Doctrine and Covenants 20:18-21: A scriptural definition of “church” as found in the KJV, and the sin of contention.

 “The word ‘church’ (Hebrew qahal or edah; Greek ekklesia) had a slightly broader meaning anciently than it does now. It referred to an assembly, congregation, or association of people who bonded together and shared the same loyalties. Thus, the term was not necessarily restricted to religious associations; in fact, in Athens the Greeks used the term to denote the legislative assembly of government.

“Originally, the term ekklesia, formed from two words meaning call and out, referred to those citizens whom heralds called out or summoned to public meetings. Thus, it was an ideal word to represent the body of individuals whom God “calls out” of the world through the Holy Ghost. The civil dimension of the word appears in Acts 19:32, where assembly in the KJV is a translation of the Greek ekklesia.”

“The term abominable is used in the Old Testament to describe what God hates, what cannot fail to arouse his wrath.”

“ When we put all this together, we find that the term ‘great and abominable church’ means an immense assembly or association of people bound together by their loyalty to that which God hates.”

~ Stephen Robinson, “Warring Against the Saints”, Ensign, January 1988

“Our...enemy is wickedness—those who love darkness more than light and who serve the evil one.  Those who attack other [religious denominations] violate the Lord’s command, as stated in this verse [Doctrine and Covenants  18:20]...In fact thy run a great risk that by adopting Satan’s methodology—in this case, argument and contention—they may themselves become members of the ‘church of the devil’”

~ Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett, A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, p. 107, Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 2000

“For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit  of contention is not of me, but  is of the  devil, who is the father  of contention, and he stirreth up the  hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.  Behold,  this is not  my doctrine,  to stir up the  hearts of men with anger,  one against another;  but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done  away.”   ~ 3rd Nephi  11:29-30

There is, in scripture, permission given to contend with “the 'church' of the devil” ( Doctrine  and Covenants 18:20).   Tellingly, that verse is bracketed clearly with the declaration that without faith, hope and charity you can do nothing  (verse 19) and the admonition to speak the truth with soberness (verse 21)).

The bracketing verses clearly indicate that this contending against evil that is allowed is one that  eschews  any involvement in the sin of contention, but manifests itself instead by its truth speaking that is aimed at those who, like the devil, love to and rejoice in harming, denigrating and hating others of God’s children (Moses 7:29-34).  And those verses clearly indicate that God requires that such truth speaking on our part be fully grounded in faith, hope and love, and delivered in self-restrained and profound seriousness.

It seems that no matter what your cause, nor what evil organization or group you are contending against, when you embrace or indulge in anger and contention you lose your alignment with God.

Luke 24. Counseling together. Learning from each other. Avoiding being fools and slow of heart to believe.

Luke 24

They [Mary Magdalene, Joanna, James' mother Mary, and other women] found the sepulchre empty and encountered “two men in shining garments” who said, “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”

And the women “remembered [Jesus'] words”!!!! Oh yes!! That's right!! He did!! and so they went, bringing the news of their experience with the angels to the eleven apostles, most certainly reminding them, as they had been reminded, of what Jesus had said about being crucified and rising again on the third day.

Which experiences and things the apostles apparently did not only not remember, but also pooh-poohed the women's words as “idle tales” and did not believe them...

though Peter did, to his credit, go and look for himself, and wonder, afterwards, at the empty tomb that he found.

I think we may have found here, in the early church, an example of an extreme lack of the skill of counseling together, an inability of one group of people to consider the information from another, likely due to their sex in this case, but which in other cases may be due to different things that make the one group fail to listen or believe the words of another, simply because they are “other” and their ideas, perspectives and experiences are very different than our current patterns of thinking.

So...next, that same day, we have the “road to Emmaus” story, where two are traveling and encounter the resurrected Jesus, and do not realize who he is, and tell him their understanding of what happened over the last three days and of the odd, and not quite believed, tale the women had told. And what does Jesus say?

“O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.”

And then, later, he sits down with those two, and the eleven, and once again, unfolds the details in the scriptures that he had told them before and that they had not remembered, and which failure to remember abetted their discounting of what the women had been reminded of and believed.

One message I suspect that may have had running though their minds: "I should have listened to them.  It would have been less awkward for me now, if I had.  And I certainly would have saved myself many hours of grief."

