Heaven. Beyond Comprehension

We think about heaven. And we think about it from a position so firmly entrenched in our earthly lives that we veer far wide of the mark, though not completely off the target.

Prophets who've seen it in vision have tried to describe it, but have only earthly terminology with which to explain what they've seen. And their hearers get mired in their earthly contexts when they envision what is described. They envision the best earthly version of beauty and glory they can come up with,

For example, T.P. Cameron was a poet and soldier in WWI, eventually killed in action at the age of 29, in March of 1918. His poem “Sportsman's Paradise” which describes a longing for heaven and celestial peace reads:

“They left the fury of the fight,

And they were tired.

The gates of heaven were open quite,

Unguarded and unwired.

There was no sound of any gun,

The land was still and green,

Wide hills lay silent in the sun,

Blue valleys slept between.

They saw far off a little wood

Stand up against the sky.

Knee deep in grass a great tree stood,

Some lazy cows went by.

There were some rooks sailed overhead,

And once a church bell pealed.

'God, but it's England!' someone said,

'And there's a cricket field'.”

There is wistful beauty in those words. And it is a good example of the human tendency to envision heaven in earthly terms of one's own treasured earthly experiences..

Another example is the notion of “pearly gates” and “streets of gold”, phrases that John the Revelator used to describe what he saw in his vision of heaven (Revelation 21). A century ago and more ago, many people took those descriptions literally. It was the most glorious translation of what John saw that they could imagine.

However, there is a pitfall. If heaven is restricted to earthly parameters, it easily becomes ridiculous.

For example, look at the Sadducees at the time of Christ who thought that thought life after death was a foolish notion. Their famous question to Jesus was about the woman who was married seven times to successive brothers under Levirate law.   “In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be?” wasn't a question about whether marriage can be a part of heaven.  It was a clear attempt to show how ridiculous the notion of life after death was. And life after death would be be an odd notion to wrap your head around if, in fact, marriage (and other) relationships in heaven are simply extensions of marriage relationships and their roles, practices, and divisions of labor as they are on earth, transplanted into a heavenly sphere.

Another example: As a teenager I had a conversation with a fellow Christian who believed in life after death, but not a physical resurrection. “You believe that people are resurrected with a physical body?” he asked incredulously. “You mean there are bathrooms in heaven???"

Or as one woman recently worried, the LDS concept of heaven sounds to her to be one of endlessly birthing new spirit children while her husband is off creating worlds.

 (All of the above, by the way, do not reflect the description of heaven in DC 76 either)

I believe its important to remember that we are just as prone to this limitation of understanding as we contemplate God and heaven as anybody else is. I believe that we stumble too much over that limitation in our need for and longing for a true vision of heaven. And sometimes we get mad or perplexed when those erroneous visions don't seem fair or right, and forget that they are simply erroneous, simply because we are, all of us, earthbound.

.I think Paul's words to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 2:9), “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him” is not just a “we Christians know something others don't know” message, but a reminder to the Corinthian Christians that they (and we) don't really fully comprehend how it really is either.

Passages in the Doctrine and Covenants also talk about this earthly limitation, and in terms that also promise the possibility of growing slowly closer to heavenly understanding by listening to the Holy Spirit and responding to light and truth (76:1-10 and 50:24) until “the perfect day”. But it's clear that we are, none of us, there yet. This is not “the perfect day.” Those few who have seen heaven in vision say that the response when one does see heaven as it is, is, instantly, worship (Rev.22:8).

We have been taught principles and concepts that are at the core heavenly life: love, faith, being washed clean, unity, glory, light, truth, the power of God, sealing, eternity, divine intercession and atonement. These are of heaven. And they are of heaven in a way far more enlightened, far-reaching, fair, just, merciful and glorious than the very best of earthly experiences that we have or that we create with those principles here.

We need to remember that. Earth does not circumscribe heaven nor is heaven simply a lovely, light-filled perfect version of the very best on earth. Heaven and life there is far beyond our wildest, most joyful, peaceful, just, honest, charitable, equitable, loving, powerful and light-filled dreams on earth. It is better than anyone, divinely inspired or not, has been able to describe to you, including yourself

I watched the priesthood session of General Conference this evening

It was not the first time.

