Mental and Spiritual Health Challenge for General Conference
Twice a year we have the wonderful privilege of hearing from our leaders to receive spiritual guidance and counsel. Each year the messages of these amazing men and women seem to have a greater impact on my life. Maybe you're like me and sometimes feel they prepared their message specifically for you. Conference is a spiritual feast that nourishes your soul when so many other responsibilities and life tax your soul.
Twice a year we have the wonderful privilege of hearing from our leaders to receive spiritual guidance and counsel at the General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Each year the messages of these amazing men and women seem to have a greater impact on my life. Maybe you're like me and sometimes feel they prepared their message specifically for you. Conference is a spiritual feast that nourishes your soul when so many other responsibilities and life tax your soul.
However, if you are like me and many others, conference can also be anxiety-provoking and overwhelming. There are times a leader’s message doesn't seem to align with scriptural or spiritual guidance received in the course of seeking answers to prayers. Other times, the feelings of anxiety become overwhelming as you have spent the last weeks, months and even years doing all you can to be met with a message of "do more." Sometimes a speaker doesn't seem to understand the complexities of life with their overly simplified solutions, which then elicits the guilty, self-reflective, self-punishing idea that maybe you don't have enough faith.
Elder Holland warned about this risk;
"My brothers and sisters, except for Jesus, there have been no flawless performances on this earthly journey we are pursuing, so while in mortality let’s strive for steady improvement without obsessing over what behavioral scientists call “toxic perfectionism.” We should avoid that latter excessive expectation of ourselves and of others and, I might add, of those who are called to serve in the Church—which for Latter-day Saints means everyone, for we are all called to serve somewhere." —Be Ye Therefore Perfect—Eventually
Although I think most don't believe our leaders are infallible, this is this cultural assumption—that ALL things spoken in conference are "right", "true", "doctrine", or "scripture" and are meant as an infallible guide for your personal life. Unfortunately, this cultural belief feeds the toxic perfectionism spoken of by Elder Holland. Therefore, this conference I encourage you to get the most out of every message by taking the “Mental and Spiritual Health Challenge for General Conference.” Here it is:
1. Verbally remind yourself that God is working through imperfect people with their perceptions, bias, family culture and predispositions.
2. Verbally remind yourself that not everything—in fact, most things—spoken in conference are NOT doctrine, but rather personal experiences of imperfect people making sense of an infinite and eternal gospel.
Edited (10/5/19 12:30 pm) to include the following quotes from Elder Oaks Conference address October 5th, Saturday morning session:
At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. -Elder Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," April 2012 General Conference, Sunday Morning Session (1 Apr 2012)
There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.” (Mormon 9:31) Neil L. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign (Nov 2012)
3. Verbally remind yourself to conscientiously check in with your Father in Heaven if the message is meant for you and is something you should prioritize in your life.
4. Verbally acknowledge that even leaders say things that are confusing, unclear and even wrong. Trust your ongoing relationship with God and allow clarity to come from HIM.
5. Verbally acknowledge that if you come away from conference with the idea that you need to do more, be better, work harder, read more scriptures, and/or sacrifice more—it’s most likely the influence of toxic perfectionism and not the spirit of Christ. See Elder Hollands talk cautioning against “toxic perfectionism” here: “Be Ye Therefore Perfect — Eventually”
6. Verbally promise yourself that you will not assume a speaker’s words are more important or correct than your relationship and revelation from God.
7. Verbally acknowledge that emotions are NOT the same as spiritual confirmation or revelation.
8. Verbally remind yourself to be present, feeling and thinking about your own experience during conference.
The gospel is joyous. We should be rejoicing and feeling God’s love and learning how to emulate that love. His love is healing, not hurtful or depressing.
Oral Sex
Exploring the Appropriateness of Oral Sex in Marital Intimacy: A Comprehensive Analysis of LDS Church Teachings
Exploring the LDS Church's stance on intimate behaviors within marriage and the cultural and moral inconsistencies that arise
[Editors Note, March 2021: This blog post refers to content that could be found in the LDS Handbook 2. Since this blog was published, that Handbook has now been marked as “obsolete,” and the Church’s website will redirect you to its current handbook. Please keep in mind that some of the quotes/phrases debated in this blog post no longer exist in updated church literature.]
Introduction
The appropriateness of oral sex within a marital relationship has been a topic of great debate for years. This discussion has led to confusion and misinterpretation of various teachings, creating moral and spiritual inconsistency within our culture. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the LDS Church's stance on intimate behaviors within marriage and the resulting inconsistencies that arise from the debate. By dissecting the official LDS Handbook 2, exploring cultural confusion, and examining the implications of past teachings, we aim to shed light on the question: Is oral sex an appropriate sexual behavior, or is it an "unnatural" and "unholy" sexual practice?
LDS Handbook 2 on Sexual Behavior in Marriage
The official LDS Handbook 2: Administering the Church provides limited guidance on sexual behavior in marriage, stating the following:
"Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife." (21.4.4 Birth Control) [1]
"The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline." (21.4.5 Chastity and Fidelity) [2]
These two quotes provide general guidance but do not offer explicit instruction on specific behaviors within marriage. The debate on the appropriateness of oral sex within marriage arises from the phrase "...and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful."
Cultural Confusion and Subjectivity
The phrase mentioned above has led to differing interpretations and confusion among church members. In their book "Real Intimacy: A Couples' Guide to Healthy, Genuine Sexuality," authors Thomas G. Harrison, Kristin B. Hodson, and Alisha Worthington address this cultural confusion:
"There is a quote from a handbook produced by the LDS Church that advises people to guard against anything "unnatural" within the bonds of their sexual relationship. This is where semantics come into play. What exactly does "unnatural" mean? Is it "unnatural to stick your tongue in your spouse's ear because the ear isn't a "natural" place for a tongue to go? Some people interpret "unnatural" to mean anything other than the traditional missionary sexual position, while others have a much broader definition of the word. Who is right?" (Real Intimacy, pg. 98) [3]
The subjectivity of the term "unnatural" has led to a variety of opinions, some even claiming that sex for any purpose other than procreation is unnatural and an abuse of sacred power. Others argue that oral sex, specifically, is an "unholy, unnatural, or impure practice," often citing President Kimball's January 5, 1982, letter to leadership: "...The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an 'unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.'" [4]
Contextual Issues with Quoting President Kimball's Letter
There are at least three significant issues with quoting President Kimball's letter out of context.
First, the quote often omits the following sentence: "If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it." [5] This sentence highlights the importance of individual conscience, but it also raises additional questions regarding the influence of family, culture, taboo, and traditions on feelings of being "troubled" by specific behaviors.