I really hope that no heavenly messenger or other divine being ever again has good cause to say to me, “O fool, and slow of heart to believe...” due to my out of hand rejection of the beliefs and experiences of others who have joined me in councils and conferences and circles of conversation, or whose experiences and words preceded mine by many years; rejecting because they are, in my mind, “other”, people whose experiences or perspectives or energy levels or understanding or cultural background, or ethnicity, or sex or age or anything else make me subconsciously discount their stories or the news they bring.

I'm certain that I have deserved it sometimes. It is an easy habit to fall into and a difficult one to recognize in oneself and then totally eradicate instead of laughing and excusing one's behavior, or becoming defensive or irritated or dismissive when it is pointed out.

So, once again, I am in awe of the careful, patient, thoughtful, listeners I know.

The "only true church" thing

B. brought up that slide-off your-tongue phrase that's so often glibly borrowed from the Doctrine and Covenants and tossed at the end of declarations of belief.

I must say that I am bothered by the way it's used and really bothered by the way it's often translated by whoever hears it.  Generally, in my opinion, by rank and file members it is often (though not always) used as an expression of

a. I'm not sure how to end my remarks, so I'll end with this. It's familiar..
b. I'm subconsciously feeling insecure on some level, so affiliating myself with something that is exclusive in it's goodness makes me feel more confident or safe.
c. I think this church is a good place for me to be and it's a good place for you to be too.
d. I've felt a spiritual confirmation as I've followed or prayed over this church, so it must be right.

And of course the other problem is that it's almost always generally interpreted by others as "other churches are wrong".  And that is ALWAYS counterproductive.

So I decided to do some research on what other people have written about what that phrase means.  I realize that I cannot get everyone else to stop and think about what they say or how they are perceived when they slide that phrase into a talk, testimony or discussion.  But I can learn better what it means so that I can articulate in more accurately in order to increase my own precision in communication and for increased comprehension by those who hear me.

So one article HERE, states that the phrase simply refers to three things about the church:

1. The church contains the "fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ", 

which:, in essence and by definition  includes three things: a) our unique understanding of "the plan of salvation" which includes a) assurance that we lived as spirits before we came to this earth, b) the affirmation that this mortal life has a purpose and c) the teaching that our highest aspiration is to become like our heavenly parents.

And I believe those three things.

2.  The church includes the power of the priesthood. We often think that's just talking about who has received God's authority to do what, but it's far more than that.  I wrote more about that HERE.  In a nutshell, priesthood power, the power of God to do his work, given to his children,  is real.

And I believe that it is real and working in the lives of women and men of God in this church.  I have seen it, felt it, watched it, and been humbled to be a vehicle for its healing (both physical and spiritual) and enlightening effect in the lives of my brothers and sisters in ways that I feel are too profound to articulate.  And I have been aided, healed, enlightened and comforted by that same power of God conducted via the words, actions and ordinances of brothers and sisters who served as conduits of priesthood power as well.

That does not mean I have not seen the power of God work through people of other faiths.  I have.  It just means I have seen it play out powerfully in this one. 

(I've also seen people horribly fail at this in the church, but that's fodder for another conversation.)

3. It contains revealed truth about the nature of God and our relationship to Him.
And, frankly our belief in the nature of God does distinguish us from the formal creeds of most Christian denominations. Our understanding of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, though incomplete (as are all understandings of Deity) are different in our understanding of their relationship and distinctiveness when compared with other faiths.

That difference in our understanding strengthens our beliefs about God ( many of which coincide with those of various of our Christian friends); that Jesus Christ is the begotten son of God, the Eternal Father, that he is the creator of this world, that his life and words are to be our pattern for living, and that because of His Resurrection, all who have ever lived will be raised from the dead. And, with that, we believe that it is Jesus whose atoning sacrifice paid for the sin of Adam.  And that sacrifice also opened the door for us to be forgiven of our personal sins, cleansed by God and changed by God's grace and work in our lives, and able to abide in God's presence.

And those are things I believe as well.

So...The church's teachings and practices contain divinely inspired insights into premortal existence, purpose of life and eternal life, include the power of God as it works through his disciples who seek to walk according to His will,  and contain truthful teachings about the reality and nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and the way they have worked and still work so divinely in our lives to bring us into harmony and unity with them.   ---  That is the meaning of the phrase.

You are free to use that instead of the phrase any time.  Maybe that will help.

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.

