"Temple Worship and Temple Worthiness"

Read this article, Temple Worship and Temple Worthiness. It introduces a new way of experiencing the LDS temple endowment, where the ceremony can be:

"...a progressively unnerving reminder of how inadequate we are, how miserably we fail to live up to our sacred commitments, what a fallen world this is and what fallen and vulnerable and exposed creatures we are. And then we should experience the spiritual relief wash over us as God, on the basis of only tokens of our effort and of our having even accepted the impossible commitments in the first place, accepts us, embraces us, lets us into His presence, gives us a place of rest, considers us worthy. The failures of our lives, ritually reenacted in the temple by our acceptance of obligations we know we cannot and will not and do not live up to, inevitably propel us toward an encounter with God in which our unworthiness to stand in His presence is manifest and inescapable, a state of unimaginable vulnerability. And yet we are taken in, and once in His presence, despite our unworthiness, we desire to stay."

Feeling "blessed"?

I wanted to share this exchange (as well as the article within it -- be sure to read that!) and solicit feedback from anyone willing.

This is an email from my brother, sent to my whole family:

I had a discussion with a friend on our way to Twin Falls on Saturday and he was saying, essentially, that with paying tithing and other such commandments you are bribed with blessings in order to fulfill it. The idea is that God reinforces positive behavior with temporal wealth. “Oh well if you just are obedient and do what you're supposed to you'll be rich, successful, and happy.” This is further perpetuated with the “Book of Mormon” cycle thats taught in primary and sunday school.

Im curious what you guys think about this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-dannemiller/christians-should-stop-saying_b_4868963.html#

My dad's response:

That is a very difficult subject that is wrapped in all kinds of truths and lies. Unfortunately, statements commonly made, cliches spoken, phrases used do not always convey the reality of the truth. Trying to sort through them all can be an exercise in futility. What is a person meaning? What are they trying to say? Am I interpreting it correctly? Difficult. 

I am not sure we can know how God blesses us. As Christians, it seems to me that we must acknowledge several things;(1) we are nothing, (2) God blesses us in many ways, all of which we are unworthy of, (4) as we are "blessed" we are obligated to help one another, (5) God's blessings come to ALL, righteous and unrighteous, (6) anything that is good comes from God,(7) we must not expect God to bless us as we believe he should,(7) God offers no guarantees in this life, his are all in the next, (8) God does bless us in his own way and in his own due time.

My response:

I agree with what Dad says! But I also want to respond to your points more specifically. 

As far as what you and your friend talked about, it is something that has arisen out of the shift in how/why we teach obedience. Old School christianity was all about “hellfire and damnation” and you were obedient in order to avoid that. Now-a-days we’ve shifted from obedience to avoid damnation or punishment to obedience in order to receive blessings. Neither is BAD but neither are particularly good/helpful either — and each carries a lot of baggage in the form of setbacks and misunderstandings. I think it’s milk before meat kind of obedience. Like when you’re a kid and you obey your parents to avoid punishment or to get rewards, because you don’t understand the reasons for the rules yet or why you parents set them. 

Ultimately the best reason to obey is love. Our love for God changes the desires of our hearts and inspires us to actions in accordance with His will i.e. obedience. 

The attitude of everything that is considered “good” being a “blessing” (including material wealth as indicated in the article) I think just arises out of the Christian culture of obedience for rewards. It’s not the best way to teach obedience… but we have a tendency to do this with EVERY topic (i.e. guilt you into doing it or encourage you w/rewards: think about your last lesson on service or modesty for example). To truly "teach obedience" what we SHOULD be teaching is the Atonement. The more anyone understands who Christ is and what he did the more these other things tend to fall into place.

Anyone have anything to add?

The Personal Essay

Eugene England commented on the value of the personal essay in the foreword of a book of his own essays:

Ten years ago I became interested in the personal essay as a separate art form. I had already been writing personal essays for ten years and had published others’ essays in Dialogue without thinking much about the particular literary and religious strengths of the form. But in studying Mormon literature of the nineteenth century and then analyzing what many Mormon writers of my generation were doing that might be part of a recognizable literary tradition, I became convinced, as I wrote in a review of the first anthology of Mormon literature, that the Mormon heritage “shows to best advantage in various forms of personal witness to faith and experience, genres in which the truth of actual living, of quite direct confession, is at least as important as aesthetic or metaphorical truth, [such as] diaries, letters, sermons, lyric poetry,… autobiography,… and increasingly, the personal essay” (BYU Studies, Spring 1975). Since that time the Mormon personal essay has indeed increased in availability and conscious quality.

This collection is an attempt to show by example what the resources of the personal essay can be in a Mormon’s search for self and community. (Dialogues with Myself)

I definitely have found a very strong sense of self and community through reading articles and blog posts online as well as essays in books. (For example, England's book referenced above. [so good!]) It's part of why belonging to a faith community is valuable (and how "folk doctrines" can actually be a positive thing!)