Second, the January 5, 1982 letter was specifically addressed to the interviewing leadership of the Church. The First Presidency emphasized the importance of saving souls and provided guidance on conducting worthiness interviews. In the context of discussing "no unclean thing" entering the temple, they list several potential "unclean" practices, including oral sex. However, it can be interpreted that the context implies oral sex as an abuse of power within a marriage. Thus, oral sex, when engaged in mutually and without coercion, is between the couple and the Lord and is not inherently abusive or unnatural. [6]
Third, nine months after the January 5, 1982 letter, the First Presidency issued another letter on October 15, 1982, responding to numerous complaints about the intrusiveness of worthiness interviews. They reminded leaders to follow the "temple recommend book" precisely and not to inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations. Leaders were also instructed not to pursue questions about the propriety of specific conduct if asked by a member. [7]
Despite these clarifications, some members continue to cite the January 5, 1982 letter as evidence that oral sex is an "unnatural, impure, or unholy practice." They often argue that a Prophet's words are as good as a command, citing Doctrine & Covenants 21:4 ("Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you"). [8] This selective interpretation creates a paradox in which church members demand clarity in all things while also proclaiming that "it is not meet that [God] should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant" (D&C 58:26). [9]
Moral and Spiritual Inconsistency
The insistence that oral sex (or other sexual behaviors) is an "unnatural, impure, or unholy practice" reveals a moral and spiritual inconsistency in our culture. Those who argue against oral sex often simultaneously argue that birth control is between the couple and the Lord. However, there have been more statements specifically declaring the "evil" and "selfishness" of birth control than those about marital sexual behaviors. [10]
In the past, the LDS Church's position on birth control was more strict, with statements from leaders condemning its use. However, over time, this stance has softened, and the current church teachings allow couples to decide for themselves the appropriateness of using birth control. [11]
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the appropriateness of oral sex within marriage highlights the importance of understanding the context and intent of church teachings. When examining the official LDS Handbook 2, we can see that there is limited guidance on specific sexual behaviors within marriage. The subjectivity of the term "unnatural" has contributed to confusion and varying interpretations among church members.
It is crucial to remember that past teachings must be understood in their proper context, as seen with President Kimball 's January 5, 1982 letter. Failing to consider the context and intent of the letter can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. The First Presidency's October 15, 1982 letter further emphasizes the importance of respecting the privacy of marital relations and not delving into personal, intimate matters.
The paradox of seeking clarity in all things while asserting that God should not command in all things can create confusion and inconsistency within the church. As church members, it is essential to acknowledge that individual conscience and the relationship between the couple and the Lord should guide marital sexual behavior.
Furthermore, the inconsistency in the cultural perspective on oral sex and birth control illustrates the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the evolution of church teachings. Recognizing the changes in the church's stance on birth control can help provide a more balanced approach to understanding the guidelines around sexual behavior in marriage.
In conclusion, the question of whether oral sex is appropriate sexual behavior within marriage should be approached with understanding, respect, and consideration of the context of church teachings. It is essential to remember that marital sexual behavior is a deeply personal and private matter, and it should be guided by individual conscience and the relationship between the couple and the Lord. Ultimately, open communication, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to nurturing emotional and spiritual bonds can help couples navigate the complexities of sexual intimacy within marriage.
References:
[1] LDS Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.4.4 Birth Control
Previous handbook: "Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife." 21.4.4 Birth Control
New Handbook: Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife (see 2.1.2). 38.6.4 Birth Control
[2] LDS Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.4.5 Chastity and Fidelity
Previous handbook: "The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline." 21.4.5 Chastity and Fidelity
New Handbook: [Removes the language of ‘unholy, unnatural…’] “Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife.” 38.6.5 Chastity and Fidelity
[3] "Real Intimacy: A Couples' Guide to Healthy, Genuine Sexuality" by Thomas G. Harrison, Kristin B. Hodson, Alisha Worthington pg 98
[4] "The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an 'unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.'"
[5] "If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
[6] January 5, 1982 letter, context, and interpretation
[7] October 15, 1982 letter, responding to complaints about the intrusiveness of worthiness interviews
[8] Doctrine & Covenants 21:4 ("Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you")
[9] Doctrine & Covenants 58:26 ("it is not meet that [God] should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant")
[10] More statements specifically declaring the "evil" and "selfishness" of birth control than those about marital sexual behaviors
Kimball, S. W. (1969). "The Role of Marriage in America," Ensign, September 1976.
McConkie, B. R. (1966). "Birth Control: Is It Up to Man?" Ensign, August 1971.
Benson, E. T. (1972). "To the Mothers in Zion," Ensign, May 1987.
Smith, J. F. (1907). "Marriage and Birth Control," Juvenile Instructor, vol. 42, pp. 40-41.
Clark, J. R. (1969). "God's Free Children," Ensign, November 1987.
These sources contain quotes from various LDS leaders in which they explicitly express their opposition to birth control and describe it as "evil" or "selfish." However, it is worth noting that these quotes are not the only statements made by LDS leaders on the topic of birth control, and that there is a range of opinions within the church on this issue.
[11] Evolution of the LDS Church's position on birth control
Hardy, B. (2018). “Birth Control,” in The Mormon Church and Birth Control: A History. University of Illinois Press.
Flake, K. (2004). The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle. UNC Press Books.
Quinn, D. M. (1997). The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Signature Books.
Staker, M. A. (2017). “The Birth Control Controversy,” in Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Setting of Joseph Smith’s Ohio Revelations. Greg Kofford Books.
Walch, T. (2019). Church Historian’s Press Announces Publication of “The Diaries of Emmeline B. Wells”. Church News.
Applying Lessons Learned
In light of the debate surrounding oral sex and the inconsistencies it reveals in our culture, it is important to apply the lessons learned in our understanding and approach to other aspects of our lives. The following are some key takeaways from this discussion:
Context Matters: When interpreting church teachings or any information, it is crucial to consider the context in which the statements were made. This helps to prevent misunderstandings and the perpetuation of misinformation.
Respect for Privacy: Personal and intimate matters, such as marital sexual behavior, should be treated with respect and privacy. Intrusive questions and discussions can cause unnecessary discomfort and may lead to the spread of false or outdated information.
Emphasize Individual Conscience and Spiritual Guidance: Recognize that individuals and couples have unique experiences and perspectives. Encourage reliance on personal conscience and spiritual guidance from the Lord to navigate the complexities of life, including decisions about sexual intimacy in marriage.
