Easter weekend

I read this article today about the unexpectedness of the events of Easter and it totally connects to my post on the resurrection from over a year ago. Read 'em both! ;)

God's open arms

I read a wonderful article "on being surprised by God" (you should read it) where the author made the point that "God is more liberal in His views and more boundless in His mercies than we are ready to believe or receive" (Aaron R.).

This is a concept I began to believe in an abstract way through my interactions with others. Watching someone live a truly GOOD life outside of "the true church" you can't help but feel that God is more liberal than we often assume Him to be. That His heart and His arms are more inclusive than we anticipate.

A few years ago, my family was discussing a relative (a brother of my grandmother) who was a wonderful and honorable man -- a man my dad and all my uncles looked up to and admired -- who had left the church. My uncle surprised me by turning to me asking if I thought a man like this would be excluded from the Celestial Kingdom. In that moment, recalled in my mind a lesson from an institute class, where we had attempted to figure out the percentages of those that would be saved using the scriptures (for example: more than 50% of those born on earth die before the age of accountability [most in infancy] so we are already seeing the majority saved!) and with that in mind I responded "I think God will save a lot more of us than we give Him credit for." My uncle smiled and agreed with me, and it wasn't too long after that I had that validated in my mind and heart again. I was reading Stephen E. Robinson's book Following Christ and I came across the parable of the diver:

“Many years ago, when I was somewhere between nine and eleven, I participated in a community summer recreation program in the town where I grew up. I remember in particular a diving competition for the different age groups held at the community swimming pool. Some of the wealthier kids in our area had their own pools with diving boards, and they were pretty good amateur divers. But there was one kid my age from the less affluent part of town who didn’t have his own pool. What he had was raw courage. While the rest of us did our crisp little swan dives, back dives, and jackknives, being every so careful to arch our backs and point our toes, this young man attempted back flips, one-and-a-halfs, doubles, and so on. But, oh, he was sloppy. He seldom kept his feet together, he never pointed his toes, and he usually missed his vertical entry. The rest of us observed with smug satisfaction as the judges held up their scorecards that he consistently got lower marks than we did with our safe and simple dives, and we congratulated ourselves that we were actually the better divers. “He is all heart and no finesse,” we told ourselves. “After all, we keep our feet together and point our toes.”

“The announcement of the winners was a great shock to us, for the brave young lad with the flips had apparently beaten us all. However, I had kept rough track of the scores in my head, and I knew with the arrogance of limited information that the math didn’t add up. I had consistently outscored the boy with the flips. And so, certain that an injustice was being perpetrated, I stormed the scorer’s table and demanded and explanation. “Degree of difficulty,” the scorer replied matter-of-factly as he looked me in the eye. “Sure, you had better form, but he did harder dives. When you factor in the degree of difficulty, he beat you hands down, kid.” Until that moment I hadn’t know that some dives were awarded “extra credit” because of their greater difficulty. . . . ."

“Whenever I am tempted to feel superior to other Saints, the parable of the divers comes to my mind, and I repent. At least at a swim meet, we can usually tell which dives are the most difficult. But here in mortality, we cannot always tell who is carrying what burdens: limited intelligence, chemical depression, compulsive behaviors, learning disabilities, dysfunctional or abusive family background, poor health, physical or psychological handicaps—no one chooses these things. So I must not judge my brothers and sisters. I am thankful for my blessings but not smug about them, for I never want to hear the Scorer say to me, “Sure, you had better form, but she had a harder life. When you factor in degree of difficulty, she beat you hands down.”

"So, enduring to the end doesn’t have much to do with suffering in silence, overcoming all life’s obstacles, or even achieving the LDS ideal (“pointing our toes” and “keeping our feet together”). It just means not giving up. It means keeping—to the best of our abilities—the commitments we made to Christ when we entered into the marriage of the gospel. It means not divorcing the Savior or cheating on him by letting some other love become more important in our lives. It means not rejecting the blessings of the atonement that he showered upon us when we entered his church and kingdom." (Stephen E. Robinson, Following Christ: The Parable of the Divers and More Good News [Salt Lake city: Deseret Book, 1995], 34-38.)

