Understanding commandments (rough draft)

A rough draft of a submission to Real Intent

Too often commandments look like a crazy quilt of random historical accidents with a few that make sense to us. This essay is about the different types of commandments, how they fit together and how they make sense, even if it doesn’t seem that they make sense to us right now as we look at them.

Commandments do not exist in isolation and they are almost always a sub-set of available commandments that would accomplish much of the same thing.

Introduction.

I am going to start with a list of types of commandments, and then revisit the list with explanations.

• Boundary marker commandments. Sewing blue threads into the hem of your clothing is a good example of this type of commandments.
• Message commandments. These exist to send us a message and help us with reminders.
• Negative boundary marker commandments (avoiding the other side's boundary markers -- in our culture, not wearing a gang's colors when you are not part of a gang might be one of those).
• Sacrificial thresholds -- commitment commandments.
• Improvement commandments -- ones aimed at having someone do better than the culture they start with, such as rules about slaves.
• Guidance commandments -- the changed emphasis on not using tobacco that began to be emphasized by the Church at about the time cigarettes were dramatically changed is a good example.
• Core commandments, but not immediately essential ones (e.g. any ordinance you can receive vicariously).
• Core which you can not avoid (e.g. not blaspheming against the Holy Ghost).

Before I begin with more I need to note that many commandments overlap. Not eating pork is a boundary marker as eating pork at one time connected a person with the worship of particular gods. Not eating pork was also a guidance commandment as certain pork born diseases were common, dangerous and incurable at one time. Circumcision is both a boundary marker (a sign of the Abrahamic covenant) and a sacrifice threshold (a cost to belong) when applied to grown men.

Boundary marker commandments.

These exist to allow a group to identify who is a part of it, who is not, to mark the boundary between a group and those outside of the group. Cultures create these if they do not have other rules, because in order to be a group, a group needs some sort of marker of who belongs and who does not. The blue thread commandment I started with, above, is a good example.

The commandment comes as a part of the law of Moses. The Torah states in Numbers 15:38: "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, that they shall make themselves fringes on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and they shall put on the corner fringe a blue (tekhelet) thread." Wearing the tzitzit is also commanded in Deuteronomy 22:12: "You shall make yourself twisted threads, on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzitzit

Formal clothing, the showing of respect, often is a part of a boundary marker, and the marker changes across cultures. Our culture and the modern LDS Church does not use blue thread to allow people to easily determine who is a member and who is not. It uses other markers instead.

Message commandments.

These are often also combined with boundary markers. They are commandments that send a message or help us to remember things. "Do this to remember that" is often the pattern such a commandment has. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin or phylacteries are a good example from the law of Moses. Wearing Tefillin or binding them on the door posts marks your person or your home as a part of the group. In addition, they are commanded to be worn as a sign or a reminder of things God has done. They send a message of things to remember.

Negative boundary marker commandments.

These are often part of admonitions not to send the wrong message, but they are commandments to avoid marking yourself as part of another group. I've given the example of not wearing gang colors when you do not belong to a gang as the sort of thing that we might have for our day. The New Testament issue of "meat sacrificed to idols" was another one of these commandments that they debated. All of the discussion about modesty is tied up, in part, with the issue of communicating which group you belong to as well. These commandments exist to keep us from marking ourselves as part of the wrong group just as boundary marker commandments to help us mark ourselves as belonging to God.

Sacrificial thresholds.

When people sacrifice or have a price for commitment, they have a greater level of commitment and a greater satisfaction in the commitments they make. It is one of the reasons that people who do not live together before marriage tend to be happier in marriage. Some commandments appear to have, among other purposes, creating a threshold that improves our satisfaction in life and our commitment to God. They usually have other meanings as well.

Circumcision in the Old Testament was a sacrifice, a price for entry. It also was intended to remind people that they were part of a covenant. It combined both purposes.

Another good example of an overlapping sacrifice and other commandment is the one of premarital chastity. Couples who do not have sex before marriage are more committed, happier and less likely to be divorced than those who do not, and one of the reasons is that the level of sacrifice is increased. Sacrifice and commitment has the psychological effect of making people happier and more committed to the choices they make. I believe chastiy has other benefits as well, but it makes a good example because of the amount of statistical evidence that supports pre-marital chastity in spite of all the arguments for the contrary positions.

Improvement commandments.

The easiest example of these are the laws on slavery in the Old Testament. For example, if a slave escaped and reached one of the forty cities in Israel, they were entitled to live free and not be forced back into bondage or discriminated against because they were escaped slaves. The net effect was that almost every slave in Israel was only ten miles or so from freedom. Rather than endorsing slavery, such commandments appear to be aimed at improving the way the culture interacted with slaves.

Christ was clear about some of these commandments, for example when he said ".It was said unto you of old times, thou shalt not kill, but I say unto you that he who is angry" or "...thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you he that lusts in his heart" he is pointing out that the earlier commandment is an improvement commandment, not the final resting place of the disciple of Christ.

“Thou shall not kill” is an improvement over the current status. Looking back, it seems like an awfully low bar. But many, many commandments and rules are that sort of rule that exist to raise the bar, not to set the target.

Indeed, it seems that much of what Christ addressed was the mistake of improvement commandments for privilege or the final goal. Any time the Lord starts with "because of the hardness of your hearts ..." that is not a good sign in terms of seeing the commandment given as anything but an improvement commandment.

Guidance commandments.