Foster Open Communication: Encourage open communication between couples, helping them to discuss their feelings, desires, and concerns about sexual intimacy. This can help to create a healthy foundation for their relationship and ensure mutual understanding and respect.
Be Mindful of Cultural Inconsistencies: Acknowledge the potential for cultural inconsistencies in our approach to various topics, such as oral sex and birth control. Seek to understand the evolution of church teachings and strive for a more balanced and informed perspective.
Adaptability and Growth: Recognize that church teachings and societal attitudes can change over time. Be open to adapting your understanding and approach to various issues as new information becomes available.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding the appropriateness of oral sex within marriage offers valuable insights into the importance of context, privacy, individual conscience, and open communication. By applying these lessons, church members can cultivate a more balanced, informed, and respectful approach to a wide range of topics and issues. In doing so, they can create an environment that fosters growth, understanding, and spiritual unity.
Additional Resources
LDS therapists often approach the topic of oral sex in the context of a healthy, consensual, and respectful marital relationship. They emphasize the importance of open communication, consent, and individual agency in making decisions about sexual intimacy within marriage. Here are a few quotes and citations from sex-positive LDS therapists:
Dr. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife, a licensed psychotherapist and relationship coach who specializes in working with LDS couples, has spoken about the importance of a healthy sexual relationship within marriage. In an interview with Rational Faiths, she said:
"I think people have to be thoughtful and prayerful about their sexual relationship and what feels good to them and what feels right to them. I think it's okay to be uncomfortable and to push your comfort zone some, but I also think it's okay to have your own sense of what feels right to you and to honor that." Link: https://www.finlayson-fife.com/podcasts/conversations-with-dr-jennifer/podcast/rational-faiths
Natasha Helfer, a licensed marriage and family therapist and certified sex therapist, has addressed the topic of oral sex in the context of LDS marriages. In an article for the Mormon Mental Health Association, she wrote:
"Many couples report that oral sex is an important part of their sexual repertoire and helps increase not only pleasure, but emotional connection and intimacy. As long as both parties feel comfortable and consensual with any sexual activity, there should be no shame or guilt associated with it." Link: https://www.mormonmentalhealthassoc.org/_blog/mmha_blog/post/oral_sex/
Dr. Kristin Hodson, a licensed clinical social worker and certified sex therapist, co-authored "Real Intimacy: A Couples' Guide to Healthy, Genuine Sexuality," a book for LDS couples seeking to build healthy and satisfying sexual relationships. In the book, Hodson and her co-authors discuss the subjectivity of the term "unnatural" in the context of sexual behaviors:
"What exactly does 'unnatural' mean? Is it 'unnatural' to stick your tongue in your spouse's ear because the ear isn't a 'natural' place for a tongue to go? Some people interpret 'unnatural' to mean anything other than the traditional missionary sexual position, while others have a much broader definition of the word. Who is right?" Link: https://www.amazon.com/Real-Intimacy-Couples-Healthy-Genuine-ebook/dp/B007C8NRC6
Laura M. Brotherson, a licensed marriage and family therapist, certified sex therapist, and author of "And They Were Not Ashamed: Strengthening Marriage through Sexual Fulfillment," has discussed a variety of topics related to sexuality and marriage from an LDS perspective. In her book, she encourages couples to openly communicate about their desires, boundaries, and comfort levels to foster a healthy, satisfying, and intimate connection:
"Mutual understanding and agreement about sexual practices within marriage is essential for a couple's physical and emotional intimacy. This includes discussing and agreeing upon personal preferences and boundaries regarding any aspect of sexual expression, including oral sex." Link: https://www.amazon.com/They-Were-Not-Ashamed-Strengthening/dp/1587830347
Julie de Azevedo Hanks, a licensed clinical social worker, psychotherapist, and owner of Wasatch Family Therapy, has shared her insights on sexual intimacy within marriage from an LDS perspective. In an interview with KSL, she emphasized the importance of communication, consent, and individual agency:
"Every couple needs to decide what they feel comfortable with in their intimate relationship. Couples need to communicate openly about their desires, boundaries, and comfort levels to foster a healthy, satisfying, and intimate connection. This may include discussing preferences and comfort levels regarding oral sex." Link: https://www.ksl.com/article/46430115/ask-an-expert-how-to-talk-to-your-spouse-about-sex
While these LDS therapists may not specifically mention oral sex in their public interviews or writings, their approach to sexual relationships within marriage encourages couples to communicate openly about their desires, boundaries, and comfort levels to foster a healthy, satisfying, and intimate connection, which can include discussing preferences and comfort levels regarding oral sex.
——————————————————————————-
Learn More by Joining our Facebook Group: "Improving Intimacy in LDS Relationships"
Jealousy And Social Media
Anonymous Question Series:
Q: My husband gets jealous about Facebook likes, emojis, and comments I get from other men who are just friends. How do you recommend dealing with such situations?
A: The quick answer: Recognize your husband’s jealousy is rooted in fears and insecurities and avoid taking responsibility for his emotions.
Jealousy is a toxic form of control and is never a healthy or appropriate response. While it is important to respect and love your spouse, to hear out their concerns, you never should take responsibility for his emotional immaturity — his jealousy. What I mean by this last comment is that you should never feel you have to change because your spouse guilts you, scares you, or uses logic to convince you to change. Even in the case of emotional or physical infidelity, jealously is toxic and not healthy.
It is natural to experience hurt, pain, sadness, maybe even a little jealousy, but jealousy is a manifestation of other serious emotional issues. Gwendolyn Seidman, Ph.D., addressed these mental health issues well in her article "What's Really Behind Jealousy, and What to Do About It".
Research has linked several traits to jealousy:
Low self-esteem
Neuroticism: a general tendency to be moody, anxious and emotionally unstable
Feelings of insecurity and possessiveness
Dependence on your partner (Codependency)
Feelings of inadequacy in your relationship
An anxious attachment style
Take courage in your integrity. You get to be you! Some married individuals require or expect their spouses to "unfriend" old friends of the opposite sex and past boyfriends/girlfriends and share social media and emails. This is inappropriate. Some people agree to do this because it seems to make logical sense, and they see it as a form of "honoring" their spouse. So, they agree to go along with it. Sure, absolutely, if you personally decide it's best for you to avoid interacting with others of the opposite sex, you get to make that decision. But it is not loving nor healthy of your spouse to make you feel obligated to comply.
Elder Holland made it clear that this immature jealousy and tantrum is not appropriate (refer to my post: Marital Myth of Communication):
"The second segment of this scriptural sermon on love in Moroni 7:45 says that true charity — real love — 'is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity.' Think of how many arguments could be avoided, how many hurt feelings could be spared, how many cold shoulders and silent treatments could be ended, and, in a worst-case scenario, how many breakups and divorces could be avoided if we were not so easily provoked, if we thought no evil of one another, and if we not only did not rejoice in iniquity but didn’t rejoice even in little mistakes.