Comprehending and appreciating this means seeing that God really is aware and accepting of the trials and difficulties of our lives, and that while this doesn't change his expectations of us and for us, it does make Him much more merciful that we often think of Him to be. (Or are ourselves towards others. 1 Samuel 16:7 "...the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.")

I came to believe this in a more real and personal way through my own experience of God's mercy. The author of that first article wrote that "being surprised by God is part of the process of repentance" and I can testify to the truthfulness of that statement (Aaron R.). It has been in the moments following my mistakes, the ones that leave me asking "who am I to do something like this?" and feeling as though I could never reclaim my former self, that I have, through repentance, been surprised at how easily I am forgiven and how quickly I am able to return to a full spiritual life. God's mercy has surprised me. 

In Matt 23:37 the Savior laments "...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings but ye would not." I think at times we "would not" because we think that in our sinful state (in our "messy house") we cannot be gathered. And while "we ‘have every reason to believe Him to be’ a certain way because we inhabit a world that is laden with false assumptions or misapprehension about God’s purposes or plan.  The gospel is a call to enter into a covenantal relationship within Him in order that He can reveal Himself to us, and through that process disabuse us of those false notions.  In that process, there will be moments when we realize that God must be a ‘very different individual from what [we] have every reason to believe him to be’ " (Aaron R.).  

These will be the moments where we are surprised by how open God's arms really are. 

communal fellowship

I just read a little article on the sacrament and it reminded me of what I wrote in another post about how salvation is rooted in others – in relationships – in LOVE.  The end of the article states that Christ used the temple to illustrate "a communal fellowship of love" and that:

"If this interpretation is right, and I think it is, remember this when you next take the sacrament: it is not the emblems that are really holy and they themselves are not the symbols of Christ; instead, it is the ritual partaking of this festal meal with friends and family, regardless of status, that is the real memory of Jesus. It is precisely in this sense that the eating and drinking brings us to union with God."

It again illustrates the collaborative nature of the gospel. We are save as a body, as a people gathered together, as Zion.

to say yes in face of fear

“I was reading an issue of MEN’S JOURNAL magazine. The lead article was “100 Things To Do Before You Die.” On the list were things like climb Mt. Everest, parachute from a plane, hand feed a shark, etcetera. I skimmed the other things they suggested should be on everyone’s list. I had no desire to do even one of them. Then I thought is there anything I *would* like to do before I die that I haven’t done yet? 

Hypothetically if someone is living fully, they’re doing what matters (or is important) to them whenever and however they can. There’s something dubious, even pathetic about having to make lists of tasks to do before you die so in doing them, you can be sure you will have really “lived.” The Japanese say “live every day as if your hair was on fire” and within realistic bounds, that sounds about right. Most of the time we know almost as soon as a situation arises whether we will regret not doing it afterwards or not if we say no. We also know most of the time that despite our many fearful, well behaved inner voices telling us not to do something, that we should ignore those voices and go ahead and do it. Because when we do and it works, it makes us bigger and life richer. If it fails, we hurt for a while but then heal and move on. 

You don’t need to climb Mt. Everest to have led a fulfilled life. You only have to have the courage, and usually it is only small courage, to say yes. Say yes and do something when your first, second and third instincts may be to say no because that frightens me." 

--Jonathan Carroll

Why?

Please make time to listen to this Radiowest program -- it is marvelous. An engaging conversation by some inspiring, thoughtful individuals.

It's all about asking "why?" (my favorite question).

to speak or not to speak

I happened to read this article today, and while I feel that the author makes some good points, I need to take exception to her conclusion. I can't help but be reminded that it has always been by slow revelation, inspired by the intense and long-standing pressure of critical questions, that an answer is sought and revelation comes. If this is true of individuals, why not of the church as a whole? In which case, isn't it important for those of us with questions/concerns to voice them?

