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.

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:

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.

Just because it seems like a good idea here doesn't mean it makes sense there.

“For Americans in particular, life in a global Church means realizing that just because something seems a no-brainer here doesn’t mean it plays out that way everywhere.”

~John J. Allen, Jr., associate editor of the Catholic journal "Crux", at the end of his interesting article about current catholic debates in India.

True about my church too.

The sentence above is towards the end of the second part of the interesting article that you can find HERE.

To Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord, Luke 4:19

In the 4th chapter of Luke it is related that Jesus read the passage, Isaiah 61:1-3 in a synagogue, and then, while seated and expounding explained: "This day is this scripture fulfilled."

The Isaiah passage he read outlines the work he was anointed to do:

to preach the gospel to the poor

to heal the broken-hearted

to preach deliverance to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind

(that these are linked makes me think of the freedom that comes when one is finally and truly able to "see" truth)

to set at liberty those who are bruised

(makes me think of the captivity and damage that comes from emotional trauma as well as physical trauma and sin)

to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Below is what Martin Luther King thought that last phrase meant, taken from a sermon he preached in 1966.  A good reminder of some personal guidelines as I start a new year.

. . And then the church, if it is true to its guidelines, must preach the acceptable year of the Lord. You know the acceptable year of the Lord is the year that is acceptable to God because it fulfills the demands of his kingdom. Some people reading this passage feel that it’s talking about some period beyond history, but I say to you this morning that the acceptable year of the Lord can be this year. And the church is called to preach it.

The acceptable year of the Lord is any year when men decide to do right.

The acceptable year of the Lord is any year when men will stop lying and cheating.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when women will start using the telephone for constructive purposes and not to spread malicious gossip and false rumors on their neighbors.

The acceptable year of the Lord is any year when men will stop throwing away the precious lives that God has given them in riotous living.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when people in Alabama will stop killing civil rights workers and people who are simply engaged in the process of seeking their constitutional rights.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when men will learn to live together as brothers.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when men will keep their theology abreast with their technology.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when men will keep the ends for which they live abreast with the means by which they live.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when men will keep their morality abreast with their mentality.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when all of the leaders of the world will sit down at the conference table and realize that unless mankind puts an end to war, war will put an end to mankind.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when men will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: and nations will not rise up against nations, neither will they study war anymore.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when men will allow justice to roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when we will send to Congress and to state houses of our nation men who will do justly, who will love mercy, and who will walk humbly with their God.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain will be made low; the rough places would be made plain, and the crooked places straight; and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when men will do unto others as they will have others do unto themselves.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when men will love their enemies, bless them that curse them, pray for them that despitefully use them.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when men discover that out of one blood God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth.

The acceptable year of the Lord is that year when every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess the name of Jesus. And everywhere men will cry out, “Hallelujah, hallelujah! The kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever. Hallelujah, hallelujah!”

The acceptable year of the Lord is God’s year.

These are our guidelines, and if we will only follow the guidelines, we will be ready for God’s kingdom, we will be doing what God’s church is called to do. We won’t be a little social club. We won’t be a little entertainment center. But we’ll be about the serious business of bringing God’s kingdom to this earth.

The Eastern Way or the Western Way, particularly in regards to church life

Earlier this week I had a discussion with a friend from Vietnam about the customs of obedience to authority and the sense that expressing contrary opinions or feelings is deleterious to community or family cohesiveness.  Then, later, I read a piece on the value that modern Westerners, particularly Americans, place upon individuality and authenticity  when interacting with authority and posed the question of which is better, the Asian way of thinking about personal response to community and authority or the Western one?

 For me it is not a question of choosing to be authentic or choosing to acquiesce to authority. It is a question of a) being fully at peace with who I am and where I stand regardless of the views of those whose approval or lack thereof may be perceived as “important” and b) being fully aware not only of my own thoughts on any given subject but also fully aware of the timeliness, effectiveness, or lack thereof of my expressing those in any given situation.

Why? Because the measure of authenticity is not verbal expression nor how one is perceived by others. My authenticity is my personal commitment to being a person who knows her own ideas and lives and speaks according to them. And one of those ideas is my personal commitment to building light and understanding in the most effective ways I can conceive. Which idea plays wisely into my words and daily life.