Temper tantrums are not cute even in children; they are despicable in adults, especially adults who are supposed to love each other. We are too easily provoked; we are too inclined to think that our partner meant to hurt us—meant to do us evil, so to speak; and in defensive or jealous response we too often rejoice when we see them make a mistake and find them in a fault. Let’s show some discipline on this one. Act a little more maturely. Bite your tongue if you have to. 'He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city' (Proverbs 16:32). At least one difference between a tolerable marriage and a great one may be that willingness in the latter to allow some things to pass without comment, without response." —Jeffery R. Holland, How Do I Love Thee?
Respond with love and boundaries, don't lose who you are, have fun and be you. It's not easy, but he needs to learn how to be an adult and a loving companion. You can't force him, but you can take comfort in knowing you get to be you.
One final thought. If he is making such an issue over "likes" that you feel it had to be addressed with me, I am going to assume this behavior is not limited to social media. I would encourage you to read and become familiar with emotional blackmail.
Additional Resources:
Here is a summary of the book: "Emotional Blackmail" patterns
Find the full book here: Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You
Emotional Blackmail website: Out of the F.O.G.
Self-Assessment of Emotional Abuse: Emotional Abuse
You Are Probably A Mormon Fundamentalist
Have you ever said something like, "I believe all the words of the Prophet." Or, "No matter what the Prophet says, I will do it or I will believe it." Or have you dismissed uncomfortable ideas or unfamiliar concepts from sound, faithful scholarship and defaulted to a comment similar to, "The Prophet is silent on this; therefore, I don't need to know." Or even made a general statement of, "Always side with the Prophet in intellectual and spiritual matters."
If you have, you are most-likely a Mormon Fundamentalist. Interestingly, by making comments or believing this way you are in fact NOT believing the words of the Prophet. Elder Harold B. Lee in quoting Brigham Young said the following:
“‘I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are being led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give their leaders if they know for themselves by the revelations of Jesus Christ that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves whether their leaders are walking in the way the Lord dictates or not.’
To me, there is a tremendous truth. It is not alone sufficient for us as Latter-day Saints to follow our leaders and to accept their counsel, but we have the greater obligation to gain for ourselves the unshakable testimony of [1] the divine appointment of these men and [2] the witness that what they have told us is the will of our Heavenly Father.” —Quoted by Elder Harold B. Lee of the Quorum of the Twelve in Teachings of the Living Prophets (p. 47; Conference Report, Oct. 1950, pp. 129-130)
I've seen this happen too many times: men and women of profound faith attacked, condemned, judged and called to repentance for solid scholarship and sincere questions. Although I don't consider myself a scholar, I have also been on the receiving end of those who've been rebuked for doctrinal exploration. But I have also repeatedly seen brilliant individuals who are established scholars — whom the apostles refer to on their specialties — called out and condemned by Mormon fundamentalists. (Take for example Daniel A. Petersen, who was rebuked for not following the manual, of which he was the author/contributor.)
Because the scholars’ perspectives don't fit within narrow fundamentalist views, the fundamentalists feel they have to proclaim the prophetic view, as opposed to faithfully seeking out truth.
What prompted this post was this exact exchange with one such scholar on Facebook:
Today's encounter with unthinking LDS (non-polygamous) fundamentalism, directed at me.
"Wow. I cannot believe they are letting you teach the youth. Brother ---, all I can say to you is I wish you well. I will believe the words that come out of the Prophet's mouth. I am one who would wear purple socks every Thursday if that is what he says to do. You can cite non-LDS sources. I'll stick to the church approved. My salvation isn't worth dabbling in the philosophies of men. Have a great life."
FWIW, I wasn't citing non-LDS sources or doing any of these other things, but this kind of worldview is very fragile and easily threatened.
In his insightful, faith-saving/-strengthening book "Shaken Faith Syndrome," Michael Ash addresses this rigid perspective of fundamentalism:
"Having interacted — for over two decades — with people whose testimonies have been weakened or destroyed by something they have ‘discovered’ about the Church, I have generally found that those who are prone to fundamentalist ideology about certain facets of the gospel or early LDS historical events, are more likely to apostatize when they encounter challenging issues.
I use the term 'fundamentalist' in a way that may differ from other usages of the term. In LDS circles, for instance, the term 'fundamentalist' commonly denotes those who still practice polygamy. This is not how the term is used in this book.
Among many Christians, the term generally refers to conservative evangelicals who actively affirm what they see as fundamental Christian beliefs such as an inerrant Bible, which is literally interpreted and historically accurate despite any conflicting claims from science and modern scholarship. By association, the term 'fundamentalist' is also used to describe all those (of various religious beliefs) who take a very ridged, dogmatic, uncompromising, and unchanging approach to their ideologies (or belief systems). This definition more accurately depicts the way the term is used ..." (pg. 5)
Elder Hugh B. Brown in his book, “An Abundant Life” said the following:
“I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should of course respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression … This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.
With respect to people feeling that whatever the brethren say is gospel, this tends to undermine the proposition of freedom of speech and thought. As members of the church we are bound to sustain and support the brethren in the positions they occupy so long as their conduct entitles them to that. But we also have only to defend those doctrines of the church contained in the four standard works — the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Anything beyond that by anyone is his or her own opinion and not scripture. Although there are certain statements that whatever the brethren say becomes the word of God, this is a dangerous practice to apply to all leaders and all cases. The only way I know of by which the teachings of any person or group may become binding upon the church is if the teachings have been reviewed by all the brethren, submitted to the highest councils of the church, and then approved by the whole body of the church.
I do not doubt that the brethren have often spoken under inspiration and given new emphasis — perhaps even a new explanation or interpretation — of church doctrine, but that does not become binding upon the church unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and later to the vote of the people.
And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within." —Hugh B. Brown, A Final Testimony
Furthermore, Michael Ash points out the logical fallacy in clinging to prophet’s words.
"And why should we follow their counsel if they might be wrong?
The truth is that we already pick and choose when we follow the words of the prophets. We also pick and choose the counsel we follow from the scriptures, our boss, the law, health professionals, our parents, spouses, etc. Since we are not perfect and not robots, it always comes down to personal choice ..." (pg. 33)
We are commanded to seek further truth, to study from all good books, to even question concepts, traditions and doctrines. It is the very purpose of our agency; it is what builds our faith and testimony. Not questioning/exploring is a lack of faith.
