Sunday School Lesson 42: Continuing Revelation to Latter-day Prophets

D&C 68:1-4 (Ensample means Precedent or Example.)

1. My servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land...reasoning with and expounding the scriptures unto them.

2. And, behold and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth--

3. And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4. and whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord and the power of God unto salvation.

At this point, Orson Hyde was a recently baptized convert, having been baptized only about one month prior to this calling and revelation. So it is not speaking of Apostles, which he later became, but of run-of-the-mill missionaries.

If whatsoever they speak is scripture, where is it recorded? Or is it somehow scripture only to the audience, and recorded only as a witness against them? Scripture will be one of the yardsticks against which we are measured when we face God at judgment, so perhaps what this means is that when we are judged, we will be faced with every spiritually inspired utterance that was ever spoken in our presence.

Some insights are best kept to yourself

I had the thought about the correlation between matt 11:28 and the 4th
commandment during Sunday school and as soon as I shared it, I
realized it did not help the teacher to make the point he had
prepared. Some insights are best kept to yourself and discussed later,
in a setting without any specific direction; derailing someone's
prepared thoughts might not help others feel the spirit.

Matt 11:28-29 = Exodus 20:8-11

Matt 11:28-29 says,

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you...and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Exodus 20:8-11 says,

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work ...
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth ... and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it

The commandment to come unto me and find rest is interesting because we are also commanded to labor. The Lord is not condemning labor for labor's sake, but is transforming labor into his rest, which we know from D&C 84:24 is the fulness of his glory. He does not call, come all ye lazy, but calls those of us who are laboring. The act of laboring allows the call to join him in his yoke. If we are unwilling to labor in the first place, he doesn't invite us to share his burden.

The first presidency said, back in 1936, with the establishment of the welfare program that, Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership.

Sunday School Lesson 41: Every Member a Missionary

D&C 1:4-5 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days. And they shall go forth and none shall stay them for I the Lord have commanded them. I have a couple of thoughts on this one, neither related to missionary work. The line, whom I have chosen: does it mean that God has chosen all the people who would be considered his disciples or he has chosen from among the disciples those who will be missionaries? Second, the comment that none shall stay them for I...have commanded them is interesting to me, because of the verse that I can't find about when the Lord gives you a commandment and you are prevented from accomplishing it but you tried as hard as you can, then he treats it as though you had accomplished it. Here he says that none shall stay them but elsewhere, he acknowledges that sometimes evil men are able to prevent others from keeping the commandments.

D&C 65 The heading says that Joseph smith designated this revelation as a prayer. That's very interesting because it makes me wonder about the meaning of the word "prayer." I've typically thought of prayer as communication with God, typically one-way communication. A statement, or series of statements that you believe that God will hear, and a request or series of requests that you hope he will deign to acknowledge or grant. This prayer, however, is clearly directed to both human and Godly ears. 5 of the 6 verses are directed at man, and only the final verse seems to change focus and address God.

I do like the line, Call upon the Lord, that his kingdom may go forth upon the Earth, implying that if we fail to pray, the kingdom will have a tough time going forth. our worthiness allows the kingdom of God to grow.

D&C 123:12-13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things . . . Now this is extremely interesting wording. We should waste our lives? Not just spend them, but waste them.

Sunday School Lesson 39: The Hearts of the Children Shall Turn to Their Fathers

D&C 2 Behold I will reveal unto you the Priesthood by the hand of Elijah...and he shall plant in the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming. Why? Why would the earth be wasted at his coming if the children's hearts aren't turned to the fathers? It's not because we need to accomplish the temple work for all of humanity, because we've been told that that work will be one of the major focuses of our time during the millennium. And why the promises? Malachi has a mildly different wording, Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. Here, there is no mention of the priesthood, but that's something that may well have been implied by mentioning Elijah, since he was one of the greatest prophets and known for having the sealing power, and it also says that the fathers will turn to the children. Now, my understanding of the children turning is that the children = people who are alive and our hearts turning to our fathers = geneological and temple work. So if the children are the people alive, then by default, their fathers have passed on. How can their hearts turn to us, and what is the work that is done as demonstration of the turning? I suppose it could be the work for the dead in the spirit world. If they are cognizant of our efforts, then perhaps they are working diligently to convert people in the spirit world as discussed in section 138 and 1 Peter 3-4.

D&C 110:13-16 Elijah the prophet...stood before us, and said: Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken by the mouth of Malachi--testifying that he should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of hte Lord come--to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and hte children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse--therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed unto your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors. To me it is interesting that Elijah's words match more closely with what Malachi said than with what Moroni said. Also, I note that the time Malachi spoke of was fully come, not nigh. So did Malachi turn us? Are we turned? Where is the manifestation of our turning?