In the ancient world, wine was generally about as strong as weak beer. The guidance in the Old Testament is just to not drink wine all day. Why, well, to quote:
To consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine, one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses. That is, in the Old Testament world, drinking wine as they drank it, you would have to drink a lot (twenty-two glasses) to get the effect a modern person might experience in a couple of modern drinks.

More recent guidance, in an environment where wine is both cheap and much stronger, and not needed to make drinking water safe, is to just avoid it as the opportunity for addiction and other problems. With stronger wine, the incidence of such problems is so much greater and the need for wine (in order to make drinking water safe) is much less. The guidance for our times is different than the guidance for other times.

Another good example of a guidance commandment is the Word of Wisdom. It became much more important and focused on as a commandment when the way tobacco was cured changed, in a way that made it much more addictive -- especially as to cigarettes (the acidity change meant that nicotine could be absorbed through the lungs rather than having to be dissolved in the saliva).

Guidance commandments give us guidance that is appropriate to our times, and generally move us towards where we should be. They may or may not also be improvement commandments.

Core, but not essential.

Belief in Christ is essential to salvation. Baptism is essential to salvation. Yet if someone dies without ever hearing of Christ or without being baptized, they can be saved. Proxy ordinances (e.g., baptism for the dead) allow vicarious compliance with such commandments.

These commandments are core to the gospel, but not essential in this life. Think about the implications for the laws and commandments God might give some people in some times. There are commandments and rules that are core to salvation, but not essential for this life.

Thoughts.

It is important to realize that many commandments have their value in that they are a commandment. A boundary marker is useful only if it marks a boundary because all believers obey it. Which boundary marker God commands is not so important as the existence of the marker and obedience. If a boundary marker is ignored by enough people, it ceases to mark a boundary, and everyone is hurt, even if the specific boundary marker is not that significant.

The tzitzit (the blue thread in the hem of the garment in the Old Testament) -- ask yourself: what if God had commanded red thread instead? The tzitzit in red would not have been any less useful than it was with blue thread or it would have been with brown thread -- as long as everyone still followed the commandment. The color choice is not as important as that there was a choice of colors and that everyone obeyed it.

Not wearing wool mixed with linen clothing loses its effectiveness as a boundary marker if only those who can not afford such clothes do not wear them. It also loses its value as a reminder if people are not reminded of its meaning. The flip side, of negative boundary markers, is also important. Consider men who quit wearing their wedding rings. They send a message about which group they belong to. On the other hand, avoiding a pagan butcher has no meaning at all for us in our time.

When Paul writes of the law as a "schoolmaster to lead us to Christ" he is also referring to the value of the law of Moses in keeping the Jewish people from assimilation so that the beliefs could be preserved in order to have the right community for the Christ to be born into. He is speaking of laws that created and helped them maintain a community.

The importance of commandments qua commandments is hard to overstate sometimes. It doesn’t matter that much if you drive on the right side of the road or the left. What matters is that we have picked a side of the road to drive on and that everyone has the same side. Does it matter if we worship on Sunday (as we do in the United States) or on Thursday (as members do in Saudia)? No, but it does matter that we all pick the same day to gather together. If we all show up, willy-nilly at the chapel, on different days of the week, we are much less likely to be able to all worship together.

Message commandments are important as well, especially the message part of them (otherwise they become good luck charms or affectations). We have our own reminders that are easily forgotten as reminders. After all, how many people remember to think of Christ during the sacrament and how many spend the time thinking about other things?

Thresholds and sacrifice are significant, both for the sacrifice and as a marker of who is truly part of the group. Avoiding them causes us to avoid commitment. Avoiding commitment distances us from God. Often these commandments are tied other things or important life events (being faithful in marriage is a threshold, it also has a host of other factors as a part of it). Seeing only one part of them causes us to miss the broader meaning.

 

The Word of Wisdom is a good example. It has costs and it causes us to give things up. It is a boundary marker. It is guidance for our times. It has broader meanings and purposes than just one part or just another.

All commandments are important, and each has reasons -- and most could be replaced by a different set of commandments -- if everyone made the same change at the same time -- and each loses value for all of us for each person who does not abide by them.

The bottom line is that commandments gain importance from obeying them as part of a group that obeys them and they gain in importance in the context of the commandments given in this time and place to us for our good. They gain in value as they are obeyed, for everyone in the Church, as a group as well as individually.

Next time you see a commandment, or even a social more in the church, ask yourself what category it fits into and what is weakened by a lack of obedience to that commandment. Ask yourself, if you like Paul, keep the commandment if for no other reason so as to avoid offending others because of your love for them through Christ. As yourself also the following questions:

• What commandments have proven useful to you?
• Which commandments seem to make no sense?
• How often have you looked at something in the Old Testament and wondered how could God tell someone to do that -- but if you look back you realize that it was an improvement on what they had been doing before?
• How fast do you think commandments and rules can change?
• When Nephi talks about the Iron Rod and the Mists of Darkness, do you think he really means that each of us will have times when we do not understand what good the commandments we have are doing for us?

Funerals

I was at a child's funeral yesterday, at least as long as my heart could take it.  Just part of the crowd.  Like many I had hoped and prayed the child would be one of the very, very survivors of his condition.  After over a thousand medical procedures, just short of two years old, we were at his funeral.

Today was the day after.  I know one of the grandfathers, I still feel for him and expect to for some time.

Adrr.com is down

Not sure what the problem is, other than servers on the East Coast.