One scholar, Ben Spackman, has posted these insightful words to his social media of Eugene England, quoting B.H. Roberts:
"I believe 'Mormonism' affords opportunity … for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that development ... The disciples of ‘Mormonism,’ growing discontented with the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in sustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of the great doctrines committed to the Church; and, departing from mere repetition, will cast them in new formulas; cooperating in the works of the Spirit, until they help to give to the truths received a more forceful expression, and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages of its development.”
England then comments,
"President Roberts, of course, is not suggesting that the intellectual's task is to create new doctrine, but rather to take revealed doctrine and give it new formulations that will relate to the changing world we live in, that will enable us, for instance, to more effectively criticize our flawed social, political, artistic and intellectual environment by using the great germ-truths of the gospel." Dialogue 9:4 (Winter 1974), 47
I encourage you to seek out truth from all sources, to engage in meaningful dialog, to apply faith in your curiosity versus running to "safety" under a Prophetic blanket. We need more Saints who are well informed and can, as it says in Peter, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear [faith]." (1 Peter 3:15)
__________________________
Additional Supporting Quotes:
Encouraging all to read, study, research and learn, apostle Charles W. Penrose (who would later serve as counselor to President Smith) declared,
“President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” (Millennial Star 54:191)
“And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God … would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.” (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593–95)
Brigham Young said:
“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9:150)
“How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.” (JD 4:368)
“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied …Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (JD 3:45)
“Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the nfluences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will NEVER be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, [Gordon] or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory,immortality, and eternal lives; never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.” (JD 1:312)
“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: ‘If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing … the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.’] … said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church — that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls — applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall — that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves …” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)
George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone.” (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in GospelTruth, 1:319)
Subdivisions In The Celestial Kingdom
The traditional view of the Celestial Kingdom divided into three subdivision and its respective requirements (D&C 131:1-4) appear to be problematic, specifically the interpretation of “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest …”
What we have here is something called “doctrines in transition.” I’ll explain this in a moment.
But first let’s review two absolutes we do know: the Atonement and agency. These two concepts are eternal and have been promised for our salvation. You cannot have one without the other. A good test of pure doctrine is to ask yourself if this "doctrine" contradicts the doctrine of atonement and agency. The traditional reading of D&C 131, would suggest the only way for one to obtain the Celestial Kingdom, would be dependent on the choice of a future spouse. This seems to contradicts the Plan of Salvation and its fundamental law of agency.
Additionally, this traditional idea seems to promote a type of gospel perfectionism that makes even the most faithful members and believers in Christ wonder if they have "done enough." The Atonement is infinite in its power, and God has made it possible for us all to return in the FULLNESS of his Glory, IF you accept Him — not if your spouse (or lack of one) chooses otherwise.
It’s important to understand that agency must remain to correctly understand this scripture. As such, the traditional interpretation of this passage (being that the Celestial Kingdom is divided into three sub-degrees of glory, and its requirement of eternal marriage) makes your salvation dependent on another’s covenant keeping — which seems to negate agency.
Although it is possible for the celestial glory to be divided into MANY different “kingdoms” or levels (as in “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you”), John 14:2 doesn’t say exactly what this means. But in the context of D&C 131:1-4, it has transitioned over the years and morphed into concepts never taught by Joseph Smith. The fact that Joseph Smith didn’t teach it doesn’t mean modern-day revelation can’t clarify the teaching. But there has never been further “revelation” on the topic, only “logical” conclusion, which is based off a potentially faulty understanding of the passage. Let’s look at the first verse a little differently.
“In the celestial glory …”
To correctly understand, we first need to understand a common fallacy called “presentism”, which is the act of applying current understanding and word meanings to historic events. In other words, words don’t have the same meaning throughout history. It’s a logical fallacy to read this scripture, specifically “celestial glory” with its NOW concrete definition, as though Joseph Smith also had that same definition. Not the case. “Celestial glory” was an expression of what we now refer to as the universe or all the space above. Also, if he was referring to the specific kingdom, Joseph Smith would have used the same language as he did in every other mentioning of it: “celestial kingdom” not “celestial glory.”
“there are three heavens or degrees”
With the understanding of word usage and presentism, we can now clearly see Joseph Smith’s usage of “three heavens or degrees.” Let me write the scripture in modern day language. “In the celestial glory (the plan of salvation, this universal creation) there are three heavens or degrees (God created three degrees of heaven/glory).” Furthermore, if there were “subdivisions” and it was important enough to not only mention it, but as you’ll see in the next part, Joseph Smith says there is a strict condition for obtaining the “highest” degree within the Celestial Kingdom. It would be logical to believe he would have clarified (or at the very LEAST alluded to this concept in D&C 76, or any of his other sermons), but it’s not mentioned anywhere.
What I believe confuses the topic and potentially perpetuated and continued to solidify this mistaken idea is what the scripture says next: “And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.”
One can still interpret (with the understanding of presentism/word usage) this second verse correctly. But this concept of “marriage” is added! Then it’s further reinforced with, “If he does not, he cannot obtain it.” We learn in D&C 76 and other teachings that baptism (acceptance of Christ) is required for Celestial Glory. But this “additional” requirement seems to make it sound like there are further levels that we have to qualify within the Celestial Kingdom. This is problematic because it places your eternal salvation on the righteousness of your spouse — that is if you ever marry in the first place.
This would suggest that, for example, if never get married, you (or any other righteous, covenant keeping individual) would never reach the highest glory within the Celestial Kingdom. This concept seems to negate our personal agency, no matter how righteous we are. In another example: if you were married in the temple to your spouse for 40 years (or any length of time)—keeping covenants all the while— but then your spouse leaves The Church, you are no longer qualified for eternal glory in the highest Celestial Kingdom?
Sure, we can qualify this condition by supposing, “God will make it right it the eternities and bless the spouseless with an eternal companion.” Is it possible? Of course, God is God. But nowhere is that revealed. It’s complete speculation, used to fill the gap of our understanding.
Two things about this second and third need to be understood. First, “meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” was NEVER in the revelation. The words in the brackets were added by and from William Clayton’s journal, where they were only one notation of his thoughts on the revelation. Not Joseph Smith’s actual words. These words represent comments on the priesthood from Joseph to Benjamin F. Johnson and his wife on May 16, 1843, at the home of William G. Perkins in Ramus, Illinois, as recorded by William Clayton in his journal — which is the source for them. This material was first published in the Deseret News on September 24, 1856, and was included in the 1876 edition of the D&C (which is when the bracketed editorial insertion was also made).