I heard much that will be helpful now as well as in the future.  And I am inspired to a better vision of what I can do with the challenges I find in the work I am doing.

While watching and listening to the session the following passage came to mind.  It's from a talk, "All Are (Really) Alike Unto God", given by Marcus H. Martins.  Marcus is the son of Helvécio Martins who passed away in his home of São Paulo in 2005.  You can read the Genesis Group page about Helvécio here

Marcus said:
 "When my parents and I were baptized, I was thirteen years old. When I was sixteen my father instructed me to learn how to perform the ordinances that a priest in the Aaronic priesthood would have the right and the authority to do. Learn how to baptize people, learn how to administer the sacrament, learn how to ordain other priests. And of course, I being sixteen years old, told my father, "But why? I'm not going to be ordained a priest. Why should I do that?" And he said, "Well, just because you are sixteen years old, and that's what's expected of sixteen-year-olds in the Church. If you were ordained to the priesthood, you would be a priest now. But because you're not, doesn't mean you're not going to do as much as you can without the priesthood. 

"So, I undertook the task of learning those ordinances. When I turned eighteen, my father told me the same thing. Learn how to confirm people members of the Church, learn how to administer the ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood, learn how to administer to the sick. And I did that, and about a year later, when the revelation extending the priesthood came, I was ready. Because of the faith of my father, I was ready." 

Marcus H. Martins

Rudá and Helvécio Martins

Being Who You Are, Knowing What is Essential, and Living That

Thoughts from hospice counselor Kathleen Taylor

http://www.karmatube.org/videos.php?id=4029

The _____________ is true.

I think that if you asked people who use the phrase, “the church is true” what that means, you’d get a wide range of answers, as they tried to put into words what they meant when they said it. It’s a phrase that is used for a variety of meanings (as well as when one is standing at the podium and simply feels a need to close his remarks and is looking for a familiar ending). And this causes problems.

So it’s interesting to look at “true” in LDS scriptural parlance:

Ether:4:11, You can know that a thing is “true” if it persuades men to do good.
Moroni 4:1, if a thing is being done according to the commandments of Christ then we can know that the way it is being done is “true”.
Moroni 10:6, if a thing is good and does not deny Christ, it is “true”
3 Nephi 8:1, if a thing is carefully done by a just, good and repentant man of faith, it is “true”.

So, by this Book of Mormon definition, everything about the church (or for that matter, any other organization) that persuades men to do good, that is done according to the commandments of Jesus, that is done with integrity by people who, though imperfect, are just, good, full of faith and repentant, and that is simply good and acknowledges Christ, is “true”. And there is a lot of that both in the church and in the rest of the world.

All of those things about the church would also fall into the category of “good”. “True”, by this definition, is not distinct from good. It is a subset of good.

Conversely, everything about the church (or any other entity) that doesn’t fit the above description, whether it is good or bad or inbetween, does not fit this Book of Mormon definition of “true”. (And there’s a fair amount of that both in the church and in the rest of the world as well.)

Comprehension, not conformity, in creating religious understanding and religous community

"If a substantial number of sane and intelligent people believe something that seems to you utterly without sense, the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying.

'Until you understand why people of good sense, learning, mental health, and sound intelligence find a particular worldview convincing and worthy of allegiance … you haven’t really understood it. You don’t have to accept that other worldview, but, if you’re serious about understanding it, you really have to grasp it."

~Daniel Peterson,  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2012/05/petersons-first-rule-for-the-study-of-other-religions.html

"What it means to “be” Mormon is a social construct that results from an interplay of definitions and practices, bandied about by different parties who have a stake in the definition of the term. While there is an official, institutional Church with more-or-less clear-cut doctrines and policies, the interpretation and inhabitation of these teachings and practices vary from individual to individual.

"In other words: While there is a literal Mormon Church, there is no such thing as “Mormonism” as an empirically homogeneous or monolithic experience. Instead, there are Mormonisms, as various as the individuals who embody them, but predicated on certain communal elements that they share with their faith of origin. Individuals understand their faith and their religion in temporally, generationally, and geographically situated and specific ways...

