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.