Joseph Smith History 1:37-39 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Now this is interesting. The wicked shall burn because they that come shall burn them. Who shall come? What form will they take? Malachi says, The day that cometh shall burn them up. A lot of the prophesies that I read about dreadful beasts and burning bring physical illness to mind for me. When John talks about the beast turned loose to afflict man toward the end of the world, and he describes it, to me, it looks like he's describing a rendering of a virus from the discovery channel. And if you have a fever, it's not uncommon to say you are burning up, and it can kill you. But is a fever connected with our fathers and temple work? It seems that things that kill people are rarely discriminate; they'll kill the good and the bad together and the difference is that for the good people, dying is, if not a good thing, at least not a bad thing.

Sunday School Lesson 38: In Mine Own Way

D&C 38:30 I tell you these things because of your prayers; wherefore, treasure up wisdom in your bosoms, lest the wickedness of men reveal these things unto you by their wickedness in a manner which shall speak in your ears with a voice louder than that which shall shake the earth; but if ye are prepared ye shall not fear. This is extremely interesting. It implies that knowledge could be good or bad depending on how we come to it. If you attain knowledge in the wrong way, it could be detrimental to your spiritual development. What types of knowledge? In this case, the knowledge is of a secret plot against them and rumors of wars, indicating that discovering the plot without warning could be detrimental to faith. Are there other kinds of knowledge that could be harmful to faith? I would have to say probably. It is generally accepted that in most religions, the level of religiosity of individuals is inversely proportional to the level of education that individual attains. However, there was a study done in 1984 that found that within the Mormon denomination, the relationship was correlary - the higher the level of education, the higher the level of religiosity. Secularization, Higher Education and Religiosity. It would seem to support the idea that the way you come to knowledge is as important to your spirituality as the knowledge itself. Joseph smith said that a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge, and that the principles of intelligence we attain in this life will rise with us in the resurrection, but I wonder if, having read 38:30, he might have modified to: a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge with or by the spirit, and whatever principle of intelligence we attain with or by the spirit will rise with us in the resurrection.

Sunday School Lesson 36: The Desert Shall Rejoice, and Blossom as the Rose

It's General Conference this weekend, so this lesson won't be taught for about 2 weeks. Thinking about General Conference makes some of the parts of this lesson more real. How would I feel, for example, if this Saturday, president Monson reads off a list of people who are being assigned to pack up and move somewhere to establish a community? Or what if I were called to leave my family and go to China on a mission of indeterminate length?

Our Heritage p. 81-96 Tells the story of the seagulls again, and talks about the way members used to get calls to do things back then. The prophet would get up at general conference and read off a list of names of people who were called to go on a mission, or settle a new area, and afterward, they would typically get up and go get to it. I wonder if the reasons we went away from that are related to the fact that you can't just go somewhere and build a house anymore. You now have to purchase the land from someone. Farming is no longer a realistic option for people who want to live.

In 1870 they formed the "Retrenchment Society." The first name of the young women's organization described what it taught - frugal living. I often wonder whether we would be in the financial trouble that we are in (speaking of the nation and the current economic recession) if more people relied less on expected income and more on frugal choices in their lifestyle. Our current housing crisis was created in large part by people buying homes larger than they could afford and counting on increasing values to make the purchase wise in hindsight. Other major contributing factors include people trying to make money off those speculating in real estate. If the first group had purchased homes that were modest, affordable, and that were purchased for use rather than investment, then few would have needed to sell so suddenly and much of the recession could have been avoided.

D&C 64:34 Behold the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. The Lord doesn't require an able mind, but both the willing and the obedient will be blessed. See Mosiah 4:24. The sad thing is that the good of the land of Zion for those first couple of years was pretty meager. It would be tough to be starving to death and read this scripture. I'd probably cry out, "where's the good of Zion?"

D&C 89:18-21 This is the promise from the Word of Wisdom. How does it relate to the desert blossoming? I'm not sure but I've always loved that it is concerned with marrow in their bones. Bone marrow wasn't recognized as super valuable at the time this was written.

D&C 93:1 Every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments shall see my face and know that I am. (First of all, that's a very liberal use of commas.) So that's interesting. The reward you get for doing all of those things is simply to know that God is. Wouldn't it take at least a strong belief that He is in order to do the things in the list? Perhaps he's talking about the more sure word of prophesy, or having your calling and election made sure. A knowledge of God's existence that is undeniable, and therefore, conclusive evidence of your assured salvation.

D&C 130:19-21 Intelligence rises with us in the resurrection; blessings are tied to laws and when we receive a blessing, it is because we kept a law. Elder Ballard gave a talk about this and he said that if there is a blessing we want from the Lord, we should search the scriptures and find the law upon which that blessing is predicated and strive to more fully keep that law. I don't think he was talking about being blessed with a million dollars, but real blessings, like faith, inspiration, and other spiritually valuable blessings.

So this lesson's title is about the desert rejoicing and blossoming, but the scriptures it includes are all about obedience. Obedience is the first law of heaven. In the story where Saul was commanded to go and destroy the Amalekites in 1 Samual 15, Saul was told to utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. He went and destroyed everything that was vile and refuse but kept out the best of hte shep and the oxen and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good. He later claimed that he did so in order to sacrifice them at the temple, in the same sentence, recognizing that they should have been destroyed.