"To paraphrase Daniel Peterson:  Until you understand why people of good sense, learning, mental health, and sound intelligence find their particular interpretation and embodiment of Mormonism to be convincing and worthy of allegiance, you haven’t really understood it."

~Rosemary Avance   http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-seeing-the-light-parallels-in-mormon-conversion-and-de-conversions-stories

Grace and the Task at Hand

My mother once told me, “I used to think that when my children complained about how hard their tasks were and your father would respond by pitching in and helping them do them, that they would never learn how to work hard and follow through. But I was wrong. Instead, what they learned was how to pitch in and help others.”

Grace begets grace.

Book Review: "Women in Eternity, Women of Zion"

I have been slowly reading Alma Don Sorensen and Valerie Hudson Cassler's book "Women in Eternity, Women of Zion" with my friend, Fara, this past year.  Slowly because it is dense and because with this book I am reading every scripture reference cited and every endnote and making notes in margins and crossing out and rewriting as I go.  Which means that it has taken me over a year so far.

I have one last chapter to go.  It is a well written and thoughtful book.  Some things I found enlightening and helpful. Other things seemed simply a good attempt at understanding that I felt fell short or missed the mark.  So if you decide to read this book, which I  recommend, I'd suggest that you read it not expecting it to be a be-all and end-all source of answers, but rather as a vehicle for carefully sorting through the authors' take on the subjects they tackle and adding to your understanding the ones that you find enlightening and helpful.  That gleaning process has been well worth the time for me.  Though I certainly have not agreed with every idea the authors put forward,  every chapter has left me with at least a few valuable gems of insight and most have left me with many.

In particular I would say that chapter 2 on gender equality in eternal life offers a compelling analysis of Doctrine and Covenants descriptions of celestial glory that I found well worth researching and mulling and that chapter 7 on monogamy and polygamy contains the most articulate analysis of Doctrine and Covenants section 132 that I have read to date.

On the below-mentioned comment thread Melodynew added her thoughts on teaching about priesthood as part of the youth Sunday school lessons this month.  I thought they were worth saving for future reference.  Here's my slightly enhanced version of what she wrote.

I taught these lessons last year to my 14 & 15 year-old Sunday school class consisting of both YM and YW. (Our stake was among those that piloted the program.) These are some of the points I brought into the discussion throughout the month.

1. The power of the priesthood is the power of God. The power of God is Love. The priesthood is God’s Love made manifest through human beings.

2. God and God's celestial glory can only exist as a man and woman righteously joined for eternity. So the power of God or priesthood power is by definition intrinsically connected to the celestial union of a man and woman. It comes from both, not just from men. It wouldn’t exist without God the Mother. (Jesus got his power from his parents in this model.)  Section 76:94-96 talks about that equality of power among celestial beings

3. Section 121 of D&C clearly articulates qualities that define appropriate use of priesthood or God’s power. All these qualities can easily be identified as “feminine” based on our current cultural/social model of what is masculine or feminine. (the YW loved this)

4. Men in this world are told that what it means to be a “man” is to be tough, strong, dominating, competitive. Priesthood power is none of these things. Jesus, the originator of our earthly version of priesthood power, showed us that in his life.

5. Many women possess qualities that help men learn what priesthood power should look like. (my feminist sisters might hate me for that, but this is when the girls started saying things like, “Yeah. Seriously.”)

6. We believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. We should all live worthy of bearing the priesthood of God and be prepared to do so.

A Couple of Quotes

It is not uncommon these days to run into discussions, in my small minority religion, about inequality of responsibility and callings for women.  And a very pertinent subset of that discussion revolves around the question of whether or not that perceived inequality, or "lower in the hierarchy" status is an eternal expectation.  Is the inequality that is part of the order now one that is an eternal principle or one that is temporary?

I have commented earlier about the past inequalities in priesthood responsibility among God's children and how God has inspired his leaders to change that at various times over the centuries, and so I have long held that the current allocation of callings and responsibilities is not an indication of eternal status.  And there are certainly parts of temple ordinances that also indicate that we should be prepared for change in that regard.

Steve, over at CommonConsent, shared a couple of quotes that were new to me on the subject that, if you are aware of the above mentioned discussions and, particularly  if you are a temple attending member of the church, shed further light on the discussion.  So I'm saving them here.  At least until my house is back together and my boxes of notebooks unpacked.

