:
http://blog.themancompany.com/how-to-be-a-friend-to-your-kid/attachment/2219/
Monday, June 25, 2018
Reading "Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood", by George MacDonald
“I am now getting old—faster and faster. I cannot help my gray hairs, nor the wrinkles that gather so slowly yet ruthlessly; no, nor the quaver that will come in my voice, not the sense of being feeble in the knees, even when I walk only across the floor of my study. But I have not got used to age yet. I do not FEEL one atom older than I did at three-and-twenty. Nay, to tell all the truth, I feel a good deal younger.—For then I only felt that a man had to take up his cross; whereas now I feel that a man has to follow Him; and that makes an unspeakable difference.”
“I love a parson, sir. And I'll tell you for why, sir. He's got a good telescope, and he gits to the masthead, and he looks out. And he sings out, 'Land ahead!' or 'Breakers ahead!' and gives directions accordin'. Only I can't always make out what he says. But when he shuts up his spyglass, and comes down the riggin', and talks to us like one man to another, then I don't know what I should do without the parson....
“I resolved to try all I could to be the same man in the pulpit that I was out of it. Some may be inclined to say that I had better have formed the resolution to be the same man out of the pulpit that I was in it. But the one will go quite right with the other. Out of the pulpit I would be the same man I was in it—seeing and feeling the realities of the unseen; and in the pulpit I would be the same man I was out of it—taking facts as they are, and dealing with things as they show themselves in the world.”
“I love a parson, sir. And I'll tell you for why, sir. He's got a good telescope, and he gits to the masthead, and he looks out. And he sings out, 'Land ahead!' or 'Breakers ahead!' and gives directions accordin'. Only I can't always make out what he says. But when he shuts up his spyglass, and comes down the riggin', and talks to us like one man to another, then I don't know what I should do without the parson....
“I resolved to try all I could to be the same man in the pulpit that I was out of it. Some may be inclined to say that I had better have formed the resolution to be the same man out of the pulpit that I was in it. But the one will go quite right with the other. Out of the pulpit I would be the same man I was in it—seeing and feeling the realities of the unseen; and in the pulpit I would be the same man I was out of it—taking facts as they are, and dealing with things as they show themselves in the world.”
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Becoming
“I was not making much progress at all. The problem did not lie in my objectives. My objectives were lofty—never stooping to dishonesty, not compromising my principles, standing forward to defend the right and make corrections when things didn’t go as they should....
“The problem was that pursuing these objectives was a project too much in behalf of myself. ...My worries about myself [and my progress] led me to slight others or use them for my purposes...
“How then shall we come unto Christ so that everything will be different from what it could possibly be otherwise?
“By sacrificing all taking of offense.
By giving up criticism, impatience and contempt, for they accuse the sisters and bothers for whom Christ died.
By forswearing vulgarity and pornography which diminish both the user and the used.
By putting aside, in short, every practice that bears the image of murder, obliteration of souls, discord, and death.
By giving these practices their true name, violence, and abhorring even their first appearance.
By renouncing war in every form and proclaiming peace. (Doc. & Cov. 98:16)
“... in the long term, and often in the short one, people respond more energetically, think more clearly, work more joyfully, and build more wisely when they put one another ahead of self;
“when they welcome the interruption brought on by another person’s need;
when they do their work in ways that enhance each other’s work;
when the forget about getting credit [from God or man or self];
when they renouce in their hearts all sense of belonging to an elite company, even a company of the brightest or best trained or the most doctrinally pure;
when they reach out to and embrace those who are violating all of those principles.
“I am here this day because of those who treated me graciously in spite of my frequently making things worse by trying aggressively to make them better when patience would have been much the wisest way.”
C. Terry Warner, “Honest, Simple, Solid, True”
“The problem was that pursuing these objectives was a project too much in behalf of myself. ...My worries about myself [and my progress] led me to slight others or use them for my purposes...
“How then shall we come unto Christ so that everything will be different from what it could possibly be otherwise?
“By sacrificing all taking of offense.
By giving up criticism, impatience and contempt, for they accuse the sisters and bothers for whom Christ died.
By forswearing vulgarity and pornography which diminish both the user and the used.
By putting aside, in short, every practice that bears the image of murder, obliteration of souls, discord, and death.
By giving these practices their true name, violence, and abhorring even their first appearance.