Will see how long before it comes up.

Defining Faith

In my experience in grief I often read about how faith affected or effected many things. Faith became a major focus for me and I began to really think about it, since faith is important to surviving grief and loss. One thing that became obvious is that the word “faith” is used several ways, and they do not mean the same thing. I’ve come to realize that confusion caused by the differences in meaning, and the differences in meaning, are both true across the uses of the word “faith” in the scriptures and in our dialog with each other.

 

First, “faith” is used to describe hope or belief. When someone applies for a job and someone else says "I have faith you will get it" they are talking the first type of faith. Alma encourages people to have this kind of faith when they experiment upon the word, to just try to give it a place in their hearts.

Second, “faith” is used to describe the spiritual process by which one reaches through to the other side and connects with the power of God. It involves the first kind of faith, but it is something more (as there is a connection leading to the repeated comments that you can't have faith in things that are not true -- you can have type one faith or hope in things that are not true, but not type two faith or connection to the power of God by hope in things that are not true because you can't connect with them).

Third, “faith” is used to describe experienced based understanding that does not rise to the level of knowledge. I.e. I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning or I have faith that my dog really loves me.

Finally, "faith" is used to describe the calm belief that results from the spiritual process of reaching through and connecting. It is the calm hope and peace that many in grief have following their prayers, it is a result, rather than a process.

In understanding the word “faith” and in using it we need to realize that just as the Greeks had words for different kinds of love (such as erotic, friendly, parental, etc.) we need words for the different kinds of faith in order to understand faith better and to understand what someone means when they use the word and it helps when we discuss faith to be clear on the type that we mean.

Also, it helps to understand that anger interferes with some kinds of faith but not others. In my own life I've found that when I was angry the Spirit couldn't reach me. It came to me as we were studying in Sunday School today and the teacher remarked that Joseph Smith had the same experience of being unable to hear God when he was angry, and that it wasn't until he let go of his anger that he regained contact with God that the same thing was true in my life.

 

As Joseph put it in describing his experience "when the heart is sufficiently contrite, the voice of inspiration steals in and whispers."

I've had many issues as I have dealt with my losses (and seen many others with loss deal with their issues), and when I sought to strengthen my faith. I found that for a short time anger acted as a block to faith and to the whisperings of God. It became an issue for me. Then, when I was contrite, the Spirit began to whisper to me. I still had to rebuild myself. Spiritually I was weakened from the experience, but faith was there to restore me.

Paul warns against letting bitterness spring up, and I am certain that anger is a stem of bitterness, and one that harms our faith, in all the ways faith can be a part of our lives.

• What do you usually mean when you use the word “faith”?
• What other obstacles do you experience to having faith?
• Do you think there are other ways we use the word?
• Can you think of a better word to use than “faith” for some of the things we use the word for?
• Are we better off with just one word for all four types of faith?

Top Five on Tiny Houses

1	How to get around Building Codes and Zoning for Tiny House Living TinyHouseTalk.com publisher Alex Pino and Small House Society President Greg Johnson share their insights. You'll really want to note the cities that are beginning to allow tiny houses to be legal dwellings
2	Have You Considered a Historic Neighborhood for Your Small House? Kent Griswold, publisher of TinyHouseBlog.com explores an intriguing option for those looking to find a spot for their tiny house.
3	House Party Fail Tumbleweed Founder Jay Shafer opines the "mandatory consumption laws" in regards to oversized houses that are largely responsible for our current housing crisis. It's a 3 part series you won't want to miss.
4	Building a Tiny House on a Mountain Laura LaVoie is currently building her tiny house and has shared some very informative information about the building blogging process.
5	Virtual Tumbleweed Contest - Top 10 Finalists Our fans are some super creative folks! Check out our latest Pinterest contest and get some ideas to personalize your own tiny house.

I really think there is something to sustainable and economic living that is worth thinking about. 

More on tiny houses

J.T.'s Modified Walden is the best thing since sliced bread It only takes a couple minutes to see JT's penchant for baking bread revealed in his Tumbleweed. His kitchen is adorned with commercial shelving and his living room blinds are brilliantly made from from Flax linen, known as couche which is used to cradle baguettes when they are rising. Read more... Save 30% on Walden and Lusby plans this month. WORKSHOPS Santa Rosa, CA October 13-14SAVE 25% Sale ends Sep 30 New York, NY October 20-21SAVE 25% Sale ends Sep 30 Minneapolis, MN November 3-4SAVE 25% Sale ends Sep 30 Los Angeles, CA December 1-2SAVE 40% Sale ends Sep 30

Real Intent -- an inspirational new group blog

A Comfortable Dead Watch

My eyes darted across my dresser one last time as I rubbed frantically at my left wrist. Where was it?! I could not leave without it, but the clock on the wall was fairly shouting that I was going to break my word if I did not go right then. I would have to choose between wearing a watch and being on time. I set my teeth and left watchless.

Today's post by Bonnie.

Visit.  Read some more posts.  Be inspired.

On being forever broken

I work very hard at trying to be positive.  At looking for good and for hope.

Often, I am certain, I annoy those closest to me by seeing positive things that may not be there. I often focus on the trends that are rising or improving, in myself and in others, in reasons to be positive. 

When I'm sick I try not to burden others with it.  Usually, with a little medicine and some rest, it will pass.  Sometimes it doesn't (ok, I admit, it took me almost three years to go in to see someone about an inflamed rotator cuff.   It took less than a week of following the advice I got for it to go away).