The story has always intrigued me because I think about what he must have been thinking. He's looking at his people, who could use this stuff to improve their lives, he's thinking about the way the Lord said to destroy everything, and I'm sure in his mind, it made a lot of sense to think that the Lord was trying to punish the Amalekites, not their sheep--the sheep didn't do anything, and it meant material benefit for his people which improves his stature as their king. I think we often try to think through the commandments of the Lord and decide when and where to keep them. Let's take the Sabbath Day. We'll buy gas and some treats when we're traveling on Sunday because "surely the Lord doesn't mean keep the sabbath day holy if you are traveling. What does he want you to do--not travel?" Sunday meetings when they interfere with your child's napping schedule. Home teaching when you are really busy. What are the commandments where we look at it and just say, "Surely He doesn't mean it literally." Because we're wrong. I think he does mean it literally. Obedience is the first law of heaven and to obey is better than sacrifice.

Sunday School Lesson 35: A Mission of Saving

This lesson starts with the work of saving that is conducted through missionary work and then moves to the include references to actually saving people from physical privation. Are the two even related? I've heard it said that it is hard for people to focus on spiritual growth if they are concerned that their children are starving, but Alma also said that the poor are easier to convert because of their forced humility.

D&C 4:6 Here, the order goes:

Faith
Virtue
Knowledge
Temperance
Patience
Brotherly Kindness
Godliness
Charity
Humility
Diligence

But there is a very similar passage in 2 Peter1:4-8 that goes

Faith
Virtue
Knowledge
Temperance
Patience
Godliness
Brotherly Kindness
Charity

You'll notice first that the Doctrine and Covenants list is 2 items longer than that in 2 Peter, and then, you might notice that the order is different. Brotherly Kindness and Godliness are switched in the two lists. It's my opinion that the order matters in 2 Peter but not in D&C. Peter was giving a pretty specific step-by-step instruction in how to become fruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was just listing off a bullet list of things to remember as you go forth to serve, and tacked on humility and diligence, which, for some reason, didn't make Peter's list.

D&C 18:12 And he hath risen again from the dead, that he might bring all men unto him on conditions of repentance. This is an interesting thing. We talk about the atonement in two parts: the suffering in the garden and on the cross to atone for our sins and allow us to repent, and the death and resurrection to allow us to be resurrected. In my mind, the goal of the suffering was to allow us to return to God, and the goal of the resurrection was to allow us to live again, but this indicates that the reason He rose from the dead was so that we could return to God. And I suppose that makes sense, in a way. We could certainly not return to God as disembodied spirits, and the fact that we lacked physical bodies in the pre-mortal world was one of the major differences between us and God that would be overcome through the plan and our descent to earth.

D&C 52:40 And remember in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and afflicted, for he that doeth not these things, the same is not my disciple. I've been pretty irritated with the growing trend of socializing that the government has been pushing, particularly with health care. The irritation comes from selfishness, I'm willing to admit that. I don't want to pay for someone else to not work. But does that mean I'm not a disciple? I'll be honest, I don't want them to work for their own betterment, I want them to work so I don't have to pay for their freeloading. The problem is, we know there are people who take advantage of the system and are happy to take their government benefits that they only get if they are not working, but there are also people who are literally needy. How do you serve the one while not rewarding laziness in the other?

Our Heritage, pages 77–80 A member of the Martin Handcar company, speaking of his experience said, The price we paid to become acquainted with God was a privilege to pay. What price have we paid to become acquainted with God? The technical requirement is to keep the commandments, repent of your sins, but often it seems that people who are forced to suffer find humility that is difficult to find elsewhere. How can we find that humility and faith without the suffering? Is it wrong to want to, or should we pray for trials that will be nigh unbearable?

Sunday School Lesson 34: Faith in Every Footstep

D&C 136:4 And this shall be our covenant--that we will walk in all the ordinances of the Lord. That's a very interesting company slogan. You have a group of people who have already made that covenant deciding to re-make it as a group. What is the added value to collective covenanting? Another thing that is interesting is that the company size is essentially capped at 100 people. In the book, Freakonomics, one of the things the author discussed was group size and its relative social pressure. Groups have a much greater social pressure when they are under 150 people, and if I remember correctly, groups under 100 were not broadly based enough for every member to find close support.

136:24 Cease drunkenness. Often I am really glad that we have adopted as command the instruction given as words of wisdom to abstain from all alcoholic beverages.

136:28 If thou art merry, praise the Lord with singing and with dancing, and with a prayer of praise and thanksgiving. What do you suppose it takes to convince a congregation to open their mouths and let the singing pour out? We have much better singing from the brethren in Priesthood opening exercises than we get from them in Sacrament meeting, but you would think they'd be the same. It's probably the group size.