I never express support for ideas that I think are wrong or which I feel are misguided. That kind of “support for authority” would be contrary to my own integrity. And I reject the notion that I must meet certain unwritten expectations order to be a “good mormon”. 

As a parent, I also understand that there are teaching/communication moments and there are moments when it is wise to wait a bit for a more mutually helpful time for communication and receptivity. Waiting for a better time, choosing to be quiet now and genuinely kindly vocal in a different setting the next day, is not inauthenticity. Choosing to do that is authentic to both my values of being true to myself and my value of creating understanding rather than fear or confusion.

I have Asian friends in Asia who talk about the damage to relationships that comes from acting entirely as acquiescent supporters. As an American I see the damage to relationships that comes from speaking and acting exclusively as “authentic” without regard to the receptivity or preparedness of coworkers or other members of a congregation.

I believe that it is extremely important to be authentic but that to do so only focused on your own authenticity is inconsiderate of others and hinders communication. I believe that taking into consideration the state of mind and heart of those you are with is important and that choosing to be silent about your own thoughts out of consideration for another’s level of receptivity at that particular moment is not inauthenticity, but is rather an authentic expression of an authentic commitment to the value of respecting the state of mind and receptivity of another.

My experience is that people can feel trapped and alienated from others when they feel like they must always “tow the line” of an organization or that they must act in accordance with a preconceived notion of what is acceptable. And it is also my experience that practicing “authenticity” (always saying exactly and doing exactly what you think in every situation regardless of the sensibilities of those around you) can destroy trust and seriously diminish a person’s ability to effectuate good change and can also seriously hinder others’ efforts effectively express their own authentic selves.

Neither the western nor the eastern modus operandi works well when it becomes the ultimate measurement of successful interaction. I believe that a wise blending of both, guided by consideration for the readiness of others, a gentle and confident self-acceptance of your own beliefs, and the Spirit of Truth is needed in order to both free yourself and also to free others to create true community, one that is both mutually supportive and individually authentic, together.

Planning With a Purpose

“The How Report,” an independent study that LRN conducted with the Boston Research Group and Research Data Technology found that CEOs are six times more likely than "average workers" to believe they work in a company where people are inspired.  Employees said they were primarily coerced (84%) or motivated (12%) by carrots and stickes at work rather than inspired by values and a commitment to a mission and purpose (4%).

I remember how challenging it was, as a YW leader, to help our YW presidency and our class presidencies to get out of the "carrot" mode and into the "principle based purpose" mode.  It was also a challenge to move to thinking about principles beyond the handy color-coded YW values (though they are a fine in and of themselves).

On lds.org there is a series of short-lesson resources for YW leaders to use to help young women catch the vision of their calling.  It's described as a tool to help class presidencies figure out their responsibilities and how to carry them out, but they are excellent for every young woman to know and it is easier to include them in a regular Sunday discussion than it is to try to incorporate them into class presidency meetings.  And by teaching them to all young women you prepare those who will be called to leadership in the future (in other words, all of them).

There's a link to those short lesson resources HERE

The second lesson listed, "Planning Activities with Gospel Purposes in Mind"  is the lesson resource that introduces the idea of planning with a purpose.

THIS web page as some good explanations of how to plan with a purpose and some excellent worksheets to facilitate that.

The author, who learned these methods as a student at BYU, uses the worksheets as she works with 8-11 year old girls, but they can be used with good results for any group effort.  You can look at those worksheets and print them off from that page.

I personally found that a vital part of this process of planning with a purpose is the final step of reviewing the activity after it had happened.  Actually taking time on the Sunday following the activity to discuss what worked and what didn't and what they'd do differently next time was empowering and instructive.  And, true to the truth that "I remember most what I have said", articulating what they'd do differently next time helped them to remember to actually do that the next time.

Young Men, Young Women, Leadership and the Great Outdoors

I have served as a Young Women president as a Young Women's adviser and as a stake camp director. I am firmly converted to the notion that time away from civilization can be profoundly good for the soul. I have raised a son through the Young Men's program and my husband has served for the past 6 years as a Varsity Team (14-15 year old boys) coach in our ward. This is what I have learned about young men and young women in the church, leadership and their time in the great outdoors.

I do not live in the Intermountain West, so I cannot speak specifically to how those programs are run there. My experiences are from the East Coast and the Great Plains. But the handbooks we work with are the same.