It that regard I have to admit that I also see the negative.  I am not unaware that there are counter efforts.  I see my own failings and hear them.

That is, because, in my heart I am certain that I am permanently broken.

Some of that is real.  When I heard in grief groups that the pain of the loss of a child stays with you forever, it did not really sink in.  You cope and you recover, but the loss remains.  My three girls, Jessica, Courtney and Robin are with me in the change of the seasons and in every evolution of my life.

Some of that is just a personal failing because I can not improve fast enough, understand quickly enough, meet other's needs well enough, be enough.  Part of that is multitasking, as I think through and put things together for work in my mind. I often spend an hour or two before work fitting things together in my mind.

Some of that is a lack of aptitude, though I am getting better at mechanical things with practice.  So many areas of my life I lack aptitude.

Some of that is wasting time with reading or television equivalents (more reading -- I admit, I read essays and on-line material instead of watching television) or games.  I'm probably consuming about ten hours a week on that sort of thing, in recreation that I really do not need.

But much of it is that we are all broken, which is why we all need Christ.  Without him we are forever broken.  But with him, our hope is not in vain.  Our sorrow is not forever.  The negative can be overcome.

By and of myself I am nothing.  But in Christ I have hope that does not fail.  Forever.

On hearing different things from the Spirit

There is an old joke.

If four people read the same scripture without the help of the Spirit, they will get four different interpretations.

If four people read the same scripture with the help of the Spirit, they will get five different interpretations.

The glimmer of truth behind the joke is that if the scriptures are meant to be likened or applied to ourselves, and each of us is different, God will give each of us a gloss that fits the scripture to our needs and lives.

That is much like my asking for a google map to Plano from Dallas and you asking for a google map to Plano from Fort Worth.  Each of us will be getting a map from the same source, and each of us will have the same destination, yet each of us will get a different map.

In addition, there may or may not be a deeper truth (the fifth interpretation) that applies and that we can learn together and share together.

I try to keep this in mind when I realize that other people are getting other messages from the Spirit of God.  They have different needs, directions, intermediate goals and lives than I have.  Of course they might well hear different things.

Of course, like the new Apple IOS ^ map to Mordor, they just might be getting the wrong message too -- or I might.

My not quite absence from the Bloggernacle

Some of you are a part of the Boggernacle and you may have noticed I'm not commenting as much as I used to.

 Part of that is because things have been very busy. But part of that is that my handle and my e-mail address trigger spam filters all over.

Thanks to some people at FMH, I discovered why. Someone has been, err, "kind enough" to post for me, using terms and links that generate spam filter captures (when I've been lucky) or intervention by moderators.

As a result, both my handle/name and my e-mail address have become linked in filters.

 I've done two things.

First, come up with a different e-mail address and dropped my handle.

Second, I have somewhat decided to stop posting, at least for a while, at sites that do not require validation of ID -- something I rather dislike (it is just one more hurdle for posting). But I'm not fond of finding out that my name has become linked with racist slurs and foul, Joycian, language.

Also, I have been doing is linking to posts I really like in my facebook account. Posts such as http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2012/09/bmgd-37-3-nephi-8-11/ which give me a replacement for the Sunday School lessons I miss due to my calling I've been calling out in gratitude weekly.

I'm still working on what to do next. But if you've missed me, don't assume RAEBNC applies -- I'm just not getting through -- and it is not your fault. You didn't cause it, you don't control it, and I'm not sure there is anything I can do about the troll I offended.

At least it gives me more time to walk the dog. ;)

Miscellaneous updates

Blogroll Updates

I've been going through my bloggernacle blogroll, deleting everyone that no longer links back to my site or that is completely dead.  If I've deleted you and you think it is a mistake, contact me.

A few blogs I link to are now closed, to me as well. I'll delete them next if I do not work through the permissions thing.

Blogging Updates

I am going to step back a little from blogging.

Robin

Ah, I still miss you.  Most of what I had to say I said on Facebook.

Prior Posts

The one on mediation today, managed to change its update.  I'm not sure what is up with the code I used.  However, the correct link is LawComix: If Jack in the Box franchised Mediation Centers: Scribble-in-Law Archive

This is the link that I had before, have not the slightest idea why it updated to the currently displayed one.

I'm deleting the post that was there before.

Other

My oldest daughter's wedding, getting through the anniversary of Robin's death, Rachel starting at a school with help for her specific disabilities, and getting a dog (hey, first time I have had a dog for me, sot to speak), that has all occurred in real time, on Facebook. 

Grief

I realize they say it never ends, but the reality is, it never ends, only grows more etched by time.

I am still working out what that really means.

Following the advice of Brigham Young

When I was first at BYU, Spencer W. Kimball gave a talk that stayed with me ever since.

He worked off Brigham Young's comment "I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for them

selves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security." and implied that blind obedience would lead us straight to hell.

This post reprises that, in the best of ways.

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2012/08/who-said-that/ reprises it.

 

The post fits well with:

 

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.

The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: “I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please.” This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: “If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.

In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:

“Know this, that every soul is free
To choose his life and what he’ll be,
For this eternal truth is given
That God will force no man to heaven.”

Again I thank you for your manifest friendliness and for your expressed willingness to cooperate in every way to establish good will and harmony among the people with whom we are jointly laboring to bring brotherhood and tolerance.