I certainly don't support disparaging church leadership, and I wouldn't want to participate in it, but I teach persuasive writing for a living, so I whole-heartedly believe in the importance of appropriate arguing as a way to advance understanding. I try to steer my students away from the idea that an argument is a fight or debate. Instead, I encourage them to see argument as process and a product-- as the development of a stance as well as the result (of inquiry, research, and truth-seeking discussion). In fact, in its very essence, an argument is an opportunity for exploration and exchange -- for the broadening of perspectives by all those who are involved.* With this definition, isn't it possible that we can respectfully disagree and question our leaders? Especially since "the assertion that revelation is either totally true or totally untrue is still a false dichotomy: We simply do not believe, as Mormons, that we must accept all scripture and prophetic teaching as equally inspired, and we have no doctrine of prophetic infallibility" (England).

It is because of questions, concerns, and doubts that we can learn to rely on personal revelation -- to search out and know for ourselves.

 The things of God are of deep import and time and experience and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind O man if thou wilt lead a soul into salvation must search into and contemplate the darkest abyss and the broad expanse of eternity, thou must commune with God. (TPJS, 137)

If as a people we are encouraged to question -- too seek out truth and the deep things of God-- it seems entirely reasonable to me that this practice would then lead to questions concerning church policy and concerns with cultural traditions. And I don't think this is a bad thing; a difficult one perhaps but:

God apparently uses such a unique and uniquely troubling test because it is the only way to teach us something paradoxical but true and very important about the universe—that trust in our personal experiences with divinity must sometimes outweigh our rational morality. Obedience to the divine commands that come directly to us must sometimes supersede our understanding of earlier commands if we are ever to transcend the human limitations of even our best inherited culture and religion. We must learn, sometimes very painfully, to be open to continuous revelation. We must learn such a lesson partly because truth and history are too complex to be reduced to simple, irrevocable commandments—even from past prophets—like "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt always have only one spouse." Truth is ultimately "rational," but it is not always or immediately clear to our present reason (England). 

But I guess the question remains... while it is okay to disagree with church leadership, at what point do you have to bite your tongue and follow the advice here not to "air our grievances in public" and to instead "dissent like a general authority" by simply praying for change and not letting it affect church membership?

Is a letter like this too far? Or... is it just far enough? My friend Tracy thinks so:

In church last Sunday, the age-old comment as brought before the class. "Being critical of leadership is the first step to apostasy." Am I, by disagreeing, criticizing men/women called of God? Are we then, to accept the infallibility of our mortal and flawed leaders? We are all men. We are all born to make errors. Is it not possible that one such error might be made by a man in a leadership position? 

The letter to President Dalton does not show scorn or anger. It shows that President Dalton may not have taken her comments into a deep enough consideration for peoples of the world of whom she has no knowledge of. It also calls her to consider another point of view, hoping to help her to understand the struggles and trials of other's experiences, experiences that she has clearly not experienced.

So I ask: Have you come to any place of reconciliation with this issue?

Here's what my brother said when I asked him:

As times change, so do cultural norms, expectations, understandings, etc. The church, as we know, is not immune to change. Policies, leaders, organization, and so forth change as well. But how can that be? Since God is the same yesterday, today, and forever? How can his church not be the same yesterday, today and forever? I'm not going to say much about that here, however, it would do us good to remember (as Joseph Smith said) that in proving contraries, truth is made manifest. In examining and proving the apparent contradictions of an ever-changing church that belongs to a never-changing God, we find reconciliatory principles and truths.

Think about "disagreement" with church policy. 20 years ago, if you disagreed with something, there wasn't much you could do. You could talk to local leaders. You could write a letter to church HQ. You could try to persuade family and close friends to your point of view. But other than that, you didn't have many outlets for complaining about your disagreement (unless you were a published scholar, in which case there were likely established mediums for hosting these types of conversations). 