Who Does What

The handbooks for leaders of both young women and young men of all ages are clear. Scouts and Young Men are supposed to be “boy led” programs that help young men prepare to become men of God. Both quorum work and scout work are supposed to be united together in that purpose, not run as a duality with different young men in different organizational leadership as they so often are. Young men, actively involved in scouting or not, are supposed to be the ones who come up with the weekly activities in counsel with their adult YM leaders, plan how to do them and carry them out. Their ability to do so and the breadth of their responsibilities in relationship to those of their adult leaders increases as they move from boy scouts to varsity team to venture crew, from deacon, to teacher to priest quorums.

The handbooks also are clear that the purpose of the young women program is to prepare young women to become women of God. As part of that process they are supposed to be the ones who envision their activities, and plan and carry them out in council with their adult leaders. And likewise, the breadth of their responsibilities and projects are designed to increase as they move from Beehive, to Mia Maid and Laurel.

However, in both Young Men and in Young Women programs, it is rare that it works that way. Why? For the same reason that many parents of young children on family camping trips do the dishes themselves: it is easier and takes less time and is more thorough to do the work yourself than to teach a young person how to do it. It is hard to make the time to do that leadership training. It is easier to just run a program than it is to work with girls to help them create ways to transform their lives. And so way too many leaders simply do the planning themselves, and then hand out tasks. And, even worse, when some young man or young woman comes up with a very grand idea, instead of taking the time to help that young person learn how to make it happen, they decide that it's too big a project and discourage the idea. This happens in both young men and young women programs.

Scout Camp and Girls Camp

Time out of doors is good for the soul. Scout camp, if it's done right, sometimes works fairly well for 12-13 year old boys. A few 14 year olds who have not yet started high school may sometimes attend as well, but by the time a boy is 15 there is no way he's interested in scout camp. Girls camp, if done right, can also work well. It is a little more flexible in its structure and has activities that are designed to increase in complexity with each year, so though attrition does occur, 15 year olds are still in attendance. But the 16-17 year old attendance can be counted on one hand.

Some wards or stakes fight this downward trend of young men involvement in the outdoors by organizing “High Adventure” activities for the young men. Again, it is often organized by adults, with the young men being handed assignments to bring stuff. If an adult didn't think of High Adventure as something that needed to be done, it wouldn't happen. And no young men volunteer to organize it. They generally assume that it's part of the program that the adults will make happen.

The Junior Leader program at Girls Camp was originally created as a leadership program for 16 and 17 year old young women. However, nowadays, in a far-flung stake, it rarely is put together on a stake basis in a way that meets those goals, and the young women sense that and vote with their feet.

Some Ways Some People Have Changed Things

I have lived in two wards and watched two more where individuals have been able to make effective and promising changes to the above scenarios. It takes work, it takes vision, and it takes paying attention to the handbooks and it's exciting to watch. Here is what I've seen:

One stake invited a member of the church YM presidency to come speak about scouting. The young men leaders in attendance laughed out loud when he stated that scouting should be “a neighborhood organization” due to the fact that most boys in the stake traveled many miles to attend scout meetings, but a couple of the wards caught the vision the unity of purpose of boy led scouting, quorum work, and leadership. They called varsity scout coaches and, if they could manage it, a venture crew leader too, and worked to teach them how to run a boy led program that dovetailed well with the boys priesthood quorum objectives. Mutual nights changed gradually from one where the 12-13 year olds were in scout meetings, the 14-15 year olds tried to avoid them, and the 16 year olds who showed up played basketball, to programs and activities that were created and carried out (with good adult support) by young men in distinct age groups regardless of their interest or disinterest in scouting advancement. And high adventure was planned and carried out on a ward level under the direction of young teachers and priests.

One ward had a Young Women presidency who recognized that Girls Camp was not filling the needs of their older girls and started talking to them about what they thought would be better. The girls floated the idea of a week long canoe trip and so the idea began to take shape. The adult leaders spent countless hours helping young women to figure out how to make it happen. The Mia Maids and Beehives wanted in too and so the ward let me (the stake camp director) know that they wouldn't be at Girls Camp that year because they'd be canoeing instead. That was fine with me (though I had to persuade the Stake YW president that this was perfectly fine...people sometimes feel let down when someone doesn't come to something they've put a lot of effort into.)