136:34 Thy brethren have rejected you and our testimony, even the nation that has driven you out. This sounds a little anti-american but when the saints had their first pioneer day celebration, they celebrated with American flags, Patriotic songs, parades where they wore their American military uniforms, etc. and Brigham Young said something about how it was no great secret that despite some Americans who didn't understand the principles of freedom on which America was founded, it was still the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

Temple Sealings - What are they for?

I had a "professor" of religion in college who quoted some obscure reference from an early apostle that implied that God was Adam's literal father. I had issues with that, particularly with the idea that there were now two only begotten sons of God, but I don't want to get into that. Suffice it to say that his biggest justification for that being true was the fact that we needed to do temple work for all of humanity, tying us to our parents and they to theirs and so on, back to Adam and Adam to God. Last night, Betsy and I were discussing temple sealings and I realized that adopted kids are sealed to their parents but are not begotten by their parents and it is entirely possible for Adam to seal the rest of humanity to God without being the literal offspring of his diefic flesh. I'm not going to evaluate whether he was created out of the dust of the earth or not at this time.

Hebrews 11:40 - God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect, speaking of the people who had died having great faith. They did a lot of great things, that demonstrated their faith, but without us, they can not be made perfect. Of course, the JST changes it a bit and says that without their sufferings they could not be made perfect, but then it cross references topical guide, geneology and temple work. Why reference that if the JST just made it irrelevant?

D&C 27:5 - Moroni has the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim. In what way would priesthood keys be necessary for a record? In my understanding, keys in the priesthood are essentially right to authorize ordinances and receive revelation for a specific group.
27:6 - Elias has keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things. Apparently I've misunderstood keys.
27:7 - Says that the angel that appeared to Zacharias was "Elias". Luke 1:19 says that the angel said, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God. What are the odds that Gabriel was the Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration?
27:8 - Which John I have sent unto you...to ordain you unto the first priesthood...that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron. Ordained so that you can be called as was Aaron? The calling happens because of the ordination, not the other way around?

D&C 27:13 -

Sunday School Lesson 33: President Brigham Young Leads the Saints

D&C 107: 22-24

Section 107 was given (at least in part) when the 12 "met in council, confessing their individual weaknesses and shortcomings. expressing repentance, and seeking further guidance of the Lord." Here's an interesting thing that we don't do much in the church any more: public confession of personal sins. It used to be the major portion of Fast & Testimony meeting. The testimony portion used to contain public confession of sins and pleas for forgiveness from God. It's moved away from that and I wonder how much is because people were doing it wrong, and how much was because it was making others sin through anger and resentment, and how much is for some other reason entirely.

People, being what they are, I could see this escalating from humble acknowledgement of personal guilt to a contest of who could come closest to the line of church discipline without crossing it, demonstrating the greatest repentance?

Also, I could see it being a problem if you people constantly got up there and said, "Brothers and sisters, I have sinned. Every time I look at Betsy, I am filled up with lust and my own wife looks like a fat cow in comparison." That can't be good for my friendships or Betsy's.

And, of course, there could be a different reason entirely, that is not coming to my mind right now. Perhaps they just wanted to focus the meeting more on our faith and trust in Christ's atonement, rather than on our remorse and guilt. (Although, the first fruits of our faith in Christ are those acts of repentance.)

Our Heritage Pages 66-71

Joshua 1:1-5

God starts off by saying, "Moses my servant is dead". But Moses was translated. Or so I thought. Deuteronomy 34 makes it quite clear that he died except for one casually thrown in "no man knoweth of his sepulchre," with a footnote referencing "translated beings." So where do we get that Moses was translated? Alma 45:19, speaking of Alma Sr. says that Alma was taken of God, "as was Moses," and Bruce McKonkie says that Moses' appearance on the mount of transfiguration indicates that he was a translated being, otherwise, he would not have been able to participate in an ordinance of laying on of hands to pass Priesthood Keys to Peter, James, and John.

It does seem like he would have had a hard time getting there if he hadn't been either resurrected (unlikely, considering it hadn't started yet) or translated, since people don't get to leave the Spirit World once they go there.

2 Kings 2:8-15

Elisha picked up the physical mantle of Elijah. Israel seems to have had a pretty relaxed attitude about prophetic appointments. Or, rather, they seem to have based a prophet's calling on his actions. If a fellow shows up, wearing some camel-hair and does a miracle and tells them they need to repent, then they agree (sometimes not until later) that he was a prophet. What if we judged our prophets that way? Who would qualify? Ezra and Nehemiah didn't do much in the way of the miraculous, they just rebuilt the temple, so I would say that President Hinckley would qualify in that sense. Obviously Brigham Young and Joseph Smith would count. I think Lorenzo Snow was the one who went around preaching tithing during the depression, so I'd count him too. Am I just missing events in the lives of the other prophets that would help me feel like they would meet the Old Testament requirements?

Jacob 1:12, 18-19

Nephi died, Jacob and Joseph took on the responsibility of teaching the people.