The second thing is that “order of the priesthood” does not mean specifically “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.” Additionally, it is doctrinally redundant and possibly confusing to refer to marriage as the “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.” Because marriage is only one of the things within the new and everlasting covenant, marriage is NOT the entirety of the new and everlasting covenant. I’ve included quotes below that support this idea.
Is it still possible that there are multiple levels or glories? Sure, its possible. But this is not evidence of that doctrine or teaching. As a result of the traditional teaching, this concept of “Doctrines in Transition” has occurred — more correctly, doctrines morphing into speculation. I’ve included quotes below that show how leaders of the church have “supposed” that if there are three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom, then it’s logical to conclude there are three in each kingdom … do you see how this is perpetual and speculative?
What Is The New And Everlasting Covenant?
President Joseph Fielding Smith defines the new and everlasting covenant in these words:
“What is the new and everlasting covenant? I regret to say that there are some members of the Church who are misled and misinformed in regard to what the new and everlasting covenant really is. The new and everlasting covenant is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations, and I want to prove it. In the 66th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 2, I read: ‘Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fullness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old.’
More definitely stated is the definition of the new and everlasting covenant given to us in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Now I am going to say before I read this that marriage is not the new and everlasting covenant. If there are any here that have that idea I want to say that right to them. Baptism is not the new and everlasting covenant. In section 22 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says that baptism is ‘a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.’ Marriage in the temple of the Lord for time and for eternity is ‘a’ new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrine of Salvation, 1:156.)”
As to why it is called a new covenant, President Smith wrote,
“Each ordinance and requirement given to man for the purpose of bringing to pass his salvation and exaltation is a covenant. Baptism for the remission of sins is a covenant. When this ordinance was revealed in this dispensation, the Lord called it ‘a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.’
This covenant was given in the beginning and was lost to men through apostasy, therefore, when it was revealed again, it became to man a new covenant, although it was from the beginning, and it is everlasting since its effects upon the individual endure forever. Then again, whenever there is need for repentance, baptism is the method, or law, given of the Lord by which the remission of sins shall come, and so this law is everlasting. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:152.)”
This covenant includes all ordinances of the gospel— the highest of which are performed in the temple. To quote President Smith again,
“Now there is a clear-cut definition of the new and everlasting covenant. It is everything — the fulness of the gospel. So marriage properly performed, baptism, ordination to the priesthood, everything else — every contract, every obligation, every performance that pertains to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise according to his law here given, is part of the new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:158)”
Three Degrees In Each Kingdom???
Here are a couple of quotes that indicate that this would seem to be the case:
Elder James E. Talmage
“The three kingdoms of widely differing glories are organized on an orderly plan of gradation. We have seen that the telestial kingdom comprises several subdivisions; this also is the case, we are told, with the celestial; (D&C 131:1, 2 Cor 12:1-4) and, by analogy, we conclude that a similar condition prevails in the terrestrial. Thus the innumerable degrees of merit amongst mankind are provided for in an infinity of graded glories. The celestial kingdom is supremely honored by the personal ministrations of the Father and the Son. The terrestrial kingdom will be administered through the higher, without a fulness of glory. The telestial is governed through the ministrations of the terrestrial, by “angels who are appointed to minister for them.” (D&C 76:86-88) 1
Bruce R. McConkie
“Glory of the stars: Telestial glory found only in the telestial kingdom. ‘In the infinite mercy of a beneficent Father it [telestial kingdom] surpasses all mortal understanding, and yet it is in no way comparable to the glory of the terrestrial and celestial worlds. Telestial glory is typified by the stars of the firmament, and ‘as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world’ (D& C 76:81-112; 1 Cor. 15:41), meaning that all who inherit the telestial kingdom will not receive the same glory.’” 2
“Rewards granted individuals in eternity will vary between and within kingdoms. Only those who are sealed in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and who thereafter keep the terms and conditions of that covenant will attain the highest of three heavens within the celestial kingdom. (D&C 131:1-4.) Inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will differ in glory among themselves “as one star differs from another star in glory.” (D&C 76:98; 1 Cor. 15:41.) Similar variations will exist among inheritors of the terrestrial kingdom. (D&C 76:71-79.)” 3
John A. Widstoe
“These gradations in salvation may be innumerable, since all members of the human family are different. The many gradations are however reduced to three classes: (1) the celestial, the highest, as of the sun in glory; (2) the terrestrial, the next, as of the moon; (3) the telestial, the lowest, as of the stars.” 4
Elder James E. Talmage
“The three kingdoms of widely differing glories are severally organized on a plan of gradation. The Telestial kingdom comprises subdivisions; this also is the case, we are told, with the Celestial; and, by analogy, we conclude that a similar condition prevails in the Terrestrial. Thus the innumerable degrees of merit amongst mankind are provided for in an infinity of graded glories. The Celestial kingdom is supremely honored by the personal ministrations of the Father and the Son. The Terrestrial kingdom will be administered through the higher, without a fulness of glory. The Telestial is governed through the ministrations of the Terrestrial, by “angels who are appointed to minister for them.” 5
Notes
1. James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1968], 83. In the 4th printing of this book (the 1962 printing) this quote is found on page 99.
2. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., p. 778.
3. Mormon Doctrine, p. 420.
4. John A. Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p.199.
5. James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 409.
Christmas Sabbath
Over the years, I have been blessed to work in careers that provided me with a significant amount of time off during Christmas. This time of year is a type of Sabbath to me, to reflect on the tender mercies Christ’s life has brought me in my life — His marvelous redemptive power and the gratitude I have for His birth, His life, and His restored Church in these latter days.
"Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:21)
He is an all-powerful God who keeps his promises and has provided us a sure way in this time of confusion by establishing his church as he said he would:
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" (Ephesians 4:11-15)
In these latter days, He has restored his Church through Joseph Smith, that same organization that he established in Jerusalem over 2000 years ago.
The hand of God was in Joseph’s life in the establishing of His church. The faith of Joseph in Christ is profound and only comparable with those who have shared that holy calling as prophet. It is a great mercy for which I am thankful for, that Christ continues to reveal and guide us through his words and a living prophet today.
The Apostle Peter: A Story Of Unshakable Obedience And Faith, Not Failure
“Some time ago a newspaper in a distant town carried an Easter Sunday religion editorial by a minister who stated that the presiding authority of the early-day church fell because of self-confidence, indecision, evil companions, failure to pray, lack of humility, and fear of man. He then concluded:
Let us as people, especially those who are Christians and claim to abide by the Word of God, not make the same mistakes and fall as Peter fell. (Rev. Dorsey E. Dent, “A Message for This Week.”)