Another ward had a well organized scout troop that went to Philmont one year and came back awed and inspired by their experience. A number of young women expressed jealousy and a wish to do so as well. Their adult leaders and parents heard them and instead of saying “no we can't” said “why not”? They got the girls to research Venture scouting, a program that would enable them to register as scouts and organize a Philmont trip. The girls figured out what needed to be done, and with the support and resources of their leaders, figured out a way to do that and spent the rest of the next year and a half learning and participating in regional scout activities as part of their Personal Progress projects, culminating in their own Philmont trek two years after they started planning (reserving a Philmont trek needs to be reserved long in advance). It was the girls inspired idea and the leaders and parents assisted them.

Making Changes

My experiences have led me to believe that it is not the programs of the church that need to change, it is the the minds and vision and dedicated time of ward and branch youth leaders and parents. The handbooks teach the principle of programs that teach and encourage the development of character, spiritual awareness and understanding of God's work and the skills required to help, envisioned and carried out by young people, supported by adults. Our problem is that we adults (parents, teachers, scout leaders, advisers, presidencies) do not have the vision of training young people as leaders who are on their way to becoming men and women of God, nor do we feel like we can make the time to do that. So we create adult run programs. We run programs instead of opportunities to practice, in a supportive environment, early learning about what it means to be prepared to lead and act in the service of God and your fellow beings. The handbooks could change and make both the young women and young men programs exactly the same in structure and the problems found in both would still persist.

This situation is, in reality, one that will only change as we dedicated adult women change, volunteer to assist, and tell a YW president we would be happy to help a girl create something that that inspired girl feels needs to happen, instead of just getting upset when a YW president or adviser feels too overwhelmed to tackle it along with everything else she feels she's supposed to do. We can open the eyes of our daughters about how they can use Personal Progress projects in ways that support their good dreams instead of just doing what they've seen others do. We can teach young women how to determine needs, seek inspiration and then create, lead and carry out plans to do good whether or not they have a specific leadership calling. And then can we lend the support they need as they struggle to learn how to do that.

It will only change when men catch the vision and work as Quorum Advisers, Assistant Scoutmasters, Varsity Scout coaches and Venture Crew leaders, take seriously the training the church has about how scouting can be employed as a way to further the objectives the boys have developed in their quorums, and then, with parents, put the time and effort to teach boys how to make YM/scouting work the way they are supposed to: led by boys who are mentored by men of God.

Though changes in existing programs as outlined in the handbooks might be interesting to consider or marginally helpful, I do not believe that is the the answer to our youth program challenges. One could make a world of changes to the programs in the handbooks and still the obstacles to youth leadership and youth-led programs and young people envisioning and creating and leading good experiences would exist. I believe that the key answer is a change in us adults who have our boots on the ground in our wards and branches.

Wor

For me a lightbulb went on years ago when I realized that worship is becoming more in tune with God by being a vehicle for the carrying out of his will.

In other words, worship is work.

Before, I though worship was supposed to be transcendent enlightenment and communion with the divine, the kind epitomized by singing in the glorious choir in an echoing cathedral and peaceful rest listening to a holy sermon.

Or the energy of community harmony in study of the word with like-minded  disciples  

I'd work hard all week and hope and expect that time at church would be the source of the transcendent respite I needed that week.  But though those kinds of transcendent experiences are sweet, and seeking and finding such transcendent moments is worthy and refreshing for the soul, they are not the full meaning of the word "worship", the thing church meetings were for.

Having figured that out I now attend church knowing that it's going to be work; good work, but work nonetheless.  It is praying for those speaking at the pulpit, extending charity to the struggling teacher, helping children manage sacrament meeting, listening kindly to the ones I disagree with, thoughtful social interaction in the halls (so hard...), and being a conscious, warm welcomer.  It's all WORK with, sometimes, the pleasant gift of a flash of divine inspiration because of a comment made, or a person listened to or some quietude for the 5 minutes the sacrament is passed to the congregation, (but only if the children don't need help right at that moment as well).

And yeah, it's not relaxing.  So of course I come home tired.  Work makes me tired.

Once I figured that out and consciously made time for the other more restful spiritual things I sought (good theological discussions, contemplation, good music, peaceful fellowship or transcendent interaction with the divine) at times other than the three hour block, my relationship to church attendance changed.