Sunday School lesson 32: To Seal the Testimony

Suggested Reading: D&C 135

This is one of Benj's favorite sections.

v.1 For a long time, I wondered why Joseph would have jumped to the window when he knew there was an angry mob outside the jail. Then I visited the jail. The window is probably 7 or 8 feet off the ground, and if people with guns were definitely firing into the room from the door, I would probably have tried to escape through the window as well.

I'm also surprised that an armed mob of 150 -200 people would only shoot them each 4 times. Seems like you have a strong element in the mob and a following element as well.

v.3 In life they were not divided and in death they were not separated! He ends that statement with an exclamation point. It's a shout.

v.5 The testators are now dead and their testament is in force, implies that their witness against men would not be admissible until after they had lived their life unspotted, but hasn't the Lord said that the cries of the women and children have come up to him in heaven? Or am I thinking of places where they had killed all the women and children? In 3 Nephi 9:5, he's definitely talking about dead people crying to him against the destroyed cities.

v.6. They lived for Glory and they died for glory; and glory is their eternal reward. What is glory, scripturally speaking? Alma 22:14, that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory. Is glory the same as exaltation? Moses 1:39, this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Could it be that literal? God's exaltation is to make ours happen? Sam 4:21 - Eli's daughter-in-law said, "the glory is departed from Israel for the Ark of God is taken. Granted, she doesn't really have any more authority to make that statement than any random relative of the prophet has to give revelation to the church, but it could be a reflection of teachings from her father, who at one point did have the authority. Psalms 8:5 - Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels , and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Exaltation again?

Traditional Gender Roles

In the old Testament, God said, through Moses, that a man should not lie with another man as with a woman, and anybody who did it should be put to death. I’ve heard it said that the sin for which Sodom was destroyed was the sin of homosexuality, though I find no clear statement of that fact in the Bible; they clearly wanted to rape the angels who came to town to destroy it.

Also, there’s the thematic element of God creating a woman for Adam and Christ talking about it, saying, What God hath joined, let not man put asunder, indicating that if God has a preference, it is for the heterosexual relationship he instituted.

Do we have a circumstance where God gave a woman to a man who didn’t need to have children for some reason? Well, we have Nathan, the prophet, giving David wives when he had plenty already, and more kids than he could possibly rear in paternal love, as evidenced by the disastrous end of his life (although I do want to point out that aside from not creating the loving relationships that would have helped him avoid the struggle for his crown, he was also an adulterer who couldn’t be satisfied with the multitude of wives he already had, so he probably had other issues that contributed to his disastrous home life).

Do we ever have a circumstance where God gave a man as a companion to another man? Paul and his missionary companions, perhaps? Christ sending his messengers forth two-by-two? No. I don’t think so. Both of those were assignment specific. They had a task and a duration, while the relationship commanded for Adam and Eve included references to providing for each other, and that she was to desire him, and that they were to cleave unto one another all the days of their lives.

Does the fact that we are clearly not at a population shortage risk obviate the commandment to form heterosexual monogamous (and anciently plural) marriages? Does the command to multiply and replenish the earth still have value in today’s society? Does a homosexual couple who adopt or become parents through any of various alternative methods fulfil the commandment to multiply and replenish the Earth?

Where is the scriptural basis for abandoning the roles that God established? I believe in a God who will give specific instruction for a specific time without intending it to apply to the global audience for all eternity, but if there is instruction given for all men at one point, I like to look for a specific instruction to stop before I do so.

What circumstances have changed that would support changing the requirement from man + woman to man + companion?

• Do we have the same obligation to have children that Adam did?

o In my mind, this depends on why God told Adam to multiply and replenish the Earth. If He told him to do so in order to ensure the survival of the species, then I would say we are fairly well entrenched and this circumstance may have changed. If, however, He told Adam to do so in order to provide physical bodies for a specific number of God’s children, then we are not removed from this obligation until we hit that number, and should in fact, be having more children as opposed to fewer, which is the trend in most civilized countries.

• Do we have the same obligation to fill the gender roles God gave Adam and Eve (Provider and Nurturer)?

o Once again, this depends on why God told Adam to provide for Eve, and why he told Eve she would conceive and bear children, and why he told Adam he would work all the days of his life. Modern society has eliminated the need for gender discrimination in the workplace by eliminating the type of work where brute strength is a significant advantage, but did God tell Adam he would work because he was stronger than Eve or because of some other gender specific reason, or for some other reason entirely? Did he tell Eve that she would desire her husband because he was a man or because he was her life partner?

Provident Living

The word provident is related to the verb to Provide, but carries connotations of foresight and wisdom, in connection with providence. Providence, the omniscient God of Heaven, in whom our forefathers trusted so eloquently.

Throughout the Old Testament, the only references to providing are based on the Lord providing. There is the story of Abraham and Isaac, when Isaac asked where was the animal for the offering and Abraham answers, "the Lord will provide." In Proverbs, (or Psalms, I forget, to be honest) there's a verse that asks who will provide food for the ravens if the Lord does not provide.