Faithfully yours,

Geo. Albert Smith [signed]

This letter can be found in the George A. Smith Papers (Manuscript no. 36, Box 63-8A), Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. More detailed information on this topic can be found in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19:1 (Spring 1986), 35-39.

Love and Hate

"love the sinner, hate your own sins" -- I like that, since we need to love ourselves and we get more mileage out of getting the beams out of our own eyes.

Fits with the LDS meme "don't judge me because I sin differently from you."

The final (word on) prophecy

By: Stephen Marsh

August 9, 2012

So, what do we know about prophets?  What is the final word on prophecy?

So far, in previous posts I have covered:

• What they will tell us.
• How to listen to them, a typography of the things they say.
• Understanding the themes that are each prophet’s mission.
• How to become a prophet. [Scroll down]

This post is on how prophets prophesy and how the word of God is transmitted from God to man by prophets.  The final word, so to speak, on prophecy.

Some context — prophets in the scriptures

There is the classic, prophet in the mode of Moses version “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” — one that we are told, over and over again is atypical for a prophet and which made Moses special.

More normative are events such as when Peter had his vision that led to gentiles being accepted as members of the Church. Peter was faced with an issue, there had been back and forth, there was a policy in place (no gentiles), he had a vision, and then they had to work out what it meant and the full implications (circumcision not required after all).  That was a process that involved several different levels of revelation, follow-up, clarification and focusing.

Interestingly enough, his first response to the voice of God was to disagree with it “not so.”
Even more common seems to be events such as found in Luke 24:17-21ff.   The apostles had been told things by Christ himself (or had read the scriptures), completely failed to understand them, pondered them, and eventually found enlightenment.

Or Phillip and the Eunuch, where Phillip is told to go to a place, but thereafter works from inspiration.

The pattern

The general pattern is that there is a problem, God speaks, men do not understand, the inspiration is clarified, then they have to work out the implications on their own, with more struggle and concentration on the issue.  Without the reason to face the issue, it seems rare for God to speak (e.g. it went a while for gentiles to be allowed to be baptized, until there was an active reason.  Circumcision issues took some time to work out).

What is striking about many examples is that the prophet involved starts off saying “no” or going in the other direction (Saul of Tarsus anyone?).  God speaks, and like with Jonah, encounters resistance.  There is revelation, but the meaning of it still has to be worked out and developed.

More modern examples

We have some more modern discussions, since Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and others talked about the process.  They talked about how they, like the apostles, were limited in their understanding of God’s words by the weaknesses of their language, their knowledge and their context.  God may be speaking, but they were the ones listening.

Further, they engaged in the process of refining what they understood and what it meant.  Revelation would often go through drafts as they worked out just what it meant, prayed and pondered about it.

What that means for us

First, a preface, so to speak, then specifics.

In preface, I would note that we have a huge administrative burden in the Church and that we have a competing chorus of voices on almost every issue and many, many issues.  It is easy to think that there is an issue or a problem, it is (a) the most important, (b) there is only one side, and (c) there is nothing else any where near as important.  I suspect that not more than 4-5 people in each stake feel that way on a monthly basis.  With 2946 stakes at the end of 2011, that is probably not more than ten thousand people a month who have something they want to say.

Specifics

• Generally, you should expect each prophet to work with their theme.  Historically, that has been true, though Spencer W. Kimball seemed to pick up new themes every time he almost died.
• Generally, you should expect prophets, seers and revelators (such as the first quorum of the 70) to be very engaged in the day to day administrative revelation related tasks of the Church — calling new bishops, new stake presidents, new mission presidents and dealing with related issues.  Over 350 missions, with each president serving three years, means over 100 mission presidents to call and train each year.  350+ to supervise.  I would not be surprised if there were a thousand stake presidency members (presidents and counselors) to call and train each year (that is only about 300 presidencies a year or about 10% a year, it is probably more).
• Generally, you should expect refinement once there is revelation.  I know, you would think that if Christ himself were talking to Peter or John, face to face, day to day, for more than a year, they would get the point without needing refinement, but we are so modern, we probably don’t need as much time, feedback, exposure or refinement?  Maybe not.  We might even need more.  I think it is worthwhile to keep Peter and Paul and their trials and conflicts well in mind when thinking about prophets and the transmission of the word of God to us.
• Generally, you can move prophets to action by moving God.  There is a well documented methodology for it.
• Expect to start off not completely clear on what God is saying or what the important parts are.

What do you think?  Is there something I have missed on what we should expect?

My Wheat and Tares Proposal about an on-line edition of the Ensign

Six ways to bring the Ensign Magazine into the 21st Century

By: Stephen Marsh

July 27, 2012

There has been a lot of talk about having more meat, more depth, yet not excluding people nor rendering church publications less accessible.  So, why not have an expanded version of the Ensign on-line to provide more depth, and to have an on-line presence worthy of the modern world?