So now I don't go to find peaceful respite.  I go expecting to have to work, and sometimes to have to work hard.  And I consciously set aside time to do the (also essential) transcendent communion moments at other times during the week.

Just for fun, there are some interesting etymologies involved in the word "worship", some a bit of a stretch but pleasant to play with if you are inclined.

"Wor"  a word in Geordie (North East England) dialect, an affectionate form of "our".
It's a sign of affection, of belonging in an emotional sense. It can be in a family, or it can be in the wider community. Either way it's a warm, positive, welcoming expression.

"Wor", from the Old Saxon "woero", meaning "worthy".

"~ship" from  the Old English "siepe" meaning "condition of being" and Proto-Germanic "skap" meaning  "to create, ordain or appoint"

Worship the Lord , Enrich Our Understanding, and Work Together to Bless

Over at thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com there was this commentary (part of which I've pasted and illustrated below) posted on January 22.  It's here if you are interested in reading the whole thing and the ensuing discussion.. I've been to a few Sundays like this. I wish we realized and did this more than we do.

In my opinion, the primary purposes of our Sunday meetings are as follows:  

1) Sacrament Meeting: Worship

2) Sunday School: Doctrinal instruction

3) PH & RS: Community building (including "fellowshipping" activities and temporal matters)

There is room for some overlap, but only within the parameters of the purposes. For example: 

1) It's OK to provide doctrinal instruction in Sacrament Meeting, but that instruction should be about worship-focused things. 

Grace, charity, meekness, forgiveness and any other godly characteristic is fine as a topic for a talk, as long as they are presented as aspects of true emulative worship - but tithing, food storage, HT & VT, etc. are not appropriate Sacrament Meeting topics. Anything can be related tangentially to worship by a good speaker, but it should not be necessary for a speaker to take a non-worship-focused topic and bend it into an appropriate topic.

(APF photo, Chevy Chase, MD)

2) Sunday School should be a school - and I prefer the group discussion model for ALL classes comprised of members who've been attending long enough to have a fairly solid doctrinal foundation. I want real meat in Gospel Doctrine, for example - with those members occasionally cycling through Gospel Essentials (maybe once every five years or so), just to make sure the foundation milk doesn't get sour.

3) PH & RS should be about people - defining and planning service, discussing HT & VT, discussing how to find and reach and inspire others, lessons on those things that really aren't worship-focused but community-centered (like tithing, food storage, emergency preparedness, fast offerings, even temple attendance, etc.), basic get-to-know-you activities, learning from the life experiences of others, genealogy, etc.

Lydia of Thyratira, by Harold Copping

When to hang in there and when to do something else

Recenlty, while visiting, J mentioned that some of the families in his ward choose, occasionally or regularly, not to send their children to nursery, generally because they perceive it as disorganized and chaotic and/or not very helpful to their child at this stage. He asked me what I thought about that sort of decision.

So I have been thinking about that. It seems to me that it’s related to the “flee into the wilderness” and “succor the weak” dichotomy that often raises its head in the process of raising children. How do you strike the balance between a) encouraging your children to hang in there and help and b) finding good alternatives that do not include participating if participation is damaging? And how damaging is too damaging? How do you tell when it’s time to do which?

As I look at stories of people in the scriptures I find that that sometimes the counsel is to hang in there and “strengthen the feeble knees”, and sometimes the counsel is to do something else. I think it’s important to note that in each of those situations was no change in the individual’s theology and never, in their creation of something else, bitterness, and always, charity and openness to partially or fully re-engage in an activity when directed. So I’m not talking about rejection or despair, I’m just talking about knowing when to hang in there to help and when it’s time to change the nature of your involvement.

I remember counseling with H. over the challenge of dealing with A.'s constant fascination with violence and anti-social disruption in quorum activities, with Y. over whether or not to continue attending Sunday school classes where behavior was destructive, with K. on how to respond to her children’s complaints about their seminary teacher’s obstructive and competitive methods, I remember my father having pleasant, thoughtful gospel discussions in the car in the parking lot at church when my brother protested that he hated his Sunday school class, I remember my mother worrying over children (not her own) in the Primary she served in who really wanted to learn but who were thwarted by the behaviors of disruptive and unkind classmates.

Those are all church examples, but the same sorts of dilemmas turn up just as frequently at work, in schooling, in politics, in recreation and in community service.