As we move into the New Testament, we get our first hint of self providence, but it is a negative command not to provide for yourself, but to rely on the Lord. Granted, the command is given to those sent forth from the presence of the Savior to preach the Gospel, and they were under special living conditions, different from the rest of the Saints. Finally, however, we come to Paul's comment to Timothy,

"If any man provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

And that's about it, Biblically speaking. So, we have one comment, probably made in a context of which we are sadly ignorant, that we possibly may apply in contradiction of thematic references throughout the Old Testament.

On the other hand, there are thematic elements throughout the scriptures that while not directly instructing us to provide for ourselves and our families, certainly seem to weigh in in support of the idea. God said that by the sweat of his brow Adam would eat his bread. In the preamble to the 4th commandment, God says, "Six days shalt thou Labor," in the same grammatical structure as his other commandments. I often wonder if that shouldn't be the 11th commandment, but content myself with understanding it as a critical element required to honor the sabbath day and keep it holy.

The evidence seems to suggest that we rely on God to provide but labor to provide anyway. The puritan saying that God helps those who help themselves and the quote that great men make their own luck are anecdotal cultural evidence that even people who give God the credit for providing, generally do so after laboring to provide, and that those who fail to labor are not typically graced with divine providence.

Death

I was listening to the communist manifesto today and it had a line in there about religion being an eternal truth that had survived all kinds of social revolutions. It went on to say that it was one of the things that communism would end though, because communism was supposed to discard all eternal truths. It didn't happen, obviously. The application of communism was pretty much a bust because now matter how you tout morality and the betterment of all, you frequently end up with corrupt people trying to get more out of it than the ideology allows. That's a separate issue. It intrigued me to consider religion an eternal truth.

I can't think of a society that doesn't embrace the idea that there is something more to human existence than this life. Some people say that is just us trying to make our miserable lives have more meaning but I'm more of the opinion that it is likely because there is an afterlife and a reward for virtuous behavior. But there really isn't a reliable communication method between the Earth as we know it and the community of those who have passed on. That makes it difficult for us because we could tolerate our loved ones taking a trip as long as we could call them periodically and have that sense of contact at our command. It's the idea that the person is gone forever that is difficult to take. Hence the afterlife. I think half the appeal of the afterlife is that it is supposed to be this place where all the people you love are waiting to greet you and hang out with you forever, neglecting the key fact that when we're around them here, we frequently erupt into anger if we are together too long. In the moment of loss, however, I think it's understandable that we think we would be changed by death into people who would find joy in eternity with the people we love. If your parents called and said that they were moving to some far-away country where they didn't know if they would have access to telephones, mail, internet, or any other means of communication, and they would be there for 15 years or so, would it be less difficult to deal with? Is it just lack of faith that makes is so? If we had stronger faith in our eventual reunion and in the blissful peace, would we still sorrow so greatly at the loss? Why is the hope and possibility that they will be able to see us on earth again so important? When Paul said, "Oh death, where is thy sting? Oh grave, where is thy victory?" had he developed his faith sufficient to feel the same about someone going on a trip of indeterminate length as about someone dying?

Reverence

We had a lesson on Reverence on Sunday and the general consensus seemed to be that reverence = respect and that kids nowadays have no respect. I think I have problems with both those assertions—with the first because if reverence meant respect, we wouldn’t have two words, and with the second for two reasons (a) our parents all said the same thing and (b) the respect of the children is often an implicit reflection of the respect of the parents.

What is reverence? A couple of dictionaries say that it is profound respect, tinged with awe. In other words, respect that reminds you of your own humility in comparison. What I feel for a judge might be termed respect as I am a law abiding citizen with little to fear from him but I hold in honor the work that he does and understand that I will support his lawful execution of his office as much as I can in reasonableness but when I am introduced to a judge, I am not reminded of my own lowly station in life, nor do I quake with the thought of his awful power (or potential power) over me. So when we talk about reverence, we have to mean more than simple respect, but humble, awed respect. I think that this is the reason they so often use the term “fear” when talking about how we should contemplate our relation to God. The term “God-Fearing” is not so much in vogue now as it has been in times past and I think it is a reflection on our loss of understanding of reverence. People often get so caught up in the notion that God is our father and the fact that he loves us that they forget that he is also an all powerful being, whose ways are not our ways, and whose thoughts are not our thoughts that they forget to consider him with an attitude of humble awe and respect.

In defense of the kids nowadays, our parents all thought we had lost all respect when they were dealing with us and it is certainly true in my particular case that I had little respect for anyone or anything for a few years too many. It wasn’t so much that I had no concept of respect, or didn’t actually feel any respect for anyone, but that I thought a person needed to earn my respect, and I saw so few people doing anything worth respecting that it led me to feel that no one was my equal, much less my superior, and therefore, no one deserved my respect. As I’ve grown, I think I’ve altered my perspective somewhat to believe that people deserve a modicum of respect as common courtesy. This was reinforced as I read some of the concerns that the Chinese government was having about the deportment of the common Chinese that Westerners might find objectionable. They were concerned because it is common practice to spit without concern for whether you hit someone, smoking is ubiquitous, and the concept of queuing is completely incomprehensible to them. To me, these seem like the disrespect of a teenager—that is, a complete lack of concern for the preferences of the person on the receiving end of the action, coupled with the mindset that a person worthy of respect would not be spat upon and if he was, the spitter would surely regret his actions.