After all, the church is working on an app, at least one for tablets, if not phones.  So starting with that, not just an app for the same content, but what if there was real meat put on-line to expand the Ensign every month, to make real use of the potential of an on-line venue?
If there was, I’d suggest that the following things could go in the on-line addition to expand the material that is in the print edition, and to provide substance — six things:

• Some history (articles along the lines of Margaret Blair Young’s By Common Consent post on Jane Manning James or otherwise — real, in depth history)
• some expanded gospel doctrine lessons (along the lines of the series of Gospel Doctrine notes Julie Smith has been posting at Times & Seasons — real, solid, in depth expansion of the lesson material)
• a couple historical sermons in their complete text (instead of excerpts as we get in the “Teachings of” we could have two worthwhile sermons from history).
• a policy/practice reminder — but more formal/structured than the print edition versions  along the lines of the yearly or so article on how mental illness is not sin and is cured by doctors, not faith; — articles such as:
  • how failure to pay child support [or taxes, etc.] renders someone unable to get a temple recommend;
  • how to deal with verbal abuse;
  • how if there is violence in the home you need to flee the situation in most cases;
  • how the Church 12 step program works;
  • how depression related suicide is the result of illness, not moral weakness;
  • how … (you get the idea — and can probably suggest topics).
• “I have a question” — bring back the old column.
• A forum for discussions of the additional material.

What would you like to have added to the Ensign on a monthly basis — especially if page count was no longer an issue (as would be the case with an on-line edition)?
Do you think the idea of more depth, in a centralized location, is a good idea to draw people into a deeper approach to the gospel or do you think it wouldn’t be worth the effort?
Would you submit an article if there was a broader and deeper Ensign available?

In the World You Shall Have Tribulation

But I don’t think God gives us trials. He doesn’t have to. This life is set up that we will naturally encounter plenty without needing any extra helpings from Him.

Read the entire article.  Just click on the linked text to get there.

We need to remember that life is not about comfort, and conversion is not about ease (link to another great essay).

Donations worth making

Ok, I believe in limits, and my donations are not your donations, but if you wonder what I think is worth donating to this week ...

• HIV Fundraising
• Peace and Collaborative Studies Network
• Feminist Mormon Housewives (donate button is missing?!)
• Dallas Museum of Arts.

Otherwise, see my Wheat and Tares blog post on limits and living with them as they relate to the personal themes of religious leaders.

Robin, I miss you.

 Robin, I miss you. There is no place on earth I can find heaven.

Just stop it ...

That is a message to myself.  I've just survived another 4th of July, another year of transposed emotions and dates.  Another year without Robin.  Closing on another anniversary of when I started what is now called a blog in September of 1997.

I've decided to rededicate myself to not being cranky.  To giving people the benefit of the doubt and following the advice to "stop it" from conference.

This topic of judging others could actually be taught in a two word sermon," he said. "When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring,ridiculing, holding grudges or wanting to cause harm — please apply the following: Stop it!"

That is good advice.

I used to read Alma, Chapter 5, and apply it to myself.  It is a grand and glorious call to repentance.

Most recently I've had call to reflect how each of us is both like Nephi and like his brother Lemuel.

Actually, the other one says something that might have been perfectly true and honest:
“The Lord maketh no such thing known to us.” 

If Nephi and Lehi assumed everyone could have a vision like the ones they had, and if Laman and Lemuel simply weren’t visionary people (like the VAST majority of people who have lived and live now) . . . 

We judge people so easily when we have so little information from which to reach our conclusions. I have had some amazing spiritual experiences, but, to this point in my life, I also can say honestly that, “The Lord (so far) maketh no such thing known unto me (in that manner).” Therefore, I would say I’m a combination of Nephi and Laman in a very real way. 

That is well worth pondering.

I don't have advice for anyone else right now, just myself.

I need to take today, take the gift of another year, and do something good, something kind, something patient.  I need not to return harshness, but to seek Christ again, to turn my heart.



I have a long way to go.  I'm afraid that I have not made the progress I should have made, but I hope that I can, this year, embrace the advice to just stop it and instead embrace life.

But I am grateful for another year.
 

Misc. Comments about FARMS, etc., from around the Bloggernacle

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2012/07/apologetic-activism-occupy-your-own-self/

My response was eaten by the spam filter, eventually released (thanks guys!). 

All I said was that I generally agree with the author of the essay, but because such appeals tend to get lost in the background noise.  Otherwise, I was lost by the comment that  http://www.followtheprophet.net/ is beyond the pale and "King Put" references.  I feel as if I'm in a different world.

Guest Post: Why I Find Developments at the Maxwell Institute Concerning

The comments are as interesting as the essay, though not, in all cases, as thoughtful or respectful.

The Odd Couple: Story and Community

"a fatal error or a brilliant accident is yet to be seen"

Roslyn Welch is an interesting writer.   Many of the comments seem to miss the point.  The level of hostility is interesting.

What the heck is going on with the Maxwell Institute?

• http://www.clobberblog.com/?p=4467
• http://www.clobberblog.com/?p=4481
• A Change Would Do You Good

A series of essays addressing the Maxwell Institute/FARMS.  The author sides with those who fired Peterson, but provides a lot of information.

An Acceptable Prejudice?

On anti-LDS/Mormon prejudice in academic circles and how well accepted it is.  I think it is important for understanding FARMS reception outside of LDS circles.

Oudenos

Finally, revisiting Nibley, in context and out of context. Part of the problem with the essay is how hostile it is to many people's citations to Nibley.  That rubs off, I think without meaning to, on all sorts of things as the comments show.

Still: "Nibley himself pointed to the constant need for reappraisal of academic work" -- including his own.  The "post was about the (ab)use of Nibley, not Nibley himself or his work."  I think most of the fire the post draws comes from the title of the post.

That is my round-up for the week.  I mention Nibley because FARMS, in part, started with copies of essays of Nibley's that had gone out of print, including the unmatched Bird Island essay.