By renouncing war in every form and proclaiming peace. (Doc. & Cov. 98:16)
“... in the long term, and often in the short one, people respond more energetically, think more clearly, work more joyfully, and build more wisely when they put one another ahead of self;
“when they welcome the interruption brought on by another person’s need;
when they do their work in ways that enhance each other’s work;
when the forget about getting credit [from God or man or self];
when they renouce in their hearts all sense of belonging to an elite company, even a company of the brightest or best trained or the most doctrinally pure;
when they reach out to and embrace those who are violating all of those principles.
“I am here this day because of those who treated me graciously in spite of my frequently making things worse by trying aggressively to make them better when patience would have been much the wisest way.”
C. Terry Warner, “Honest, Simple, Solid, True”
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
“I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness,“
“God will forgive you.”
That sentence often left me perplexed. I appreciate it when someone forgives me for something I have done that has hurt them or made their life more difficult. I appreciate not only the forgiveness that lightens my burden but I also respect the forgiver’s unselfish, generous, or peaceful nature that allows him or her to forgive the hurt, or dismay or difficulty that I have caused in his or her life.
But, growing up, I couldn’t fathom God being emotionally hurt, or dismayed or thwarted by my sins. God is love. God is justice. God is mercy. And he’s all about agency. He expects us to mess up. I mean, God is not so small that He is so focused on obedience to his commandments that he feels personally offended or hurt when I fail to obey. He has no ego wrapped up in our compliance with his mandates. Nor does my disobedience make his eternal life more difficult. Certainly he loves me and cares about me, but my personal recalcitrance or failures to avoid sin do not mess up his divine existence, or thwart His work, nor cause him great anguish over my ongoing imperfection. Our God is a God of love, not a God of anguish or unhappiness over every mistake made by each of his billions of children. (What a miserable eternal life that would be) His stand against sin is firm, but his emotional health and well being is not tied to my exact compliance or lack thereof this week.
I believe that most of the run of the mill sins we continually make don’t make God feel personally offended or thwarted, neither do they surprise Him. Instead his response to our everyday sins that we recognize is more along the lines of consistent encouragement to get our act together better and, with His help, change. So, forgiveness offered by God must not mean being excused and forgiven for emotionally injuring him or disappointing him by our not yet being perfect.
Yes, I know there are Old Testament and Pearl of Great Price references to God weeping or being angry. I am not saying that He never does feel strong negative emotions. But when He does, it is not because I or someone else failed to do something like remember to fast on Fast Sunday last month.
If I am right, and God is not personally, or physically, or emotionally, or spiritually, hurt or thwarted when I engage in less than perfect behavior, then it must mean that there is something other than personally offending Him or causing Him difficulty or disappointment that my plea for forgiveness must be about.
Lately I have been studying the topic of the mercy of God, which is a fascinating and lovely subject. And I have found that you cannot study His mercy without also running into a lot of statements and discussions about His sense of justice and what makes Him angry. And do you know which one thing, throughout the scriptures, always makes Him angry or sad? It is you physically, emotionally or spiritually hurting one of his other children and not caring about it, or worse, thinking it’s cool or admirable. THAT makes Him angry and doubles his sorrow, once for you, and the other for the person you hurt.
As a mom, I totally understand that. In my current calling I can understand that. I can remain pretty calm and unmoved by your messing with me, but if you willfully or ignorantly and/or arrogantly hurt one of my “kids” and don’t care enough to think twice about, or, horrifically, enjoy it, I am mad. I can keep my cool. I can treat you with civility, I can even continue to try to help you, but I am furious. Mother bear furious underneath my calm efforts to work for change. Angry at the opportunities you had to do good in which you willfully chose to do something that hurt someone else. And sad for you. I am so, so sad for you.
And it will only be after you have not only changed, but also after you spoken to me about that change and your regret about the damage you did to people I love, that you will begin to feel at peace in my presence and will we be able to start to rebuild trust.
So I think that helps me understand better why the scriptures discuss confessing to and receiving forgiveness from God. It’s when we understand not just the damage we’ve done to ourselves, but, more importantly, the callously inflicted damage, great or small, that our sins cause, or will cause in the lives of our brothers and sisters who He loves as deeply as He loves us, that we begin to understand more clearly why we seek His forgiveness as well as theirs.
That sentence often left me perplexed. I appreciate it when someone forgives me for something I have done that has hurt them or made their life more difficult. I appreciate not only the forgiveness that lightens my burden but I also respect the forgiver’s unselfish, generous, or peaceful nature that allows him or her to forgive the hurt, or dismay or difficulty that I have caused in his or her life.