But God doesn’t impose respect on us. He doesn’t walk around punishing people for irreverence much. As a society, we are remarkably irreverent. We’ve become so full of our own supremacy that we rarely consider others and almost never consider God. How many times have you been in a church meeting and hear someone’s phone going off? How committed to reverence are we if we tell the outside world how to interrupt our worship with the latest ringtone? And it’s not only irreverent, it’s as bad as spitting on the people who have come to worship for all the respect it shows to them. The fact that they don’t smash our phone does not mean they feel respected. How often do we walk in late, walk out early, talk to someone about another topic while the sermon is being uttered? I often think that the reason our children are irreverent at church is because we are checking our email while our wife is telling us about her day, texting during dinner, cursing while we drive, and staying at work late without calling ahead to our families. Our speech patterns have become commonly full of interruptions, our empathy filled with vague uh-huhs while we type on our laptops, and when we should be listening, we are planning our next witty remark. We’re shopping on our employer’s time, socializing at worship services on the Lord’s time, and absent during family time.

My hope is that we’ll learn to demonstrate respect and reverence, not demand it. Our children are highly influenced by what we say and do and I think the world would be better off with a little more reverence for divinity, respect for humanity, and general courtesy.

Fire Safety

Just a quick word about Masterguard Fire Protection.

We called on a mailer for a free dinner to learn about fire-safety expecting it to be some sort of sales pitch.

It was.

The guy ran through a litany of scary stories about this person who got burned on 80% of his body, that person's wife died, this lady's kids got killed, your smoke detectors have a 55.8% failure rate but he won't tell you what a "dependable" smoke alarm costs. He said if you want to know costs, he'll drop by your house and walk through it and tell you on an individual basis.

My wife wanted a fire extinguisher and it probably wouldn't hurt to have a better fire alarm or two so we said sure, stop by.

For his recommendation of 12 alarms our total cost was $4,500.

He threw a fit when we said we didn't want it and made some comments that made me think he might be back to light our house on fire to teach us a lesson and stormed out.

Anyway, I googled similar products and found similar smoke alarms for $25-40, Carbon Monoxide alarms for about $40, and a two pack of fire extinguishers at costco for $70. Total cost for the same system: $420.

Fire safety is a good idea but don't get raped on pricing by a company who scares you into making a quick decision.

Does God Give Us Stumbling Blocks?

A friend of mine recently sat through a Sunday School lesson where the teacher said that the Lord gives us stumbling blocks to overcome and that some are too large. He used the example of his wife, telling how she began progressing in the Gospel as she learned and seemed to be on the path toward light and truth and then the Lord gave her the stumbling block of the church being patriarchal and that stumbling block was too big for her to overcome so she is stuck, the intimation being that her progression was halted in accordance with the will of the Lord, considering he gave her the stumbling block to begin with.

So, does the Lord give us stumbling blocks? Well, in the Lord's Prayer we ask him to, "lead us not into temptation", indicating that he has that capacity. (I've heard people trying to explain that one away as a translation error or similar, wondering how a perfect God could possibly lead someone into temptation when all temptation comes from the devil but I'll take my scripture as it stands.) We also know that "whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth," and of course there's that lovely verse in 1 Corinthians, which I think seals the deal. It says, "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

This one interestingly indicates that God suffers you to be tempted and also that he makes an escape with the temptation. Grammatically, that could mean that me makes both the temptation and the escape. We also know that he has said of us that he will "Tempt them and try them" and that one of the purposes of our life is to learn for ourselves what God in his omniscience already knows: how much we are willing to sacrifice on the altar of obedience to his will. We learn that by doing it, not by thinking we would be willing if called upon. I do not mean to imply that we must face all temptations to understand our commitment to the Lord, I mean that God knows which temptations are necessary for us to come to understand that and he will allow us to be tempted to help us to grow.

But is it ever in God's interest that our progress be halted due to our trials? I do not think so, else Paul would have said, God may be faithful or God may provide escape from the temptation, but he did not, he said God will. In other words, when discussing the trials that God sends us or allows us to bear, there will never be a time where spiritual progression should halt. We should be continually increasing in spiritual capacity and strength as a result of the burdens he allows us to bear.

There are other trials than those God would give us: the trials we bring upon ourselves through our own choices. God said, "thine own wickedness shall correct thee." In cases where we chose to disobey his will, there are naturally consequences and one of the first consequences of disobedience is loss of faith. Obedience is the first law of heaven and a prerequisite for every other Godly attribute we should aspire to. When we disobey God's will, we will definitely find our spiritual progression if not halted, at least impaired. Continued willful disobedience will result in backsliding and the consequences of our decisions will be a portion of the punishment God will mete out. Remember, though, God is merciful and the people of the Old Testament frequently cried out, "Thou hast punished us less than our iniquity deserved." There is great hope in that statement. For indeed, the punishment we earn when we commit sin is to be excluded from the presence of God forever. Christ suffered to allow us to overcome it and it is mercy that makes it possible.