More on tiny houses

If you dream of a tiny home, but aren't sure where to start on your journey towards building your own, then join us at a Tumbleweed Tiny House Workshop, where you will gain knowledge you will need to build and design your very own tiny home. These workshops, created by Jay Shafer, founder of Tumbleweed Tiny House Company and expert in tiny house building and design, will revolutionize the way you think of space. Our two day Tiny House Workshop will teach you insightful and extensive information that you will need to build and create your very own tiny house; from picking the proper trailer, to selecting the materials you need, to helping you choose the right tools. The Tiny House Workshop is where you will learn all the detailed information on tiny home building that you can't learn anywhere else. You'll meet many other people just like you - concerned about the environment and the way we live. Read more...

Choose one of these plans and get workshop tickets for just $99. NEW VESICA Plans: Regularly $695 Sale Price: $295 Plans + Workshop $394 SEBASTAROSA Plans: Regularly $695 Sale Price: $295 Plans + Workshop $394 EPU Plans: Regularly $859 Sale Price: $559 Plans + Workshop $658 TARLETON Plans: Regularly $859 Sale Price: $559 Plans + Workshop $658

©2012 Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. All Rights Reserved

Affirmative Action Follies and truths

Wherein I don't take the usual approach in such a discussion.

My daughter was four years, varsity, on the rifle team in high school.  In her junior year, a number of guys in the high school ROTC program started complaining about how a girl had stolen a spot from a deserving guy by means of affirmative action.

One of them made the mistake of saying so in front of the colonel, who was pretty laid back, all in all.  The colonel marched him 25' in one direction and my daughter 25' in the other and then, standing in the middle, rather loudly explained to the young man that my daughter was on the team because at that distance she could reliably shoot the pupil out of his eye prone, kneeling or standing.  The young man could not even see a pupil at 50' and ... Well, the grousing stopped.

But you will discover similar follies, and many companies encourage them.  Recently I know an about to graduate engineer who interviewed with a company.  They had announced they were hiring five people, four open slots and one dedicated to hiring a female engineer.  The two female candidates were rather rudely treated by the male candidates.  One of them took the time to chat up secretaries and others, having arrived early.

She discovered that the company makes that announcement every year, and has for some time.  In fifty years they have never hired a female engineer.  They only hire female secretaries and janitorial staff.  They never hire as many people as they say they are hiring either. 

Why would they say otherwise?  I know from friends in HR and headhunting that there are two reasons for that sort of behavior.

First, if you announce a larger set of openings, you get better quality applicants, people who are very qualified, but who don't want to waste their time applying if the hiring slots are few.

Second, if you announce affirmative action goals, the people you do not hire are not upset with you, they blame the "Black guy" or "the Girl" for stealing their job and just by having stated affirmative action goals you will get a lot less negative trouble from the job applicants you did not hire.

If you've ever wondered about Justice Clarence Thomas and his hostility towards affirmative action, it stems from experiences like that, combined with the fact that when he accomplished anything people would credit it not to his ability, but to affirmative action (consider his admission to Yale law school where he was in the top half of the class -- how often have you heard that he only got into Yale because of affirmative action?  Yet, statistically, Blacks perform below the statistical indicators.  Which means, more likely than not, if he was in the top half at Yale, his LSAT/grades on his application put him in the top 25% or so of those who were admitted).

Reprising, that company, referred to above, they did not hire "a Girl" this time either.  They just outsourced some abuse and hostility to the female applicants.  Last I heard, both of the female engineering students they interviewed are still looking for work.  Still getting a good deal of hostility from male engineers too, since they are sure that the "girls" are not working as hard and having an easy time of the job market compared to the "deserving guys."

Oh, I'll bet that none of the grousers can shoot the pupil out of someone's eye at 50' either.  Bet they would complain about a "girl" being on the rifle team if they tried to get on and failed.

What makes arguments about women and the priesthood flawed.

Many of the arguments people put out in favor of women and the priesthood resolve to sounding like "I just want the change to exercise unrighteous dominion too." (I am not saying that they are making that argument, I'm saying that they sound like that argument).


For example when people write about wanting to exercise power or influence, they will trigger the following thoughts:

No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

So when someone writes that they feel powerless without the Priesthood, and want to be able to exert power and influence, they will have that scripture sounding in the echo chamber of the minds of those who hear them. If you state that you want the priesthood to exercise power and influence, you've just stated that you (in accord with D&C 121) are not entitled to it, e.g.:

to gratify our ^cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ^ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men,

The problem is that not only do you need to make an argument that is not saying that, you need to make an argument that does not sound like that either.  If your argument sounds like that is what you want (regardless of what you mean), you immediately create that semantic contamination of your argument or reasons.

The same is true of "I serve enough, I just want to serve in a better scope."  That sounds like "I just want to be important."  Elder deJager of the 70 had as his first calling putting up the books after Sacrament.  At the time he was a relatively important executive with a large company.  His response was not "I want a more important job."  Instead, he served with diligence. 



Christ washed the apostles feet to drive hope the point that it is about service, being the servant of all, rather than about being important.  If you are going to make any argument about the place where you serve rather than serving more, you will face serious semantic contamination and echos of pride in the semantic contamination you create.

The same comes when blessing babies comes up.  Already leaders are being counseled not to push fathers aside when it comes to ordaining sons or blessing babies, about taking steps to make sure men are involved and can be allowed to participate (the reference to battlefield promotions in the recent conference was part of a call not to shunt fathers aside).