What an Old Friend Said He'd Learned from the Example of My Father

"Be more patient
Have good humor
Listen to what the person is really saying, trying to understand what is in their heart"

~Mark Tanner

Compassion, Doctrine and Covenants 121

Christlike compassion doesn’t mean that I agree, or that I excuse. It doesn’t mean that I stop standing firmly where I stand or saying, with clarity, what I believe. But it does mean that I treat others with kindness, with a sincere desire to understand, with a willingness to see their fears and passions as real to them as mine are to me. 
To see rather than to dismiss, to feel unthreatened because I am anchored in the Spirit, to speak gently and clearly with unfeigned love. And when we disagree, to make my love more obvious* so that you understand that even though we may deeply disagree and see things very, very differently that does not change my love for you and that I will not harm you.

*Interesting to note that Doctrine and Covenants 121 was received shortly after some of the most painful excommunications in early LDS church history and at a time when Joseph Smith was facing some of the most egregious persecutions born of extreme fear and unwillingness to seek to understand by those who thought he was dead wrong and dangerous.

Clear about me and understanding the reality of you.

I have learned or relearned recently that I am at my best when I am fully aware of and able to articulate what I know and wish for AND when I am highly attuned to the reality of the feelings and words of a person with whom I am interacting, without chafing at them.

If I do the first without the second I tend towards selfishness or insensitivity.  If I do the second without the first I can tend to feel taken for granted and to feel disconnected and/or frustrated.

But when I do both together, I am more likely to feel aware, and at peace within, and more connected.  And my ability to act with purpose and clarity increases.

I should remember that.

How to Really Understand Someone Else's Point of View

From the Harvard Business Review, just for me to refer to as needed to help me listen better

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/how_to_really_understand_someo.html?cm_sp=blog_flyout-_-cs-_-how_to_really_understand_someo

by Mark Goulston and John Ullmen  |   9:00 AM April 22, 2013

How to Really Understand Someone Else's Point of View

The most influential people strive for genuine buy in and commitment — they don't rely on compliance techniques that only secure short-term persuasion. That was our conclusion after interviewing over 100 highly respected influences across many different industries and organizations for our recent book.

These high-impact influencers follow a pattern of four steps that all of us can put into action. In earlier pieces we covered Step 1: Go for great outcomes and Step 2: Listen past your blind spots. Later we'll cover Step 4: When you've done enough... do more. Here we cover Step 3: Engage others in "their there."

To understand why this step is so important, imagine that you're at one end of a shopping mall — say, the northeast corner, by a cafe. Next, imagine that a friend of yours is at the opposite end of the mall, next to a toy store. And imagine that you're telling that person how to get to where you are.

Now, picture yourself saying, "To get to where I am, start in the northeast corner by a cafe." That doesn't make sense, does it? Because that's where you are, not where the other person is.

Yet that's how we often try to convince others — on our terms, from our assumptions, and based on our experiences. We present our case from our point of view. There's a communication chasm between us and them, but we're acting as if they're already on our side of the gap.

Like in the shopping mall example, we make a mistake by starting with how we see things ("our here"). To help the other person move, we need to start with how they see things ("their there").

For real influence we need to go from our here to their there to engage others in three specific ways:

1. Situational Awareness: Show that You Get "It." Show that you understand the opportunities and challenges your conversational counterpart is facing. Offer ideas that work in the person's there. When you've grasped their reality in a way that rings true, you'll hear comments like "You really get it!" or "You actually understand what I'm dealing with here."
2. Personal Awareness: You Get "Them." Show that you understand his or her strengths, weaknesses, goals, hopes, priorities, needs, limitations, fears, and concerns. In addition, you demonstrate that you're willing to connect with them on a personal level. When you do this right, you'll hear people say things like "You really get me!" or "You actually understand where I'm coming from on this."
3. Solution Awareness: You Get Their Path to Progress. Show people a positive path that enables them to make progress on their own terms. Give them options and alternatives that empower them. Based on your understanding of their situation and what's at stake for them personally, offer possibilities for making things better — and help them think more clearly, feel better, and act smarter. When you succeed, you'll hear comments like, "That could really work!" or "I see how that would help me."

One of our favorite examples involves Mike Critelli, former CEO of the extraordinarily successful company, Pitney Bowes. Mike was one of the highly prestigious Good to Great CEOs featured in the seminal book by Jim Collins on how the most successful businesses achieve their results.