Now we come to the story of Job. In that story, Satan somehow ascends to the presence of God (a place wherein we know that no unclean thing can enter) and they begin discussing their various minions. God points out Job and says, that one will be true through thick and thin, which is why I've blessed him. The devil asks permission to test that theory and God allows Job to be tried. Job whines for a few chapters but remains faithful and we are given a number of Gospel truths, among them, that the Sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundation of the Earth, giving clues to what our pre-mortal existence may have been like; that Job would be resurrected and see God with his own eyes after his death, talking about our post-mortal existence; and that this life is a blessing from into which we bring nothing and out of which we take nothing. In each stage of our existence we learn of our capacity for joy, and whether allegorical or literal, the story teaches us that God may well test us and that those trials are not meant to be an impairment on our spiritual progression but rather to help us to master the inclinations of the flesh and put spiritual goals above earthly aspirations.

In the case of the wife who could not accept a patriarchal church order, I do not think that God created the structure of the church specifically to give her a stumbling block. I think there are issues of humility that are preventing her from seeing that patriarchal or otherwise, she is expressing a lack of faith in God. Anytime we say God has to fit my model of what he should be we are doing Him a disservice. God is not a man that can be contained by our finite interpretations of what he should be and if we limit him to what we think he should be, we are limiting his infinite nature and are creating an idol to worship. I am not trying to discuss the question of whether a church organization should be patriarchal in order or not. I am trying to express that what the teacher or his wife perceive as a stumbling block to her spiritual progression (and they believe it was placed there by God intentionally) is actually a lack of faith and humility on her part to accept that this life and all its trappings are unimportant in the infinite view of our existence. Will God really keep someone out of heaven because they attend a church with a patriarchal structure? No. To believe so is to seriously misunderstand the mercy of God. Would we turn that around and say that a church that has a more egalitarian or matriarchal view of structure and organization has disqualified its members from exaltation? Absolutely not, because to limit God's powers of saving people to hierarchal organizations that fit my preferred model would be to deny his absolute power. But having faith in Him, humility to accept what trials he chooses to allow me to bear, penitence when I bring trials on myself, these are attributes he looks for when opening the gates of heaven and he helps us all the way there.

Pro-Life

I just read an article by a woman who was formerly the president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. She states in her article,

"Violence is a logical outcome of the extreme self-righteousness of those who claim the "pro-life" label as an absolute and yet who do not have an actual, consistent ethic of life such as the views held by pacifists."

There are numerous comments on her article from people from both sides of the debate but I wondered about her limited reasoning. She argues that anyone who opposes abortion on the grounds of being "pro-life" is inconsistent if they support for any reason war or the death penalty. She further indicates that it is the tendency of most pro-lifers to feel that murder is justified.

Is it inconsistent to be opposed to abortion and still pro death penalty?
No. There is a significant difference between supporting the right to life for innocent individuals and supporting the right of society to impose consequences on negative behavior. Certain individuals rely on others to protect their rights, and pro-life people include the unborn in this category. I believe in the goodness of humanity and feel confident that most people would agree that children,the elderly, the handicapped, and the disabled fall into this category. They rely on others to safeguard them and the rights society collectively assigns to all people.

In the protection of those rights, societies create laws to regulate the behavior of those members who do not by nature behave in a way that benefits society. The creation of the law requires the imposition of consequences for infractions, generally consistent in severity with the nature of the crime. Some cases are severe enough that societies will make the determination that the perpetrator has no value to society and must be removed for the general welfare of the citizenry.

What about war? War in the best cases is an extension of the individual vs. society discussion of the previous paragraph. In others, it is not. An individual who holds moral values of pro-life could conceivably see a war both ways--as a requirement to safeguard the lives and rights of innocent or helpless individuals, making it consistent with their pro-life belief system or as a political tool without the required justifications, making it inconsistent with a pro-life belief system. In other words, a pro-life individual could easily go either way on a war without losing consistency in his belief system.

The issue I have with Ms. Thislethwaite's article is her assertion that there is no way for someone to claim the Pro-Life label while supporting the death penalty or any war for any reason and yet "have an actual, consistent ethic of life such as the views held by pacifists." That's narrow minded. People can have actual consistent ethics of life and be on both sides of this issue. That's what makes it complicated for us. How do you decide where you fall on the issue when you support freedom of choice and protection of innocent life? Who doesn't support both those things? But to say that someone has to put the socially imposed consequences of murder and violent rape on the same take-it-or-leave-it platter with all types of abortion is illogical. Please, respect reasoning, even if you are looking at the same data and coming to a different conclusion.

The original article is here, if you want to read it.