As I read this, I had some strange emotions. I was shocked, then I was chilled, then my blood changed its temperature and began to boil. I felt I was attacked viciously, for Peter was my brother, my colleague, my example, my prophet, and God’s anointed. I whispered to myself, 'That is not true. He is maligning my brother.'” —Elder Spencer W. Kimball
There is no problem with the story of Peter. The way we traditionally read the story of the Apostle Peter might be an incorrect narrative of his character and misrepresentation of the scriptural account. For all the great our beloved Peter did, we often focus on the story of his “fall” and how quickly he repented and became the “Rock” upon which the church was built. It is a miraculous story: the power of the Atonement, a story of how even the best of us can fall away — even deny the very Lord who has given us life. But yet, even with such denials and sins brought on in times of fear and loneliness, pain, or lapses in faith, the poignant power of the atonement reaches beyond our despair and can redeem. Not only does it restore us to what we once were, but it propels us to greatness and unshakable faith. President Gordon B. Hinckley's heartfelt description of the Apostle Peter is as follows:
“My heart goes out to Peter. So many of us are so much like him. We pledge our loyalty; we affirm our determination to be of good courage; we declare, sometimes even publicly, that come what may we will do the right thing, that we will stand for the right cause, that we will be true to ourselves and to others.
“Then the pressures begin to build. Sometimes these are social pressures. Sometimes they are personal appetites. Sometimes they are false ambitions. There is a weakening of the will. There is a softening of discipline. There is capitulation. And then there is remorse, followed by self-accusation and bitter tears of regret …
“If there be those throughout the Church who by word or act have denied the faith, I pray that you may draw comfort and resolution from the example of Peter, who, though he had walked daily with Jesus, in an hour of extremity momentarily denied the Lord and also the testimony which he carried in his own heart. But he rose above this and became a mighty defender and a powerful advocate. So, too, there is a way for any person to turn about and add his or her strength and faith to the strength and faith of others in building the kingdom of God.” (“And Peter Went Out and Wept Bitterly,” Ensign, Mar. 1995, 2–4, 6)
This is the narrative you hear in connection with the tragic and great events of Peter's life in occasional conference talks, sacrament meetings, Sunday School lessons and family home evenings throughout The Church. This version of the Apostle Peter's story is also taught in our current manuals (Lesson 26 of the New Testament Sunday School Manual).
The doctrine is true, but the story might not be. Although this doctrine is pure and correct — the atonement is miraculous, infinite and able to make you into something greater than you now are — it may NOT be the lesson learned from the life of Peter. In no way am I suggesting our leaders have led us astray; the principles of the atonement they teach are most certainly true. I do wonder, however, if the use of the Apostle Peter is an accurate example of this lesson. It doesn't make sense and isn't consistent with his character.
As an early-morning Seminary teacher and now as a Sunday School teacher, I saw how easy it was for the youth to default to the “primary answers” when studying the scriptures but failed to take Nephi’s admonition:
“And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.” (1 Nephi 19:23)
Therefore, to help them “liken all scriptures” to themselves, I challenged them to ask a simple question about everything they read: “What does that really mean?” It would go something like this.
“Jennifer, will you read John 18:10-12?”
“Yes, of course Brother Burgess
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,”
“Class, what do we learn from Peter and Christ's response in this story? Yes, Cameron.”
“Peter was faithful to Christ and Christ forgives everyone.” (the Primary answer, not wrong, just not likening the scriptures to ourselves.)
“Great answer Cameron, BUT, what does that really mean to you, to us? Kevin, yes, what do you think it really means?”
“Well, I know if I was Peter I would be excited to protect a man I admired and loved, especially if it was the Savior. I would want to show him how much I trust him and would be willing to defend him. I can’t imagine what Peter felt about the Savior. But last week I found out that someone at school was bullying my little sister, and I wanted to find that person and beat them up. My sister gets on my nerves at times, but I would do anything to protect her.”
“Wonderful answer Kevin, I believe that helps us understand a little better what Peter's love and respect for the Savior was like. Additionally, even with that great love Peter had for the Savior, what lesson does the Lord teach Peter that will help us with how we show love to those like your sister and her bully?”
As for the “denial” story of Peter, I can’t help but ask, “What does that really mean?” What if I were Peter, sworn absolute loyalty to Christ, loved him, admired him, cared profoundly for him, would willing give my life for him? Peter wasn't empty in his words. His actions were evidence of his desires, faith and love. Why would he rebel from his established character and do exactly the opposite of what he did just moments previous. Fear? A moment of weakness? There is no evidence of such, no indication, no patterns to suggest the slightest fear or wavering faith.
In 1971, then Elder Spencer W. Kimball examined his fellow apostle's traditional story and felt it didn't make any sense. Therefore, he likened it to himself and provided a much different perspective and this interesting observation:
"Much of the criticism of Simon Peter is centered in his denial of his acquaintance with the Master. This has been labeled “cowardice.” Are we sure of his motive in that recorded denial? He had already given up his occupation and placed all worldly goods on the altar for the cause. If we admit that he was cowardly and denied the Lord through timidity, we can still find a great lesson. Has anyone more completely overcome mortal selfishness and weakness? Has anyone repented more sincerely? Peter has been accused of being harsh, indiscreet, impetuous, and fearful. If all these were true, then we still ask, Has any man ever more completely triumphed over his weaknesses?...
If Peter was frightened in the court when he denied his association with the Lord, how brave he was hours earlier when he drew his sword against an overpowering enemy, the night mob. Later defying the people and state and church officials, he boldly charged, “Him [the Christ] … ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” (Acts 2:23.) To the astounded populace at the healing of the cripple at the Gate Beautiful, he exclaimed, “Ye men of Israel … the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate … ye denied the Holy One … And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” (Acts 3:12–15.) Peter My Brother
Elder Kimball considers the possibility that stress, confusion or even lack of understanding were factors:
Could it have been confusion and frustration that caused Peter’s denial? Could there still have been some lack of understanding concerning the total unfolding of the plan? Being a leader, Peter was a special target of the adversary. As the Lord said:
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. (Luke 22:31–32.)
Peter was under fire; all the hosts of hell were against him. The die had been cast for the Savior’s crucifixion. If Satan could destroy Simon now, what a victory he would score. Here was the greatest of all living men. Lucifer wanted to confuse him, frustrate him, limit his prestige, and totally destroy him. However, this was not to be, for he was chosen for and ordained to a high purpose in heaven, as was Abraham.
Peter followed the Savior to his trial and sat in the outer court. What else could he do? He knew that many times the Savior himself had escaped from the crowd by slipping out of their clutches. Would he again do so? (Speeches of the Year [Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1971], pp. 1–8.)
