Goodly Parents
Here’s something to consider when reading 1 Nephi 1:1.
"I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days."
Ben Spackman (a PhD student at Claremont, studying history of religion and science, with a focus on issues of fundamentalism, literalism, creationism, and evolution) provides the following interpretation:
"This is a long-standing argument among a few bloggers, including me. In the first few verses, Nephi explains that, because his parents were ‘goodly,’ he was taught not just to read (very unusual in the ancient world) but to write (even more unusual), and moreover, to write in two scripts or languages (depending on how we understand the ‘Egypt’ reference). That degree of learning is much more dependent upon Lehi’s financial status than his goodness. Context thus favors the interpretation of ‘well-off.’ The (weaker, in my view) counter-argument comes from dictionaries, which don’t list something like ‘well-off’ as a meaning, so it would be fairly idiomatic usage there in 1Ne 1:1.
Read more of Ben Spackman’s thoughts here.
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.
Organization And Culture Of The Gospel
This is a guest post by Amy R. Nelson. Find more of her writings on her blog “They May Be Light” by clicking here.
“And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Luke 12: 29-31)
Every church meeting is influenced by three things:
The gospel of Jesus Christ
The organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The culture of church members
The gospel of Jesus Christ is pure and eternal, and consists of the doctrines and principles that are the pathway that lead us to becoming like Jesus Christ, and thus exaltation.
The organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the manifestation of the gospel of Jesus Christ on the earth in our dispensation. Although the gospel has not changed, the organization of the church has had slight differences through the dispensations. For example: the law of Moses had a very different church organization than the way ours does today. However, the gospel and purpose behind it remains the same. The organization is divinely inspired and is led by the mouthpiece of the Lord (the prophet) and is put into practice by us, the wonderful (but imperfect) members of The Church. Although the organization is perfect, the execution is not always perfect.
The culture of the church consists of the habits and traditions of the members of The Church. Some of those cultural traditions are harmless — like putting carrots in your green jello, or the never discussed but fierce competition to see how many folding chairs you can carry at a time after the meeting is over so you can finally go home and eat dinner (that is, if Mom will ever stop talking). However, the danger of the culture is that some of it begins to be taught as doctrine, which can lead to giant misunderstandings and misconceptions. (Click here for an example regarding the phrase "moderation in all things.") When we, as members of the church, are not diligent in our personal gospel study direct from the source — the scriptures and the words of the prophets — and having our study confirmed by prayer and personal revelation through the Holy Ghost, we are in essence learning the possibly unfounded culture of The Church and not the eternal gospel of Jesus Christ.
In Alma chapter 1, there was a man who "had gone among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God." (Alma 1:3, emphasis added) We aren't actually told what his intent was; he could have begun meaning well. Maybe he was even the Sunday School teacher, but in the end he was teaching what HE termed to be the word of God, not the "pure testimony" (i.e. the doctrine) as Alma suggests to us in Alma 4:19. His teachings were not correct. They were not doctrine. In fact, because it was unfounded in the doctrine, what he was teaching was priestcraft. (Alma 1:12) But "he did teach these things so much that many did believe on his words." (Alma 1:5, emphasis added)
I guarantee you that the many who did believe on his words were not the ones that were sincerely and regularly studying their scriptures (not just reading, but also studying with the intent to learn). They were the ones who were familiar with the doctrine, but not so familiar that the subtle but significant inconsistencies or errors. And those same people, who again may have been well meaning, would repeat that priestcraft to their respective classes and families. And just like that, a church "culture" had begun to be taught like doctrine.
Learning the gospel from the culture of The Church will not be enough to reach exaltation. We cannot let ourselves be satisfied with it. Personal and sincere study of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only way to become like our Heavenly Father.
This was a guest post by Amy R. Nelson. Find more of her writings on her blog “They May Be Light” by clicking here.
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.
Sunday School For The Noisy
If you have kids, a noisy husband or are a nursing mother, this Sunday School class is for you. For the last two years I have had the wonderful pleasure of teaching a Sunday School designed specifically for parents of toddlers. The class is open to everyone, and there is a handful of individuals and couples without kids, but it is structured specifically for those who have active children too young to attend nursery or primary.