One of Mike's many strengths is the ability to engage his team on their terms to achieve high levels of performance and motivation. When we asked him about this, he said, "Very often what motivates people are the little gestures, and a leader needs to listen for those. It's about picking up on other things that are most meaningful to people."

For example, one employee had a passing conversation with Mike about the challenges of adopting a child, pointing out that Pitney Bowes had an inadequate adoption benefit. A few weeks after that, he and his wife received a letter from Mike congratulating them on their new child — along with a check for the amount of the new adoption benefit the company had just started offering.

When he retired, the Pitney Bowes employees put together a video in which they expressed their appreciation for his positive influence over the years. They all talk about ways that Mike "got" them — personal connections and actions that have accumulated over time into a reputation that attracted great people to the organization and motivated them to stay.

It's a moving set of testimonials, and it's telling about Critelli's ability to "get" people on their own terms — to go to their there — that they openly express their appreciation permanently captured on video for open public viewing.

Remember, they did this after he was no longer in power.

Like Mike Critelli does, when you practice all three of these ways of "getting" others — situational, personal, and solution-oriented — you understand who people are, what they're facing, and what they need in order to move forward. This is a powerful way to achieve great results while strengthening your relationships.

When you're trying to influence, don't start by trying to pull others into your here. Instead, go to their there by to asking yourself:

• Am I getting who this person is?
• Am I getting this person's situation?
• Am I offering options and alternatives that will help this person move forward?
• Does this person get that I get it?

More blog posts by Mark Goulston and John Ullmen

More on: Communication, Getting buy-in

MARK GOULSTON AND JOHN ULLMEN

Mark Goulston, M.D., F.A.P.A. is a business psychiatrist, executive consultant, keynote speaker and co-founder of Heartfelt Leadership. John Ullmen, Ph.D. oversees MotivationRules.com and teaches at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. They are co-authors of Real Influence: Persuade Without Pushing and Gain Without Giving In(Amacom, 2013).

How are you doing?

This week I heard an interview of Susan Spencer-Wendel, the author of “Until I Say Goodbye”.  You can listen to it here: 

Susan was diagnosed with ALS when she was 44 and its course has ravaged her ability to speak clearly so her husband, John, served as a translator for her garbled speech.  His love for his wife was reflected in his voice and in his commitment to her in spite of the tragedy and challenge of her fatal illness.  I was impressed. 

One thing that struck me was a point at which the interviewer turned to John and asked him how this journey had been for him.  John’s first two sentences were: "Every day I wake up, and I feel sad. That's my first emotion."   The honest, frank statement of the daily, inevitable sadness that accompanies such losses was bright in its honesty and clarity.  I deeply appreciated that.

His next sent sentence, after a pause, was "And then I roll over, and I look at Susan, and I realize that she's not allowing herself to feel that way, so I can't, and I don't." 

I live in a world where we generally skip over our sorrows or breeze over the sorrows of others in our conversation.  But we miss out when we do.  John’s third sentence was powerful, not because of its commitment to maintaining a positive attitude, because of the clarity of first two in expressing his human response to tragedy.

Today I listened to a brother speak at church about a visit to a widow that he had undertaken.  In the course of the conversation he asked how she was doing since the death of her husband a year previously, expecting a nice phrase about how she was managing.  Instead she looked him straight in the eye and said, “My heart hurts.”  He said that he then began to speak to her about the healing power of the atonement but she interrupted him.  “Do you think I don’t know about the atonement of Christ?” she asked.  “If it weren’t for the atonement of Christ I’d be dead right now,” she said.  “I wouldn’t be able to bear my sorrow without that power in my life right now.”

We glide over sorrows, pat them with platitudes, explain how to manage them, or don’t articulate them because we don’t want to seem whiney or difficult or because they are awkward in conversation.  But speaking honestly and succinctly about them and the struggle to respond to them with courage, and listening open-heartedly to them is powerful communication.  Today I appreciate that.

I have failed at that more times that I wish I had.  I hope to learn from this and do better.

Florence Barclay

"To my thinking, offence has no possible place in a genuine friendship.  The one pained always forestalls offence by the realization of non-intention to wound on the part of the other."

~Florence Barclay, "The Broken Halo"

Thoughtful listening goes both ways. Do I take time to explain well? Do I listen like he does?

"Most often when we pray, we expect to speak while God listens." 

Michael S. Wilcox, "Let Us Ask of God", December 2004

Artist: Nathan Florence