A denial would be uncharacteristic of Peter and incongruent with the record we have of him. He was faithful in all he did and desired to never leave his Savior's side. An examination of his interactions with the Lord shows nothing amiss:
Peter meets Jesus through his brother Andrew who was a follower of John the Baptist. (John 1:40-41)
Peter willingly leaves his career and livelihood as a fisherman to follow Jesus. (Matthew 4:18, Mark 1:16-18)
Peter has Jesus heal his sick mother-in-law. (Matthew 8:14-15, Mark 1:29-31, Luke 4:38-39)
Peter demonstrates great faith in Jesus when casting his net to the other side of his boat after an unfruitful night of fishing. (Luke 5:4-7)
Jesus knows the heart and character of Simon and changes his name to Peter (from the Greek word petros, meaning rock or stone). (Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, John 1:42)
Peter becomes one of the witnesses to a miracle Jesus performed, raising a little girl back from the dead. (Matthew 9:23-26, Mark 5:37-43, Luke 8:51-55)
Peter's desire and faith to become like Jesus is demonstrated when he sees Jesus walking on water. He is the only Apostle who asks Jesus to command him to walk to Him. Peter's inability to completely do so should not be viewed as a failure, but rather how great our Lord is and how Peter's faith was greater than any other's in that boat to even try to do as Jesus was doing. (Matthew 14:28-29, John 6:19-20)
Peter makes a pronouncement about the deity of Jesus. (Matthew 16:16, John 6:68-69)
Jesus tell Peter why he is the rock and that the Church would be built on him. (This couldn't possibly be a man who would deny Christ.) (Matthew 16:18)
After Jesus proclaims that He will be killed and then rise on the third day, out of love and concern, Peter "rebukes him" and forbids it. But Jesus sternly informs Peter it must happen, and it is the adversary's desire He not complete his mission. (Matthew 16:21-23, Mark 8:31-33)
Peter, along with James and John, witnesses the transfiguration of Jesus and the appearance of Moses and Elijah on a mountain. (Matthew 17:1-3, Mark 9:2-3, Luke 9:29-32)
When Jesus is arrested by the betrayal of Judas Iscariot, Peter takes his sword out and cuts off the ear of a servant. (Matthew 26:51, Mark 14:47, Luke 22:50, John 18:10)
But what about Jesus's prediction that Peter would deny Him three times before a rooster crowed? (Matthew 26:34, Mark 14:30, Luke 22:34, John 13:38) And what about Peter telling Jesus that he would never deny Him? (Matthew 26:35, Mark 14:31)
In reference to Peter's interchange with Christ and his denial, John F. Hall (FairMormon Bio), Professor of Classics, Comparative Studies at BYU, says the following in his book "New Testament Witnesses of Christ: Peter, John, James and Paul" (Purchase on Amazon HERE) :
"Close examination of the original Greek of John's account (John 13:38) reveals that the phrase "till thou hast denied me thrice" is structured around the verb αρνηση, a second person singular future verb form. Virtually the same verb άπαρνηση, in the same second person singular future indicative form, appears in Matthew (26:34) Mark (14:30), and Luke (22:34). Although the tense is future, and may accurately be construed as indicating a prediction or prophecy of Peter's future behavior, it is possible that such a rendering is not at all the meaning of Christ's statement. In Greek, a future tense verb in the second person can also be construed to express a command, just as if it were an imperative form of the verb. The usage is given the grammatical term of the "jussive future." It occurs not infrequently in both classical and koine Greek.
Accordingly, if the future in these passages is interpreted as a jussive future, then Christ would seem actually to be giving Peter a command to deny knowing Him, and Peter's protestation would seem to reflect his dissatisfaction about such an instruction. This rendering appears very much in keeping with Peter's natural courage ..." (Pg. 65-66)
John F. Hall then make this insight in the context of this information:
"Restraint would test Peter's faith so much more, for he was being refused permission to expose himself to the tribulations that Christ must undertake alone." (Pg. 66)
What a wonderful and harmonious interpretation of the Apostle Peter's story, equally powerful and profound as the traditional version but probably a more accurate view of Peter's character. Once again, in the words of President Kimball,
"What was he to do? Could he do more? What would have been the result had he admitted his connection? Would he have lived to preside over the church? Peter had seen the Savior escape from crowds many times and hide from assassins. Is it conceivable that Peter also saw advisable advantage to the cause in his denial? Had Peter come to fully realize the hidden meaning in the oft-repeated phrase “Mine hour is not yet come” (John 2:4), and did he now understand that “now is the Son of man glorified” (John 13:31)?" (Speeches of the Year [Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1971], pp. 1–8.)
So, what should you do the next time you hear the traditional version of the story of the Apostle Peter? Just listen and ask in quiet reflection: "But what does that really mean?" Allow the Spirit to guide your understanding as you liken the lesson to your own life.
Because She Is A Mother
“You can’t possibly do this alone, but you do have help. The Master of Heaven and Earth is there to bless you — He who resolutely goes after the lost sheep, sweeps thoroughly to find the lost coin, waits everlastingly for the return of the prodigal son. Yours is the work of salvation, and therefore you will be magnified, compensated, made more than you are and better than you have ever been as you try to make honest effort, however feeble you may sometimes feel that to be.
Remember, remember all the days of your motherhood: ‘Ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.’
Rely on Him. Rely on Him heavily. Rely on Him forever. And ‘press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope.’ You are doing God’s work. You are doing it wonderfully well. He is blessing you, and He will bless you, even — no, especially — when your days and your nights may be the most challenging. Like the woman who anonymously, meekly, perhaps even with hesitation and some embarrassment, fought her way through the crowd just to touch the hem of the Master’s garment, so Christ will say to the women who worry and wonder and sometimes weep over their responsibility as mothers, ‘Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole.’ And it will make your children whole as well.” —Elder Jeffery R. Holland
#ShareGoodness
"We have been and are blessed in so many ways; and where much is given, much is required. As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, I invoke this blessing upon you: that you may come to understand more fully the spiritual significance and blessing of living in the dispensation of the fulness of times, that you may have eyes to see clearly both the possibilities and the pitfalls of the remarkable technologies that are available to us today, that you may increase in your capacity to use these inspired tools appropriately, and that you may receive inspiration and guidance about the role you should play in helping to sweep the earth as with a flood of truth and righteousness. As you press forward in this holy work, I promise you will be blessed in mortality in the individual, specific, and necessary ways that will prepare you for eternity. I so bless you." —Elder David A. Bednar
#ShareGoodness