That sounds very much like "I want to push men aside and take over."  Now, even when the need or desire is "I just want to participate" or "I hate being excluded" it is very easy to get the message contaminated with the one "I am pushing others aside and alienating them."

The same is true of the "I deserve it" and "I should be part of the hierarchy" argument.  Something that Hopwood and other litigation has pointed out is that much of affirmative action consists of taking people from privileged backgrounds and giving them precedence over people from trailer parks.  That the lead plaintiff from Hopwood was a white woman from a trailer park who was being excluded ... or that every time class issues are introduced to go with other affirmative action steps (the idea being that those from poor and lower class backgrounds are obviously suffering more of the effects of discrimination than those who are wealthy ...).

Consider the first "woman of color" to teach at Harvard Law School.  Blond, blue eyed ....  Now running for the senate in a state near you.  There is a huge issue where it appears to be more of a class struggle and one that ignores and insults the female members of general boards who are in some sort of quasi general authority status.

Combining an insult with something that rings of class warfare will, again, create unpleasant echos.  Especially since the Church continually has to war with class issues.  I still remember in the LDS Serviceman's stake in Germany when a general authority said he had interviewed every worthy high priest in the stake.  Turned out that the list he had been given was only of officers who were high priests.  No matter how otherwise worthy a man was, if he was enlisted, he wasn't truly "worthy."

All of that said, am I coming to a conclusion on the arguments, the conclusions or the future?

No.  Just because someone makes a bad argument, or a good argument that sounds like a bad one and is easily confused for one, does not mean that the position they are taking is a bad position.

So, what am I saying?

I am saying that if you want to make arguments, provide analysis, or be persuasive, you need to do the following:

1. Avoid arguments that are contaminated by sounding like other arguments.  There are some very specific claims, arguments and approaches that sound very, very much like arguments that are (to the listeners) self-refuting (see the above).  i.e. structure your arguments to clearly not be the contaminated ones, but instead to be saying the alternative (e.g. "I don't want to push men aside, but I want to be able to participate).
2. Avoid arguments that are basically insults or expressions of pride (e.g. "I serve more than I feel like, but I would rather be in control and have the chance to really exercise my abilities than do something like pick up the song books.").
3. Avoid arguments that show an ignorance of culture and structure.  (e.g. denying the existence of female board members vs. discussing that the status and existence of female board members does not have meaning for people outside of Utah).
4. Start discussions in places where everyone is in accord.  E.g. President Hinkley used to stress that the Church needed more leadership and participation from the women in the Church and a common problem that has been with us is men who misunderstand the priesthood and insist that women should not ever exercise any leadership or participation on an equal basis, to the extent of banning women from giving prayers in Sacrament meetings.  A way to move forward on the goal and overcome the problem is ....

Anyway, until things are discussed in those terms, and in those ways, most of the discussions contain within them the seeds of their own failures.

One thing I want to see happen is people express their ideas and positions in ways that are not contaminated by sounding like reasons and arguments that resonate as reasons not to give someone a fair audience -- to avoid hearing them.  Too often the debate is carried out in terms that create automatic rejection (kind of like the political candidate who ran on the basis that it was his turn to share in the stream of graft he was certain he had been excluded from).

That at least would get us to a civil and rational place where what people meant to be saying was heard.

Why women want the priesthood -- a poll

Everyone speculates, but at Wheat and Tares we are asking our readers for answers:

• I don't want the priesthood silly -- my husband told me so.
• Of course I want the priesthood -- do I have to have a reason?
• I want equal power and influence, so I need equal priesthood.
• I do not feel as if I am asked to serve enough, I need the priesthood in order to serve more.
• I want the priesthood so that I feel included.  I'm the right social class and have the right professional background, but without the priesthood I'm stuck like all the men who are the wrong social class and won't progress in the leadership.
• I feel disconnected from the Church and my family and the priesthood would help me feel more connected.

I got thinking about what Hawkgrrrl had to say earlier and so I thought I'd just ask.

For reference, this is what she had to say:

While we’re speculating on priesthood, I think a sociological argument can be made that priesthood service ties men to families and makes them feel needed in ways that they otherwise might not.  In Spain, most men would spend their evenings in the bar with other men leaving the women at home to raise the kids, but when they joined the church, they became more family-centric and spent time serving others and supporting their families because it was their priesthood duty.  Women already had a family-centric existence in that culture.  If women also had the priesthood, it would reduce their reliance on men for those things.  A role separation model may be more effective at creating family bonds (creating mutual reliance and respect for each other), improving the way men treat their families and others, and provide more support to children on the whole across large groups of people.  Obviously, that’s more of an 80/20 principle – suitable to 80% of society, but not others.

In this sociological model, both motherhood and priesthood are duties and service provided to others, not gifts God gives to an individuall. But E. Oaks didn’t say that.  It’s my own slightly more palatable spin on what he said.

And, of course: http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/08/17/mormon-org-faq-women-priesthood/

Christ Washing the Disciples' Feet

Artist	Tintoretto

Obviously her reflections took more than just a simple line on a poll.  I expect that your reflections and real reasons, for or against wanting the priesthood will take more than a simple line.  My thoughts would be influenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_washing and by http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/06/07/addenda-female-healing-lorenzo-snow/ but I want your thoughts, not mine.



So, if you are a woman, tell me why you do or do not want the priesthood and why.  I want honest, both pro and con (you can do silly as well, my poll had that as an option, but I'm hoping for more).

Thank you.