As a parent it is tricky. You want to teach your children how to cope with bad behavior, to be supportive of people who are trying to do good, and to respond to difficult situations with courage and charity. At the same time, you realize that your children are not as powerful and competent as adults. They are still learning and vulnerable. When to teach and encourage coping and helping skills and when to create an alternative to a situation that is damaging while still being supportive of the good people who are called to stay? Sometimes you will be inspired to do one, and sometimes you will be inspired to do the other.

I think that, whichever of the two you are inspired to do, in whichever situation comes up, there are certain gospel principles that will be essential to that decision.

First, there is the real need for your child to feel like his feelings, responses to the situation, and his protests are, in your opinion, legitimate concerns that you respond to with empathy. Whether the decision is to hang in there or to do something else, he needs to know that you have his back and think his ideas and feelings are of vital importance to you and that you consider them deeply. That requires careful listening without contradicting or minimizing what the child is saying. Empathetic listening is also important in considering the needs of the child rather than your own because choosing for your child based on your own feelings alone can be detrimental, even manipulative, to your relationship with the child. 

Second there is the need for the child to learn how to respond with charity. This he learns from you. This Nephi learned from his father’s response to the people in Jerusalem and his response to Laman and Lemuel. Sorrow for sin and no rancor towards for the people who harm, either on purpose or inadvertently is a godly skill to learn. If the decision is to hang in there, that means discussing how to respond with charity in bad situations. If the decision is to create an alternative, that means learning how to proceed on that new path without denigrating the situation that you are choosing not to participate in and being supportive of it in ways that are helpful to those who are still in it.

Third, the child needs to be a vital participant in the discussion of the problem and the creating and testing of solutions. He will need that skill as an adult. It is important that he be able to experiment and practice it with you.

Fourth, the child needs to learn the process of discerning personal inspiration, the process of making a decision and seeking spiritual affirmation, then, down the road, discussing it again with the Lord, making changes as inspiration and circumstances and strengths change. Inspiration to a certain course of action at a given moment is not to be taken as a permanent decision governing the rest of one’s life. If he learns that personal revelation is an ongoing experience with ongoing situations it will save him much frustration all his life.

When they are small, your children have very little experience and your part in making the decisions and helping them to cope or to create and manage an alternative will be huge. As they grow, their experience increases, they’ve started picking up on the principles you’ve been modeling, and the ratio of your involvement to their initiative slowly changes over time. The four principles, however, empathetic, respectful listening, charity, creative problem solving, and personal revelation for one’s own life and one’s own tasks always remain the same.

The goal is to raise children who, by the time they are adults, have learned how to deal wisely with difficult situations, how to evaluate carefully the struggles of others that make group work difficult, how to respond with charity to those who fail to do what’s needful, and how to determine when they have the resources necessary to pitch in and help and when they need to bow out and find other ways to do the good that’s not being done.

So, my answer to J.'s question would probably be another question: were those four principles part of the decision? The parent of a nursery child could use those four principles and make a decision to stay and the parent of another could make a decision to do something else using those same four principles, and both would be doing what was most helpful in the life of the child. And in that case, both would be wise decisions.

Teaching after 40 Days

Jesus' early teaching, as chronicled by Luke, was powerful.
"Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about."
"And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all."
"And all bare him witness and wondered at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth."
"And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power."

It's interesting to me that these words fall hard on the heels of Jesus' 40 day fast and his encounter with Satan in the wilderness, in which Satan tried to persuade him to act contrary to the will of God.  Was Jesus reminded of what powerful teaching is and what it is not by that encounter?

Three temptations are chronicled in Luke, chapter 4: the temptation to turn stones into bread to assuage his hunger, the temptation to assume and enjoy worldly power, and the temptation to go careening off the pinnacle of the temple and be caught by angels.  Satan tries to persuade Jesus to his way of thinking by telling him that he won't have to be hungry if he does.  He tries to persuade Jesus to his way of thinking by telling him that he will not only be a powerful influence in the world but also one that others will listen to and obey and praise and give much wealth and prestige to if he does.  And he tries to entice him to his way of thinking by employing the allure of excitement and thrilling experiences.

And as you read Jesus further teaching in the rest of that chapter and over the next three years, he eschews all three methods of presenting his message.