There is a lot of power in the personal essay -- it's part of why I write about things here actually; I have been blessed to read the thoughts and testimonies of others and had the spirit witness to me of the truth and power in their expressions of their thoughts and experiences -- and I hope to pay it forward in the same way. It's good to be reminded that there is a community of fellow-saints out there in the world struggling and staying faithful as I am.

So, all that being said, there's a collection of essays called Why I Stay: The Challenges of Discipleship for Contemporary Mormons (editor: Robert A. Rees) that I stumbled across randomly while perusing some LDS articles online during stake conference (whoops!) a few weeks ago. The first essay was available to read in the free kindle sample and I loved it -- so I bought the whole book! I wish I had the self-discipline to write a little piece about every essay, because each one is unique and wonderful... but since I don't, I'll just say this: they all had many similarities, as we face many of the same challenges as Mormons in our current society, but they each also had their own unique tone and personality. Each resonated with me in it's own individual way.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK AND EVERY ESSAY IN IT.

We all have our different considerations for "why I stay"(or don't stay) and I think how we answer that question is always changing. This collection of essays does beautiful work as a resource in a Mormon's "search for self and community."

Anyhow, like I always tell my students -- to be persuasive, don't just TELL... you need to SHOW. So in order to show, I am going try and do at least one post about one essay soon (it not only resonated with me, but taught me a life-changing concept and included a beautiful hopeful prayer for the future.) Stay tuned!

having a cause

“A quiet secluded life in the country, with the possibility of being useful to people to whom it is easy to do good, and who are not accustomed to have it done to them; then work which one hopes may be of some use; then rest, nature, books, music, love for one's neighbor — such is my idea of happiness.”
― Leo Tolstoy Family Happiness

Today my roommate and I saw a very interesting documentary. This post isn't the place to get into what it was about, but while we were talking about the film at lunch we discovered there was one line in it that jumped out at us both. It more or less stated that whatever you think is the most important cause in the world right now is the one you should be working at (and if you aren't, why not?!) It struck us both because, while we both have strong feelings and opinions on many world and societal issues, there isn't really one grand cause in particular that we feel particularly well-suited to make much of a difference in (based on our individual abilities and influence). I don't mean this to sound defeatist. I also don't want to downplay the AMAZING work being done by incredible civic leaders and inspired activists, many of whom start out as unqualified as I am, or the need to be involved in larger community causes. I just want to explain how the limit to my influence, which limits what I am able to actually DO, actually inspires me -- but in a very different direction.

I know it goes against the assurance of the american dream that anyone can do anything they work hard for. I know it goes against the idealistic motto that with God all things are possible. It's not that I don't see the reasoning behind these ideas and agree with them to a degree -- it's just that I'm also a bit of a realist and when it all comes down to it, I understand the limits of my capacities, my context, and that God's will often involves me operating within these constraints. And I don't see this as a bad thing.

Bigger causes often seem more important than those that are on limited and more intimate scale. But but small in scale doesn't equal small in influence.

I started of this post with that quote by Tolstoy not just because it is also MY "idea of happiness"* but because it is also my idea of my cause -- of my purpose and source of satisfaction (which ultimately contributes to happiness). I don't have the ethos to affect change on a grand scale. I do have a little bit of credibility however with a few close friends and my immediate family. These are the ones I can influence for good in a just cause. Within my small circle is good I can do, unique to my abilities and the particular conditions of the situation. There is useful work that doesn't change the world at large but does affect the world of those around me. There is love to be nurtured with individuals for whom that love can be life-shaping.

I have come to the realization that limits are as God-given as capacities. Mine have placed me in a unique position to understand the beauty and meaning in serving the causes found within "a quiet secluded life" and of the special focus on intimate associations it affords.

I will always want to find ways to make a difference in the bigger causes that I care about and I hope I can find and do them. But, I also hope to never let that diminish meaning I find the modest work I do to make a difference to those few God has placed within my sphere.







*as a side note: that quote really does encapsulate perfectly my IDEAL of happiness. Beauty, culture, service, work, love -- all the BEST of this life. I feel I could devote a whole post just to expounding on how how the truth of Tolstoy's words resonates with me!

the parable of the talents

I was discussing Matthew 25:14-30 (about the parable of the talents) with my family and we all sorta realized how little we really understood this parable -- that we had always just accepted the conventional explanations and perhaps missed its secrets for so many years… 

Consider the following questions my brother raised:

In modern english, the word "talent" has come to refer exclusively to any kind of mental endowment, aptitude, or physical ability. From the perspective of those hearing the parable (and the author of the gospel), a talent was a measurement of money. Has the modern understanding of the parable been based exclusively on the contemporary definition of the word "talent"? Perhaps restricting the parable's definition to modern english's definition of the word "talent" is too restrictive? But not including that definition in the parable's interpretation could be too exclusive as well no? Is there something else here?  

The description of the "lord" in the parable is interesting and I'm not sure what to make of it if it's supposed to be a parallel to God. The man with a single talent described his lord thus: "I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strewed". This seems to indicate the master enriches himself at the cost of others. The master himself admits: "thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed". So he is admitting he is known to be ruthless and rapacious in business and expects the servant to have acted similarly? That doesn't seem to be a very apt description of who God is … at least not to me. 