However, the advent of the internet has ushered in an entirely new era of democratized thought. Anyone can publish anything they want. They might spend 6 months researching their thoughts, or they might spend 6 seconds. The playing field is level. Who's to say which voice has more weight in an argument? It's a kind of mob rule. You can find whatever voice you want to listen to … "we have all gone astray, everyone to his own way"(Psalms 139).

I think this democratization brought about by the internet has led people to think that church is a democracy, which it's not. And I think we have to accept that. Sure there's room for suggestions and what not, but I would say most of the time you're the one that has to change, not the church.

It's like with that recent article about how much the church brings in in tithing and the members have no good documentation or reporting of what is being done with their money. Some people think there to be more transparency in how the church operates. What is happening with all this money? where is it going? isn't there some kind of "annual report" that will tell members where the money is going? Without reporting and documenting, it's too easy to have corruption. People laundering money, giving favors to others, etc. So, makes sense to have proper reporting right? But then again, that's not what tithing is about. It's not about giving your money to the church and then getting a report in return that informs you your tithing was used to feed a homeless person (which makes you feel good inside). It's about faith. It's about saying "here's my money Lord. I don't need to know what happens to it" because God doesn't need your money. He just wants to see if you'll pay it. What happens to it at that point doesn't matter. Paying tithing and seeing what happens with it is like making a charitable donation and getting a report back to see where and how your money was used. That's obviously not what tithing is for.

If everyone starts thinking they can say whatever they want whenever they want and are empowered by the publishing tools of the digital age, then I think that's a move towards anarchy and decentralized power, which the church is not founded on.

I think most of the time it's about biting your tongue. I'm probably one to be a lot more submissive about the actions of church. Actions and policies of the church cause me to do a lot of reconciliation with the gospel and our implementation of it here on earth.

If you believe in "appropriate arguing as a way to advance understanding" that's fine. If you want to disagree with church leadership, that's fine too. But I think it's just too easy now-a-days for everyone to run to the internet where they think they'll be heard and only cause more confusion with misleading facts and petty arguments that everyone will see.

At what point can you speak your mind and at what point do you bite your tongue? Only you can know that. And it's most likely that you'll choose one or the other and find out later if you made the right choice or not. Hopefully, at that point, you'll repent and do better next time. That's how we learn right? **

I think this is a great perspective -- especially the idea of biting your tongue as a choice of faith in the Lord and His church AND speaking out when you feel you must.

I believe that obedience and self-sacrfice -- two of the most basic principles of the gospel -- at times require that we reign in our ego, our personal integrity, and what I think I "know" and just obey. So, how do you learn to draw the line between trusting your experience with divinity which leads you to be disagree and also being obedient? It's a contradiction, so I know there's got to be something deeper to be learned through it...

So I asked more people, including my friend Marlee:

I don't mean to be a politician about this but I agree with both sides. FOR ME I don't know that there is a point where I bite my tongue and only pray for change, or a set point where it is requisite for someone to publicly dissent. It all depends, and the rule I WOULD set for myself would be to follow the spirit. If you twisted my arm and forced me to set a point when I felt you should ALWAYS publicly dissent it would be when someone is preaching false doctrine. A Sunday School teacher, a Bishop. We should take ownership of our faith, know the doctrine, distinguish it from culture and tradition, and when leadership strays from established church doctrine they should be stopped.

That being said I want to say why I LOVE what Bonnie Blythe said is that she redirects people to the source of all truth and revelation; God. Too often when people see a need for change in the church they go public, maybe they want to change the minds of fellow church members, or maybe church leaders. As if the members were at the head of the church, as if the leaders were at the head of the church. Not that there isn't a place for that, those changes are part of the process. But more concerned with change being affected, I'm concerned with the fate of individuals who don't air their grievances with the one person who actually IS at the head of the church. The one person who cares most about them and their concerns. The one person who has REAL power to affect change in HIS church. They fail to take issue with him and at best the miss an opportunity for relationship with Deity that could lead them to greater faith and miracles, at worst their faith fails them in the face of so much contradiction and opposition and they remove themselves from the spiritual safety God provides for his children within his church.