1.  Joseph F. Smith - "Some of you will understand when I tell you that some of these good women who have passed beyond have actually been anointed queens and priestesses unto God and unto their husbands, to continue their work and to be the mothers of spirits in the world to come. The world does not understand this--they cannot receive it--they do not know what it means, and it is sometimes hard for those who ought to be thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the gospel--even for some of us, to comprehend, but it is true."  (Gospel Doctrine, p. 461)

I should remind the reader to never assume that the earthly hierarchy that our telestial world ascribes to the relationship between kings and queens or priests and priestesses is the same as that in the celestial world where all are "joint-heirs with Christ".  It is almost always wrong to assume that earthly manifestations of an institution or organization or life are clear reproductions of the way heavenly ones are.

2. Melvin J. Ballard (Quorum of the Twelve) - "Whatever disappointments may come, still be true to Him and I promise you, in the name of the Lord, that if not in time, in eternity, you shall have like honors and glory and privilege.  If you are faithful over a few things here, you shall be ruler over many things there, and become kings and priests unto God.  And you sisters who have dwelt in reflected glory will shine in your own light, queens and priestesses unto the Lord forever and ever."  (Conference Report, October, 1934, p. 121)

These two quotes are certainly not the be all and end all of the discussion.  But I think they are good additions to the position that what is now is not what will be.

Later...Brady added this comment and quote:

http://maxwellinstitiute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=58  Hugh W. Nibley, "The purpose of such ordinances is to bridge the space between the world in which we now live, the telestial world, and that to which we aspire, the celestial world.  Therefore, the events of the temple were thought to take place in the terrestrial sphere."    You are saying, what has this got to do with priesthood?  In the temple women participate and even officiate in sacred priesthood ordinances IE Name issue and initiatory.  One of the, in my humble opinion, the most beautiful and sacred blessings in this world.  Then maybe in spheres above this one...

When Things Don't Come Together As Planned

Our lease is ending where we've been staying and cannot be renewed.  Our damaged home, which the contractor has been saying for MONTHS will be "surely done by the end of this month", is far from ready for occupation.  I arranged for another short-term rental but now our insurance company says they are betting that it will be done in the next 4 weeks and wants us in a motel for the duration.  I wouldn't bet on it being done by then, given the track record.  But I might be wrong. But it is what it is and I've been packing boxes which will be all put in storage for however much longer the work takes and packing suitcases to live out of for the next month.  Tomorrow we hand the keys back to the landlord.

L. asked me how I avoid feeling frustrated and annoyed by the continual promises of work being done that is not yet done and will likely be delayed.  I've thought about that.  I think it's due to three things.

First it has to do with being consciously grateful.  For a job, for a place to stay, for a table to sit at, a bed to sleep in, enough food to eat, for construction workers with skills, for a book to read.  Gratitude refocuses my view to include not only the challenges but also the blessings.  That fosters peace within me.

Second, it has to do with the old scout adage "be prepared".  I realize that I tend to almost always prepare contingency plans.  I tend to think about what I will do if such and such happens, or what we should do if things don't happen as planned.  And then I lay the groundwork for that as I continue to work towards what I hope will happen.  It isn't a negative expression of distrust or pessimism.  It's just that I know life and work doesn't always come together the way we want it too, and it's good to have prepared, in your back pocket, a constructive response to that when it happens.  Because in spite of everyone's best efforts, sometimes you need that helpful contingency plan.  Sometimes you need a whole string of them.  It's just part of life.

Third, it has to do with keeping the current challenge in perspective.  That's related to gratitude, but it has more to do with priorities and brotherhood.  My hope for my house to be made habitable is real and good, but in the prioritized list of hopes I see in the lives of people around me it is not way up on the list.  I am aware of the very real other hopes that are being addressed in my community, hopes for healing from injury and illness, hopes for reuniting of hearts in families, hope for help for those dealing with abuse, hope for help cleaning and rebuilding after the recent tornadoes, hope for shelter and hope and light, hope for young people just starting out in life, hope for people dealing with the challenges that come as one approaches the end of it, the list goes on and on.  This awareness does two things.  It makes me put my own current need in perspective.  And it gets me to work on helping others and their hopes and needs while I wait for mine to be fulfilled, which in turn reduces my focus on and impatience about my own situation.