My hope in structuring the class is to provide a living room–type classroom experience. Parents are encouraged to let their kids roam and play. If kids become antsy or upset, parents can attend to their needs right there in class. Over the last two years, we have had many diaper changes, crying babies and nursing mothers. All is welcome and encouraged. This is an environment where mothers and fathers never need to be concerned with a distracting child or that they are interrupting others' spiritual experience. We have proven reverence doesn't equal silence.
This Sunday School has been a welcomed refuge for mothers and fathers with young children who have traditionally felt banished to walking the halls or hiding out in nursing rooms when their children have become inconsolable. There is never a need to leave this classroom. Everyone who attends knows what to expect from the environment. Parents never need to be concerned that their fussy baby or roaming child is a distraction to another. Now the foyer couches, hallways and nursing rooms are empty and the classroom is always full. By providing this open, comfortable — and in a lot of ways, safe — environment, I have heard the thankful relief from the spiritually-craving mother who once felt torn from either being spiritually fed or feeding their baby. Now she feels she can do both.
Additionally, class participation is never an issue. I have taught Sunday School on and off for over 15 years, and this is the first time I've actually never encouraged the class to bring or open their scriptures. You'll never need to feel concerned that you'll be caught unprepared or called on to read out of your scriptures. With a bottle in one hand and a baby in the other, my hope is that you will not feel you have to put down the bottle to reach for the scriptures. Therefore, I present every lesson on a screen. Each quote, scripture and video is easily seen by everyone. Even if your hands are full tending to your parental duties, you can follow along, read and not feel you lost your spot in the lesson while tending to your child's needs.
How to have a successful, spiritual noisy Sunday School:
1. Seek the individual needs of the parents.
Pray over each family to understand their gospel needs and how it can be addressed in the lesson.
2. Become comfortable with noise.
Learn how to talk through the noise. Avoid getting louder or waiting till the noise subsides. Getting louder or silencing can make parents feel they are disrupting the class. Do your best to stay on point and continue the lesson as though the noise was not present.
3. Prepare and use PowerPoint, Google Presentation or slide presentation.
Use technology in a meaningful way, but keep it simple.
Refer to my Sunday School Class slides for an example of how to use media in the class.
4. Eliminate shame.
When the idea for the class was inspired, some perceived the class as a form of punishment, where the "Hallway Parents" were assigned to attend. It could potentially even reinforce the idea that parents with children don't belong in "normal" Sunday School class because it disrupts the Spirit. Fortunately, our bishop did a wonderful job at reminding the congregation each week in a loving way that there was this new class designed to meet the needs of those with toddlers.
5. Eliminate shame in class.
Like number 4, continue that love and admiration of your ward family and bring it into the class each week. Be mindful to remind everyone the nature of the class: that they never need to leave with their child or feel bad that their child is noisy.
6. Make the lesson applicable to their lives.
This point is essential for any class you teach, but I believe more so for a class of young parents who are distracted with children. They come for nourishment in the gospel of Jesus Christ. As tempting as it may be to lecture a scholarly presentation with PowerPoint or rattle the lesson off point by point as outlined, don't! I am not suggesting "dumbing down" the lesson. We have had amazing, profound discussions over the last couple years. But remember these are parents juggling kids, listening through the noise and thinking about the week full of activities.
Keep the slides simple but meaningful.
I have found it much more useful to present a thought-provoking 1-4 sentence quote rather than a 10-15 verse reading of the scriptures or detailing of historical events or scholarly perspectives.
7. Make sure you have more than enough room!
This is critical. After a year of a very successful Spirit-filled noisy Sunday School, our ward had a schedule change. We were moved from a large room that was packed each week to a room that was about half its size. We didn't lose half the class; we lost almost all the class. With the room change, if we were to set the class up like a traditional class we could fit everyone in. But doing so would not allow parents space to feel comfortable in letting their kids roam. Parents couldn't stand and soothe their crying kids without being in the way of other parents. As a result, families were again in the halls and nursing rooms. Fortunately, we were able to remedy the issue — the bishop assigned us a new, much larger room.
This has been one of the most rewarding callings I have ever had. Our bishop was truly inspired when he identified the need for a Sunday School class like this. Over the last two years, we have had many visitors who deeply appreciated the class and wished they had one in their home ward. I hope that these ideas can be used to bring a successful Noisy Sunday School class to your ward.