But, growing up, I couldn’t fathom God being emotionally hurt, or dismayed or thwarted by my sins. God is love. God is justice. God is mercy. And he’s all about agency. He expects us to mess up. I mean, God is not so small that He is so focused on obedience to his commandments that he feels personally offended or hurt when I fail to obey. He has no ego wrapped up in our compliance with his mandates. Nor does my disobedience make his eternal life more difficult. Certainly he loves me and cares about me, but my personal recalcitrance or failures to avoid sin do not mess up his divine existence, or thwart His work, nor cause him great anguish over my ongoing imperfection. Our God is a God of love, not a God of anguish or unhappiness over every mistake made by each of his billions of children. (What a miserable eternal life that would be) His stand against sin is firm, but his emotional health and well being is not tied to my exact compliance or lack thereof this week.
I believe that most of the run of the mill sins we continually make don’t make God feel personally offended or thwarted, neither do they surprise Him. Instead his response to our everyday sins that we recognize is more along the lines of consistent encouragement to get our act together better and, with His help, change. So, forgiveness offered by God must not mean being excused and forgiven for emotionally injuring him or disappointing him by our not yet being perfect.
Yes, I know there are Old Testament and Pearl of Great Price references to God weeping or being angry. I am not saying that He never does feel strong negative emotions. But when He does, it is not because I or someone else failed to do something like remember to fast on Fast Sunday last month.
If I am right, and God is not personally, or physically, or emotionally, or spiritually, hurt or thwarted when I engage in less than perfect behavior, then it must mean that there is something other than personally offending Him or causing Him difficulty or disappointment that my plea for forgiveness must be about.
Lately I have been studying the topic of the mercy of God, which is a fascinating and lovely subject. And I have found that you cannot study His mercy without also running into a lot of statements and discussions about His sense of justice and what makes Him angry. And do you know which one thing, throughout the scriptures, always makes Him angry or sad? It is you physically, emotionally or spiritually hurting one of his other children and not caring about it, or worse, thinking it’s cool or admirable. THAT makes Him angry and doubles his sorrow, once for you, and the other for the person you hurt.
As a mom, I totally understand that. In my current calling I can understand that. I can remain pretty calm and unmoved by your messing with me, but if you willfully or ignorantly and/or arrogantly hurt one of my “kids” and don’t care enough to think twice about, or, horrifically, enjoy it, I am mad. I can keep my cool. I can treat you with civility, I can even continue to try to help you, but I am furious. Mother bear furious underneath my calm efforts to work for change. Angry at the opportunities you had to do good in which you willfully chose to do something that hurt someone else. And sad for you. I am so, so sad for you.
And it will only be after you have not only changed, but also after you spoken to me about that change and your regret about the damage you did to people I love, that you will begin to feel at peace in my presence and will we be able to start to rebuild trust.
So I think that helps me understand better why the scriptures discuss confessing to and receiving forgiveness from God. It’s when we understand not just the damage we’ve done to ourselves, but, more importantly, the callously inflicted damage, great or small, that our sins cause, or will cause in the lives of our brothers and sisters who He loves as deeply as He loves us, that we begin to understand more clearly why we seek His forgiveness as well as theirs.
Tuesday, May 08, 2018
“Obedience is the first law of heaven.” Where did that come from?
There is a sentance that is sometimes quoted by members of my faith, though few know where it came from. It is this:
“Obedience is the first law of heaven.”
It was spoken by Joseph F. Smith in a conference talk on October 7, 1873. *
It is often used to advocate for compliance with laws that one does not see the reasons for, and therefore is disinclined to obey, intimating that if you don’t agree, or don’t understand, then just obey anyway, because obedience is that important.
But. In that same talk. Joseph F. Smith explains what he means by obedience.
“We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the first Presidency require it? No, never. What do they desire? That we may have our minds opened and our understandings enlarged, that we may comprehend all true principles for ourselves; then we will be easily governed thereby, we shall yield obedience with our eyes open, and it will he a pleasure for us to do so.”
He is advocating an obedience that is very different from obedience for the sake of obedience. He is speaking of an obedience that is based upon an opened mind and the understanding that we have aquired of the heavenly principles behind the law and how they play out when we live them and a clear desire on our part to live those principles because those principles are ones we want to make a part of who we are and part of the world in which we live. It is an obedience that is totally different from “obedience just because obedience is super important.”
* https://scriptures.byu.edu/#:t27123:p565
“Obedience is the first law of heaven.”