I think these three things are things I heard about doing when I was young.  It's kind of interesting to me to realize that as an old person, they've become just another part of how I approach life.  I guess teaching young people good things that they only understand in theory when they are young can bring about good change down the road.  For those teachers and relatives who taught me, I am grateful.

Responses to Life's Sunsets

There are many things in my life that I can do.  But there are also in life some things that I wish I'd been able to do, for which the time on earth is past, and that I cannot go back and do.  Some of them are simply opportunities that did not ever present themselves or that life's vicissitudes prevented.  Some of them are opportunities that I chose to ignore in order to do something else that was good.  Some of them are opportunities that I had but did not recognize or was not prepared to take. And some are opportunities that I should have taken but didn't due to my own well-meaning or mistaken or immature errors of judgment.

And when I recall those they each, of course, bring with them a sense of regret or disappointment, some greater, some smaller, but all sad.

So the sentence below from an old novel jumped out at me yesterday.  It describes the response of an older character, a woman of faith, who is watching someone younger, that she loves, choose an opportunity that she knows is past for her personally in this life.

"Then into the eyes of Julia...there came a vision as comes to one who watching the glorious setting of the sun sees not the regretful closing of the day that is past, but the golden promise of the day that is to come."

The novel itself was not that great, but that sentence will stay with me.

And I think it is a much wiser and healthier response to regrets than the often quoted stanza by John Greenleaf Whittier about "the sad words of tongue or pen".

Quote for the day

"At their root, most religious philosophies say do less harm, yes, but they also say do more good.  There is a limit to how much less harm I can do.  But my potential for good is unlimited.  All of our potentials for good are unlimited.
"The question becomes not whether we use resources but what we use them for.  Do we use them to improve lives?  Or do we waste them?  My life itself is a resource.  How shall I use it?"

~Colin Beavans, "No Impact Man", p. 205

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).

Chowchilla and Boston

In the mid 1970s I was a high school student.  An unassuming, easygoing, biddable young man sat at a desk a few feet from mine in my math class.  He seemed a bit at sea, without any plans and not a great deal of discernment, but was pleasant, polite, and liked to laugh and got along and would go along pleasantly with anyone.  His name was Rick Schoenfeld.  After high school he fell into spending time with his 20-something brother, James, and a man in his 30s named Frederick Woods whose moral compass was, it turned out, completely lacking.  And a few years later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Chowchilla_kidnapping  

Later evaluations of the holding place of the children revealed that if the bus driver had not been able to get them out, they would likely have died of asphyxiation due to insufficient air circulation.

Rick subsequently turned himself in.  His brother and Frederick Woods fled and were later apprehended, the latter as he tried to cross the border into Canada.  Rick was paroled last year.  His brother and Mr. Woods are still in prison.

And as I hear reports of the astonishment of 19 year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's friends, I think I understand.


On a further note:
A San Francisco Chronicle article last June about Rick (Richard) Schoenfeld's release from prison contained an interview with a woman who was one of the children kidnapped.

"When told by a reporter that Schoenfeld's release was imminent, she said she wasn't surprised. "I knew he would be the first to be let go," she said by phone. Not only was he the youngest, but he seemed to be the follower, not the leader, of the crime, she said."

It reminds me that there is tragedy on many sides of this whole, horrible, recent Boston bombing.

Further into the article is this:  "A deeply religious woman steeped in her Christian values, Hyde said she has struggled with her feelings knowing that Schoenfeld probably wouldn't be in prison forever.

"I don't know if I've forgiven him," she said. "But I have moved past my anger and hate."

Many are called....

Reading through the Book of Matthew, I encountered again the parable of the laborers in the vineyard.  You know, the one where the householder hires day laborers who are seeking employment throughout the day, some in the morning, some in the afternoon and others just before evening, to help him with his work.  And then, at the end of the day pays the first ones, as they had agreed, a day's wages and also pays all the other workers the same. And the ones who have been working all day protest at the unfairness of that arrangement.  And the householder's response is, "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?  Take that thine is, and go they way:  I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.  Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?  Is thine eye evil, because I am good?  So the last shall be first and the first last: for many be called but few chosen."