Spirit Guided Life
If there was one thing I could teach my children, it would be to listen and discern the Spirit within their lives, how to embrace that perfect teacher without fear, hesitation or resistance but with excitement, clarity and confidence. It’s one thing to teach them obedience, another to meaningfully understand the lessons of obedience. Commandments would be understood in power, and when commandments are not understood, faith would be embraced and trust in Father increased. They would be able to apply life lessons to all situations, identify falsehoods, recognize wisdom, and not fear the unknown.
Oh, how much time is spent on repeatably teaching what it means to be obedient (in the home, at church, at school and at work), and what it means to be loving in our relationships and human interactions. Although the teaching of obedience is essential in our spiritual growth, I wonder if we miss precious moments to enable our children and loved ones to learn through trial and error. Because we are in a rush or too busy in the moment, we demand obedience and for them to comply, as opposed to establishing a pattern of spiritual insight and learning.
If you have have a teenage son who is overly distracted, frustrated, tired and unable to focus on his homework—and in the hope to teach obedience, responsibility and to just finish that assignment, you become the broken record of parenthood. This only seems to aggravate both child and parent without much success. This can even lead both to resentment, hard feelings towards each other and feelings of failure. The Spirit is nowhere to be found.
Allow them to fail. Unfortunately, it seems to be one of the more difficult things to teach them.
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26)
In these difficult moments, we struggle with the thoughts and perceptions within ourselves of what it means to be a good father or mother. We may be concerned that our child's successes and failures are an indicator of our ability to parent or our own worthiness. Or, we may be driven by the overwhelming feeling of teaching our child the lessons of being responsible at all costs. But I wonder if taking ourselves out of the equation might be the best and most effective approach of all. I learned this powerful lesson on my mission many times and many times again since then.
One of the mistakes I made in my mission was believing I had all the answers and that it was my responsibility to convert individuals. I loved the gospel of Jesus Christ and had a profound testimony of its teachings. It was an absolute joy and passion of mine to bring every investigator all that I had learned, teaching them into conversion. I had every answer and knew how best to present the gospel message to them. It was my calling and my responsibility. Of course I knew it was the Spirit that converted individuals. Nonetheless, I also believed my ability as a missionary reflected on my ability to bring individuals to the gospel. Fortunately the Savior’s atoning sacrifice covered me in this naïve and incorrect belief, and through that mercy I was taught a principle I would never forget.
We were teaching a part-member family. Jeff, the husband and father was the only nonmember in the family. For years, missionaries had visited and taught him the lessons. Jeff was a good man with a heart of gold. By the time I met him, he had had the lessons so many times I am confident he could have taught us every lesson. Nonetheless, it was my duty to convert Jeff. I would teach him the discussion in a way that no other missionary had before. Needless to say, by the end of our discussions no commitment for baptism was made. I struggled with my companion in fasting and prayer. We retaught and retaught and retaught principles and concepts WE believed he needed to hear. Nothing.
Teaching the gospel to Jeff, I regret to admit, was getting frustrating to me. But we had one last brilliant idea. My companion and I had become familiar with a wonderful lecture series on Joseph Smith the Prophet by Truman G. Madsen.
Surely no one could listen to this great scholar and not be converted. We brought these recordings to Jeff and used them in the structure of our lessons. One night, during a lecture we felt was moving and powerful, Jeff appeared distracted and uninterested. This was unlike Jeff. He was always interested and engaged. I believe he even asked for a break in the lesson. This was difficult for me, and I questioned my ability to bring him the gospel message.
It was at least a month later that Jeff invited us back, but not for a lesson. When we arrived, he and the family announced that he was going to be baptized. He explained that earlier that week he escaped to the bathroom from the hustle and noise of the morning when his family was getting ready for work and school. There he felt a need to pray. As he prayed, the Spirit filled his heart and mind and taught him what he needed and, he knew it was time to be baptized. I was both thrilled and humbled. At that moment, he was telling me of his spiritual experience and I was realizing my prayers and fasts were being answered—but not in the way I had expected.
My prayers and fasts were to find ways that I could convert Jeff. In that moment, it was clear I had nothing to do with his conversion. In fact, I might have been getting in the way of the spiritual lessons that needed to be taught to Jeff. My fear, my sense of responsibility as a missionary and the way I was measuring success were distracting from the spiritual lesson. Sometimes the most responsible thing to do is get out of the way. Jeff's conversion was deep and between the Lord and him. He has been a faithful member ever since and currently serves as a bishop in Arizona.