It was spoken by Joseph F. Smith in a conference talk on October 7, 1873. *
It is often used to advocate for compliance with laws that one does not see the reasons for, and therefore is disinclined to obey, intimating that if you don’t agree, or don’t understand, then just obey anyway, because obedience is that important.
But. In that same talk. Joseph F. Smith explains what he means by obedience.
“We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the first Presidency require it? No, never. What do they desire? That we may have our minds opened and our understandings enlarged, that we may comprehend all true principles for ourselves; then we will be easily governed thereby, we shall yield obedience with our eyes open, and it will he a pleasure for us to do so.”
He is advocating an obedience that is very different from obedience for the sake of obedience. He is speaking of an obedience that is based upon an opened mind and the understanding that we have aquired of the heavenly principles behind the law and how they play out when we live them and a clear desire on our part to live those principles because those principles are ones we want to make a part of who we are and part of the world in which we live. It is an obedience that is totally different from “obedience just because obedience is super important.”
* https://scriptures.byu.edu/#:t27123:p565
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Numbers 20:8-12 Thoughts on the saying “Obedience brings blessings and exact obedience brings miracles”
I’ve already posted on the origin of that saying that was quoted in a talk given by Russell Nelson several years ago at the MTC. He clearly thought it was a helpful way to look at things, but he was not the author of it. Which is actually reassuring, because it’s problematic for the following reasons.
1. When is a blessing not a miracle? When you get right down to it, a huge percentage of the blessings we receive are pretty miraculous in and of themselves considering the nature of the universe and the state of mankind. I believe that delineating a difference between a blessing and a miracle is simply a matter of subsets, not a matter of two different things. Blessings are good things that happen . The scriptures teach us “that all good things cometh from God”. Miracles are a subset of those good things; they are the good things that come from God that are unexpected, surprising and inexplainable to us.
2. If exact obedience was required for a miracle (an amazing, unusual blessing) to occur, then when Moses struck the rock in Numbers 20: 8-12, no water would have come out of it. His action on that occasion was not exactly obedient (and God points that out to him) and certainly the Israelites were not exactly obedient at that time either. Hence, this story belies the assertion that exact obedience is required for miracles.
I think it’s an excellent idea to try to obey God. But reducing the possibility of miracles to situations where our exact obedience comes into play as an essential prerequisite to the unfolding of the miracle is not a spiritually healthy way to view our relationship with God. It is a pattern of thinking that reduces our sense of His amazing mercy and long-suffering towards us, and can reduce our view of His interaction with us to an earned merit system, which it is definitely not.
So yes, seek to know and love and obey God and his commandments and to work daily under the guidance of his Holy Spirit, but don’t believe that His love and power and will to do amazing things are dependent upon your exact obedience. They aren’t.
1. When is a blessing not a miracle? When you get right down to it, a huge percentage of the blessings we receive are pretty miraculous in and of themselves considering the nature of the universe and the state of mankind. I believe that delineating a difference between a blessing and a miracle is simply a matter of subsets, not a matter of two different things. Blessings are good things that happen . The scriptures teach us “that all good things cometh from God”. Miracles are a subset of those good things; they are the good things that come from God that are unexpected, surprising and inexplainable to us.
2. If exact obedience was required for a miracle (an amazing, unusual blessing) to occur, then when Moses struck the rock in Numbers 20: 8-12, no water would have come out of it. His action on that occasion was not exactly obedient (and God points that out to him) and certainly the Israelites were not exactly obedient at that time either. Hence, this story belies the assertion that exact obedience is required for miracles.
I think it’s an excellent idea to try to obey God. But reducing the possibility of miracles to situations where our exact obedience comes into play as an essential prerequisite to the unfolding of the miracle is not a spiritually healthy way to view our relationship with God. It is a pattern of thinking that reduces our sense of His amazing mercy and long-suffering towards us, and can reduce our view of His interaction with us to an earned merit system, which it is definitely not.
So yes, seek to know and love and obey God and his commandments and to work daily under the guidance of his Holy Spirit, but don’t believe that His love and power and will to do amazing things are dependent upon your exact obedience. They aren’t.
Sunday, April 08, 2018
Thursday, April 05, 2018
Meek, Matthew 11:29
I read Elder Bednar’s Conference talk today. It is a well constructed treatise on the quality of “meekness”.
I decided to look into the way the word "meek" has been understood and translated in recording what Jesus said in Matthew 11:29, “for I am meek and lowly in heart”.