Change is less likely to come if those who see a need for it, leave because they don't have the faith to first ask for it and then patiently wait for it. 

Whatever the case may be personal relationship with God is paramount, and that's what prayer is for.

I think she is spot on in saying both are right -- that's what makes this such a challenging paradox and why I think just getting different viewpoints/feelings on both actually makes the best kind of "answer" to this balancing act. We can learn from each other  and each decide for ourselves how we will face each individual instance of speaking up...or not.

I guess for me, it comes down to what I have experienced and how it has give shape to my testimony on different concepts. For many issues I am willing to bow out when I don't fully understand them or lack experience in an effort to understand them. I will trust the church/my leaders with the knowledge that God will not fault me for my obedience to His servants when the truth isn't clear. Besides, if I haven't felt guided by the spirit in any particular direction, who am I to say I know the answer better than those who have stewardship over me? However, if it is an issue I have prayerfully studied and meditated on -- and have received personal revelation pointing me somewhere -- and the occasion arises when I can defend or clarify this for someone else, then this is the time I feel validated in speaking out. Though, I must admit, I do need to pause more often to prayerfully ask if this is the case before jumping into things headfirst.

With all that in mind, I'd like to end with how my dad responded: 

 I don't know that one will ever come to a unchanging position on this matter. Mine seems to be always changing a little as I learn and understand more. Certainly patience and faith are the lights we must use to probe into the darkness. I see nothing wrong with having a dialogue on subjects of theology outside the "revealed" word. That helps us understand and opens our minds to new possibilities. To simply fold our hands and wait, is not reasonable for us or to God. After all, we all should be searching for the "further light and knowledge he has promised to send". That said, public displays of rancor and criticism of church leaders seem never to be appropriate. As Paul said, 'Be kindly affectioned one to another.... as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." (Romans 12:10,18).

I think the idea of approaching God, instead of man, is also entirely reasonable. I wish more of us would do that, on all subjects. I will give you an example. During the preparations for the Olympics in Utah, Pres. Hinckley announced that the Church would take certain actions in support of the festivities. I don't remember what it was, but I didn't think it appropriate. I thought, "Well, I can send a letter to the Brethren (which probably would not make much difference) or I can just accept it as a "Church" decision. Neither seemed satisfying. So, I decided to take it to the Lord, as he was the one in charge ultimately. I prayed to the the Lord and told him my concerns and left the matter with him. A couple days later, Pres. Hinckley announced that the Church would not proceed with its original intentions. Now, what is one to draw from this? Did my prayer make a difference? Well, you can draw your own conclusions. The Lord hears our prayers and answers them. More than ever, I realize now that we can go to him, that we have a direct line with the man in charge.

*Of course, for it to be effective argument, all parties have to listen carefully and try to understand the divergent views of others – in order to consider all points of view, even those with which they disagree (This includes being able to reconstruct the arguments of their opponents because they understand it so well and are able to then consider and frame their claims as a response to what others have said while remaining respectful, courteous, & open‐minded.)

**I want to highlight that I wrote back to him, asking about his statement: "I would say most of the time you're the one that has to change, not the church." I responded with: I agree with that in terms of a lot of things, your example of tithing being one… but what really got me thinking about this issue is things that have been happening lately with women's rights, along with my experiences with friends struggling to find a place in the church in light of their homosexuality. I don't necessarily want to tell the church what to do (I HAVE NO IDEA and I'm glad it isn't my responsibility to be totally honest) but I am concerned about people who feel that they can't fit in the church (even if it's due to cultural rather than doctrinal reasons) when the gospel (and therefor the church) is supposed to be for everyone. 

The First Great Commandment

You really should listen to the whole thing... but if you don't have time, just listen to the last half. You won't regret it.