The commentary I was reading along with the text didn't discuss that last phrase.  So, of course, I started mulling over it.

The same phrase appears in the Doctrine and Covenants:

"Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men..."

Often the "few are chosen" phrase is used in discussions about magnifying callings, or being faithful and and not a slacker in the work of God's kingdom: being a valiant worker as opposed to a slothful servant.  Those discussions may even focus on the hard work of those early morning laborers and lead one to erroneously believe that chosen is what they are.  But such discussions can lead us to miss the main point of the parable.

Last week A. and I talked about the role of personal motivations in our peace of mind or lack thereof.  I told her about an epiphany I had about a decade ago while listening to Kathy Goodness speak in a sacrament meeting.  She said, “The motivation for our work in our church callings should be love of God and love for our fellow men.” 

That sentence struck home for me that day.  As Christ taught, all else hangs on these two principles.  It was a catalyst for me to review my motivations in all the various kinds of work I did, and to change them.

And here, again, in this passage, I am reminded.  The householder is speaking to those early morning workers about their focus on justice and receiving recognition ( "they murmured...saying, "These last have wrought but one hour, and thou has made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.") instead of gratitude for the blessing of being employed that day and able to feed their families.  They focused on comparing their worth and on what they thought was just rather than on the blessing for them and for their fellow workers of having a day with work and good pay.   Which is why the householder asks them,  "Is thine eye evil because I am good?"

Many were called.  They were called throughout the day.  But only some resisted the temptation to measure the experience as fully satisfying only if they were recognized and rewarded for the fact that their labors were longer and harder than that of others; only if their extra efforts were noticed and commended, only if things were "fair".

Diligence doesn't make you chosen.  Working longer and harder than others under more difficult circumstances and harvesting more doesn't make you chosen.  Doing God's work with and wanting recognition or validation, verbal, mental or otherwise, from yourself or from others, for how well and long you've done it actually sabotages choseness. 

Being willing to work, keeping your promises to God ("he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day"), and NOT comparing your work with that of others or needing to be recognized ("aspire to the honors of men") for what you've done above and beyond the work of any others who have been called to work as well is the chosenness that God is calling us to.   

It IS being grateful to work for God and simply happy that your fellow workers are as well.   It is another version of having love and gratitude towards God and a love for your fellow men which unreservedly rejoices in their blessings too.  That, I think, is what being chosen means.

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.

A rabbi's thoughts on Pope Benedict's contributions

Benedict and the Rabbi

A Christian pope on the Hebrew Bible.

by Meir Y. Soloveichik, director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University and associate rabbi at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in Manhattan

After Pope Benedict XVI’s surprising announcement that he would resign from the papacy, leading adherents of diverse faiths immediately began to evaluate his legacy. Catholic theologians have emphasized the enduring import of the thought of the man who spent most of his life as the theologian Joseph Ratzinger. Jewish leaders, meanwhile, have by and large celebrated the pope’s statements against anti-Semitism, promotion of interfaith amity, and the further improvement of Vatican-Israel relations. Yet there is one fascinating aspect of Benedict’s legacy that neither side has noted, in which philosophy and interfaith engagement are joined: that he began and ended his papacy by celebrating the Hebraic, traditional Jewish understanding of love and marriage.

Known as John Paul II’s doctrinal enforcer who inveighed against a modern “dictatorship of relativism” at his predecessor’s funeral, it was expected that his publications as pope would cultivate further controversy. Many were therefore surprised when Benedict began his papacy by issuing the encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God Is Love), an examination of the biblical notion of erotic love. In this encyclical, Benedict began by noting that much of religious thought tends to draw a sharp distinction between eros, the “love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings,” and agape, the term taken to mean spiritual, benevolent, generous love. Benedict notes that some Christian thinkers have rejected eros as selfish and physical, and that Christianity in the past has been criticized as having been opposed to the body; he admits that “it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed” in Christian thought. What can cure Christianity of this mistake, he shows, is a deeper study of the Hebrew Bible’s description of love. The Hebrew Bible, while firmly opposing pagan sexual practices, nevertheless celebrates man’s and woman’s desire for each other as divinely designed. To engage in utter rejection of eros would be to divide the physical and spiritual, the body and soul, which only together constitute the essential identity of human beings:

Man is truly himself when his body and soul are intimately united; the challenge of eros can be said to be truly overcome when this unification is achieved. Should he aspire to be pure spirit and to reject the flesh as pertaining to his animal nature alone, then spirit and body would both lose their dignity. On the other hand, should he deny the spirit and consider matter, the body, as the only reality, he would likewise lose his greatness. .  .  . [I]t is neither the spirit alone nor the body alone that loves: it is man, the person, a unified creature composed of body and soul, who loves. Only when both dimensions are truly united, does man attain his full stature. Only thus is love—eros—able to mature and attain its authentic grandeur.

Under this understanding, eros and agape are not opposites; rather, in marriage, they complement each other, with eros serving as the foundation for agape. In seeking a term that implies the sanctification and elevation of the erotic impulse, the pope emphasized a Hebrew word for love,  ahavah, at the heart of a biblical book. “How,” Benedict asks, “might love be experienced so that it can fully realize its human and divine promise? Here we can find a first, important indication in the Song of Songs, an Old Testament book well known to the mystics.” In this book, a searching lover finally finds his beloved, and discovers, in Benedict’s reading, the importance of love beyond one’s self. The ideal of ahavah, for Jewish scripture, is marriage, in which man and woman’s natural urge for each other become sanctified not by denying their natures but by directing their love toward each other. Here, Benedict turns to the first story in the Hebrew Bible.

The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man’s very nature. .  .  . The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfill its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa.

Benedict then turns to more particularly Christian aspects of religious thought, but the encyclical is remarkable for its sensitive philosophical and exegetical engagement of Hebraic ideas. Let us now flash-forward to 2012, and the pope’s annual Christmas address to the Roman Curia. The world’s one billion Catholics did not know—but Benedict undoubtedly did—that this would be the last Christmas address he would deliver as the leader of the Catholic faith. In his speech, Benedict defended the age-old definition of marriage as the union of man and woman. This of course is unsurprising; yet what was unexpected is that the pope chose to do so by citing another European religious leader, one who is not a bishop or cardinal, but rather the chief rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim. In a recent lengthy essay defending his opposition to same-sex marriage, Bernheim stressed the importance of the Genesis account in teaching us philosophically about the nature of marriage and identity, and emphasized the ideal of a child being raised by both father and mother. Benedict referred to Bernheim’s essay as “profoundly moving” and cited it extensively in his address.

This elevated Bernheim’s document from an essay written on behalf of French Orthodox Jewry to a statement studied by Catholics all over the world. Because it was written in French, many Orthodox Jews around the world knew little about it. Yet after Benedict’s address, Bernheim’s piece was read and translated by Ralph Hancock, a political philosopher at Brigham Young University, and thereby made available to Jewish thinkers everywhere. Recently published in First Things magazine, Hancock’s translation can be read at firstthings.com.

Let us consider, in summation, this remarkable turn of events. A rabbi, writing in Paris, defends Judaism’s traditional notion of marriage. This essay is read and cited in Latin by a Catholic leader and thinker in Rome, who from the very beginning of his papacy exhibited a deep interest in Jewish thinking about love and marriage. The pope’s endorsement thereby leads to the translation of the essay by a Mormon philosopher living in Utah. The essay is then exposed to diverse communities of faith in the English-speaking world.

All eyes now turn to the conclave of cardinals who will select Pope Benedict’s successor. One of the questions the cardinals will unquestionably consider is which Catholic leader can most eloquently and effectively defend a traditional moral worldview that is no longer taken for granted in the West. Members of other faiths are equally concerned with this task, and one of the lessons of Benedict’s writings is that different religious communities can learn from each other in this moral and philosophical endeavor. As such, the statements and encyclicals that bracketed this brief but important papacy are a possible sign of more enduring intellectual interfaith engagements yet to come.

Meir Y. Soloveichik is director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University and associate rabbi at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in Manhattan.

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.

Joy and Rejoicing

 For B., who pointed out that I haven't posted any next generation photos.  From youngest to oldest.

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.