He feeds people when they have traveled far to listen to him are far from food and helps them catch fish, but the only bread he ever promises they will have if they ally themselves to his gospel is "the bread of life."  Though there is work to be done to help feed those who are hungry in his life there is no promise of freedom from hunger in discipleship.

His sermons are clear that discipleship to him is a life of humility, meekness, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, being submissive to those in power, and serving one another.  There is no promise or increase of social, political or economic power or influence or respect coming to those who choose his way.

And there are no thrills.  There is a lot of walking on dusty roads, and stopping to talk and to help and a lot of prayer in his work.  But anything unusual, like a healing, is understated and usually wrapped up with the admonition to "tell no man".   And he expects his disciples to do the same.

And his teaching, accepted by some and soundly rejected by others, was powerful.

As I teach the gospel to young people, I think I should keep this in mind.

What might we aim for?

From Morgan's "Five Goals" (to teach young people) posted over at By Common Consent:

Receive baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost
Become a faithful home or visiting teacher
Make and keep temple covenants
Get a good education
Give back.


And learn to love like Jesus does.  (Marvin Ashton)

Embracing Good Change

This from the Church News, here.  I would have liked to have heard the entire address.

"Our willingness to accept change in the kingdom helps the Lord hasten His work," Elder Paul V. Johnson of the Seventy and Commissioner of Church Education said during the Church Educational System's "Evening with a General Authority" held in the Tabernacle on Temple Square on Feb. 8. "Resistance to inspired change hinders progress of the kingdom."

Drawing from the last half of the New Testament as an example of a major challenge the early Church faced as the Gentile converts were being assimilated as Christians, Elder Johnson spoke of how teachers can better adapt.

"This was a major change for the Church, and many members struggled with it," he said. "The problem was, at least in part, a result of a faulty understanding of the doctrine. ... Their misunderstanding, confusion and hesitancy to accept and make needed change slowed the work and diverted tremendous amounts of effort from Church leaders to deal with this issue. We are better servants and better disciples when we respond appropriately to change. When we don't respond properly to change we hinder the Lord's work."

Adapting to change can be challenging, Elder Johnson taught, but just like Paul — who had been a strict Pharisee and was able to make the change and help the Church with the big challenge — individuals must learn to adapt.

"One of the reasons we struggle with change is that we, over time, can get things out of proper perspective or put a policy or practice in a more central position than it deserves," he said. "We can confuse means with ends. I hope when we face change in the kingdom we can be like Paul and help foster that change rather than reacting like those who fought the change and hindered the progress of the work."

Sometimes individuals can see the need for change, but don't realize that it still takes effort to actually do things differently, he said.

"We can respond appropriately to change by being prayerful, humble and teachable; by accepting new opportunities or assignments with a positive attitude, and by being willing to try new approaches or methods with a sincere desire to improve," he said.

It is also critical to listen carefully to the counsel given by the leaders of the Church, he said.

He that receiveth you receiveth me

This struck me yesterday:

Matthew 10:40-42 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

“When Jesus said this he was using a way of speaking that the Jews regularly used. [They] felt that to receive a person’s envoy or messenger was to the same as to receive the person himself. To pay respect to an ambassador was to pay respect to the king who had sent him. To welcome with love the messenger of a friend was the same as to welcome the friend himself.”     ~William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew p. 397-398

Jews in ancient Israel also understood that this admonition to pay good attention to and welcome a messenger with love or respect and heed the message he carried would only be true if the ambassador, envoy or messenger were carrying a true and accurate message. If he was carrying a message that the messenger thought was authentic but which was not, or if he was carrying a message that he had invented himself, there was no virtue in receiving him as if he were the sender he represented. And it was your responsibility, as host, to determine whether or not the message was truly from the person it purported to be. Hence the use of seals and sealing wax to verify that the message had not been tampered with. The recipient was expected to use his own eyes and reason to check the state of the seal and the content of the message to determine its validity.

A quick search of the concordance reminds me that the admonitions in the standard works are to hearken to prophets (hearken, in the years following the KJV translation meant to listen; to listen eagerly or curiously, to attend, to pay regard (Samuel Johnson’s 1785 dictionary)) but the admonitions to “follow” only refer to Jesus and righteousness. I think that’s significant.

From the above I assume that we may say that messages may be sent via messengers, but it is the recipient’s responsibility to determine the accuracy of the message and act accordingly.