“The Prophet further directed Brigham Young as follows:Tell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the spirit of the Lord and it will lead them right. Be careful and not turn away the small still voice; it will teach you what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their hearts open to conviction, so that when the Holy Ghost comes to them, their hearts will be ready to receive it.
They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits; it will whisper peace and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their hearts; and their whole desire will be to do good, bring forth righteousness and build up the kingdom of God.” (23 February 1847, Manuscript History of Brigham Young: 1846–1847, ed. Elden J. Watson (Salt Lake City: Elden Jay Watson, 1971), 529)
I wonder how often we get in the way of the spiritual lessons that our children need to learn. As a parent, it’s my duty to teach my children how to be successful. But it is equally important that after we have adequately instructed them to provide them an opportunity to struggle and even fail. It is better that their own experiences in their moments of failure be their guide than repetitive parental reminders. Additionally, there is great power in our children discovering that they can succeed on their own. Both in the failure and success we can lovingly remind them and provide an example of how to seek out the answers with the Spirit.
Seeking answers is a process and can even be time consuming. But like Jeff, I have learned the value of stepping out of the hustle and noise to seek peace and guidance from the Spirit. Additionally, instead of fasting and praying about how you can teach your children better, fast to find and recognize opportunities for your children to learn from the Spirit.
Spiritual WOD
Three to five times a week I engage in an intense physical fitness program: Crossfit. This program demands every ounce of mental and physical focus I possess. The 'Workouts of the Day' (WOD's) are usually not very long: 5 to 25 minutes, sometimes shorter, sometimes longer. But each WOD is different, constantly varied, functional movements at very high intensity. The results have been dramatic: significant (healthy) weight loss and impressive strength gains. I have never before felt more fit, healthy, and happy.
Interestingly, however, over the last couple months my performance has declined. This decline can be directly and clearly traced back to my diet and sleeping habits. As I have become more fit, it is immediately noticeable when I veer away from my healthy habits. In the past, I could go multiple nights on 4 hours sleep and carb load. I was in a state of maintaining my illness, with included occasions of severe cold, flu, or sinus infections. I no longer get sick or am constantly fighting off a cold, the flu, or anticipating that yearly sinus infection.
My healthy habits are a JOY to follow, never boring or feeling like I am missing out. Yes, I still enjoy my occasional apple fritter or other choice of “poison,” but after a few bites, I am completely satisfied. There is little to no desire to indulge beyond healthy portions. When I do, it’s because I allow habit to take over or am compensating for a lack of sleep. Sleep deprivation is an enemy to physical and emotional control. Caffeine and sugar are an artificial and immediate but poor and dangerous compensator for sleep too.
But before I diverge too far from the point, I have found a few parallels in my fitness and spiritual journey with the scriptures.
It has been much more effective to have short meaningful scripture study than long indulgent “scholar”-type readings. This could be seen as the “holiday fitness” approach; you know, the-day-after-Thanksgiving-or-Christmas-you-go-and-try-to-burn-off-all-the-calories approach to study. Fitness and scripture study don't work that way. It’s the constant meaningful, joyful and personal sessions with the scriptures that work, whether that means 5 minutes or 50 minutes.
Like being healthy, I know immediately when I have neglected my meaningful scripture study. I long for it, crave it and find a way to incorporate it into my day. I feel and think clearly. However, if I neglect my studies too long, one more day doesn't seem to matter. I find my avoidance behavior increasing. Also, like working out, the longer I avoid my studies the more difficult it is to get back into it.
I have found there are types of quick "fixes" for missing meaningful scripture study that I can become reliant on: music, motivational talks, inspirational quotes and the quick one verse to make sure you get your good thought in for the day. It’s just like caffeine and sugar, neither are bad, but if used as a substitute, they are habit forming and dangerous.
There is no substitute for frequent meaningful scripture study. You cannot “make up” for lost scripture study and spiritual fitness. Make a plan and track your progress. Realize it WILL be difficult starting or restarting a new way of life — that's right, a new life. Be careful not to view your spiritual progress like some unfortunately do with healthy living. Don't go on a diet; make a life change. Make a spiritual change.