Lastly, the amounts distributed to the slaves, at least from what I've read, are actually very large. Supposedly, a talent was equivalent to about 6,000 denarii, a denarii being equal to a day's wage for a common laborer. Thus, one talent, would be about twenty years worth of wages (no small amount). Five talents, as given to another one of the servants, would be about 100 years worth of wages. Why then does the Lord say, "Well done, thou good and faithful aservant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things"? In my mind, another way of saying this would be "you've been faithful over a little, I'll put you in charge of a lot" even though one talent is not "a little".

In consideration of these questions my dad sent us all a link to one man's interpretation of the parable -- which aptly answers these questions. I strongly urge you to read and reread this analysis of the parable of the talents. It is so beautiful and so profound, just as Jesus intended I think.

http://www.raystedman.org/new-testament/matthew/living-dangerously ***

***p.s. To me this understanding of the parable is born out well with the verse (similar to the one in Matthew) in D&C 82:3

 For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.

I always read this verse as referring to more than just talents/blessings we are given, so sinning "against the greater light" does not mean not failing to use talents/abilities, it is failing to live up to what you know to be God's will for your life -- refusing to see what has been illuminated for you, or seeing it and rejecting it. Some of us have a clearer understanding/more illumination, and so when we fail to live accordingly -- when we wrap ourselves up "with hobbies and little luxuries" and selfishness  as C.S. Lewis put it -- we fail just the way the author described in the analysis of the parable.  

oppositions in the church

I wrote the following as a post script to my answer to a question posed to the Ask Angela column (go read the full response if ya like).
WHY OPPOSITIONS IN THE CHURCH ARE PRODUCTIVE : They push us toward a new kind of being.

Eugene England explained it this way: "In the life of the true Church, there are constant opportunities for all to serve, especially to learn to serve people we would not nor­mally choose to serve—or possibly even associate with—and thus opportunities to learn to love unconditionally. There is constant encouragement, even pressure, to be “active”: to have a calling” and thus to have to grapple with relationships and management, with other peoples ideas and wishes, their feel­ings and failures; to attend classes and meetings and to have to listen to other people’s sometimes misinformed or prejudiced notions and to have to make some constructive response; to have leaders and occasionally to be hurt by their weakness and blindness, even unrighteous dominion; and then to be made a leader and find that you, too, with all the best intentions, can be weak and blind and unrighteous. Church involvement teaches us compassion and patience as well as courage and dis­cipline. It makes us responsible for the personal and marital, physical, and spiritual welfare of people we may not already love (or may even heartily dislike), and thus we learn to love them. It stretches and challenges us, though disappointed and exasperated, in ways we would not otherwise choose to be— and thus gives us a chance to be made better than we might choose to be, but ultimately need and want to be. ( http://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel )

I love that explanation because it conveys that it is also as much my responsibility to love and be patient with those who feel there is no place for "disruptive feminists," as it is their responsibility to accept and love "disruptive feminists." We are all a part of the "school of love" of belonging to a church full of people different from us.

Also, it's funny because we (my roommates and I) were just talking yesterday about how we have had to very quickly come to terms with the fact that, to be who we are and to say the things that we say, to speak out against what we view as ignorance and misunderstanding, means accepting the consequences... that we may create "contention" and be disliked. In a small way, it feels like how the prophets were stoned for saying what was hard for those around them to hear.

And in the midst of all of this we are to maintain a Christlike love for those who don't understand us and who "stone" us. It's good to be reminded that that they have a place in the body of Christ, the same as me.

love's greatest gift

I know a man who’s smart, kind, generous, and overall the sort of person you’d call first if you got into any kind of trouble. Unfortunately, he is also the worst story/joke/anecdote teller I have ever met. Worse, for some mysterious reason he delights in telling stories that have no point, jokes that aren’t funny, tedious anecdotes that meander forever and then just end. Like a highway in the middle of nowhere that abruptly stops because the builders ran out of money. Unfortunately this man enjoys holding the floor at parties and gatherings. Inevitably when he sees a chance, he jumps right into the fray with a “I heard a great joke—” or “The strangest thing happened to me this morning—” But his joke is never great and what happened to him that morning turns out to be a long and winding road to verbal nowhere. This man’s wife died recently and only now did I realize he lost among other things, his greatest audience. One of the endearing things about love is how it blinds us to certain obvious faults in our partners, despite the fact everyone else sees them. Once at a large party this man was telling a story. His wife was listening with a big smile and her full attention beaming 100 watts right at him. If you scanned the rest of the room you saw a lot of glazed eyes and looks of impatience. But not her. To her eyes, her husband had *grandezza*, the great Italian word that connotes not only greatness, but larger-than-lifeness. When he spoke, no one listened like she did, no matter what he was saying. And that might have been her greatest gift of all to him. — Jonathan Carroll

(I think I would go so far as to say that maybe it isn't a "blindness" to the faults of those we love -- but that because we love them that we can fully see them -- see past faults that would obstruct our vision -- and love them for who they truly are.)