So I looked up the translation of that verse in a the few languages I know. The variety in the translations was interesting. And I looked it up in an English dictionary.
One entry in the latter caught my eye. It was an “obsolete” definition; a definition that was understood long ago, but has been dropped long since. It was “gentle, kind”.
That made sense to me. That definition of meek in the context of that verse would make a great deal of sense. Probably more sense than the other traditional definitions in religious discourse: submissive, obedient, humble, inclined to righteous responsiveness or given to restraint.
“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am gentle and kind and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest unto your soul.
So I looked up the that passage in Greek. The word there is “πραύς (praus)
And that word is defined in three different Greek dictionaries as “meek, gentle, kind, forgiving, mild, benevolent, humane”
You can find that same word also in Matthew 5:5, (The meek shall inherit the earth.) Matthew 21:5, (Where Jesus describes his final entry into Jerusalem as “meek”) and 1st Peter 3:4. (the quality of meekness and quietness of spirit being highly valued by God)
Being gentle, kind, forgiving, benevolent, humane qualifies you as trusted by God to inherit the earth.
Kindness, forgivness, benevolence and a humanitarian response were the qualities of Christ at the time when he received the loudest acclaim and could have been, instead, proud and pleased and flattered.
When you are gentle, kind, forgiving, benevolent and humane, you are acting in a way that is highly valued by your Father in Heaven, the amazing Father who will be our ultimate judge
Obedience that comes from a way of being that includes kindness, gentleness, benevolence, forgivness and humane response (meekness) is different in quality and depth from the obedience that comes just from the other linked attributes of submission or humility or willingness to do good or self-restraint. There is a power of goodness that is profound when the lost definitions are restored to the existing one.
I think that the contraction of and change in the word “meek” over the centuries has robbed us of something valuable in our reading of scripture.
Interestingly, I think that the men that Elder Bednar referred to in his talk, Amulek and Pahoran, did incorporate some of those elements; Amulek in his willingness to take in and feed and help Alma when Alma was being persecuted, Pahoran's amazing response to Moroni's scathing remonstrance.
Elder Bednar didn't cover that though, perhaps because the language has changed. I think that our language has left us with a loss.
I decided to look into the way the word "meek" has been understood and translated in recording what Jesus said in Matthew 11:29, “for I am meek and lowly in heart”.
So I looked up the translation of that verse in a the few languages I know. The variety in the translations was interesting. And I looked it up in an English dictionary.
One entry in the latter caught my eye. It was an “obsolete” definition; a definition that was understood long ago, but has been dropped long since. It was “gentle, kind”.
That made sense to me. That definition of meek in the context of that verse would make a great deal of sense. Probably more sense than the other traditional definitions in religious discourse: submissive, obedient, humble, inclined to righteous responsiveness or given to restraint.
“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am gentle and kind and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest unto your soul.
So I looked up the that passage in Greek. The word there is “πραύς (praus)
And that word is defined in three different Greek dictionaries as “meek, gentle, kind, forgiving, mild, benevolent, humane”
You can find that same word also in Matthew 5:5, (The meek shall inherit the earth.) Matthew 21:5, (Where Jesus describes his final entry into Jerusalem as “meek”) and 1st Peter 3:4. (the quality of meekness and quietness of spirit being highly valued by God)
Being gentle, kind, forgiving, benevolent, humane qualifies you as trusted by God to inherit the earth.
Kindness, forgivness, benevolence and a humanitarian response were the qualities of Christ at the time when he received the loudest acclaim and could have been, instead, proud and pleased and flattered.
When you are gentle, kind, forgiving, benevolent and humane, you are acting in a way that is highly valued by your Father in Heaven, the amazing Father who will be our ultimate judge
Obedience that comes from a way of being that includes kindness, gentleness, benevolence, forgivness and humane response (meekness) is different in quality and depth from the obedience that comes just from the other linked attributes of submission or humility or willingness to do good or self-restraint. There is a power of goodness that is profound when the lost definitions are restored to the existing one.
I think that the contraction of and change in the word “meek” over the centuries has robbed us of something valuable in our reading of scripture.
Interestingly, I think that the men that Elder Bednar referred to in his talk, Amulek and Pahoran, did incorporate some of those elements; Amulek in his willingness to take in and feed and help Alma when Alma was being persecuted, Pahoran's amazing response to Moroni's scathing remonstrance.
Elder Bednar didn't cover that though, perhaps because the language has changed. I think that our language has left us with a loss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)