Last week I wrote about the theme of deliverance. So many wonderful things happened to the Nephites in approximately a five-year span: King Benjamin's speech, the discovery and deliverance of the people of Limhi, the deliverance of the people of Alma, and their reunion in the land of Zarahemla. Yet only a generation later they were dealing with the unbelievers persecuting the members of the church.
Remembrance is a key theme in the Book of Mormon. As Alma the Younger would later ask the people as he ministered among them: "Have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? Yea, and have you sufficiently retained in remembrance his mercy and long-suffering towards them? And moreover, have ye sufficiently retained in remembrance that he has delivered their souls from hell?" (Alma 5:6)
We discussed in gospel study the importance of remembering the difficult circumstances of those that have gone before us. As the old saying goes, "those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it." We should study the scriptures, world history, American history, church history, and our family history so that we might not have to suffer as previous generations did due to poor choices or disobedience. Alma the Younger didn't learn from his father's experiences, and so he had to learn firsthand.
My wife pointed out that it is interesting that the lesson falls on the same weekend as Memorial Day, as we remember the sacrifices make for our freedom. The liberty that was granted to us by God and preserved by those sacrifices is not unassailable. If we don't recognize it, value it, and fight for it, we could lose it. Although America isn't perfect, we are blessed to live in a land free of the oppression and tyranny that infests so many other nations. Remembrance of this becomes more important with each passing year as those who experienced firsthand events such as World War II dwindle in numbers.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Monday, May 25, 2020
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Deliverance
The Church has produced a number of Book of Mormon videos to accompany our study this year. I'm not sure how they decide which parts get a video. The story of the people of Alma in chapters 23 and 24 of the book of Mosiah did not make the cut. I was a little surprised as their story of coming into bondage and eventually being delivered is frequently used in lessons and talks.
"And it came to pass that so great were their afflictions that they began to cry mightily to God. And Amulon commanded them that they should stop their cries; and he put guards over them to watch them, that whosoever should be found calling upon God should be put to death. And Alma and his people did not raise their voices to the Lord their God, but did pour out their hearts to him; and he did know the thoughts of their hearts. And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord came to them in their afflictions, saying: Lift up your
heads and be of good comfort, for I know of the covenant which ye have
made unto me...And I will also ease the burdens which are put upon your shoulders, that even you cannot feel them upon
your backs, even while you are in bondage; and this will I do that ye
may stand as witnesses for me hereafter, and that ye may know of a surety that I, the Lord God, do visit my people in their afflictions. And now it came to pass that the burdens which were laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light; yea, the Lord did strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease, and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord. And
it came to pass that so great was their faith and their patience that
the voice of the Lord came unto them again, saying: Be of good comfort,
for on the morrow I will deliver you out of bondage." (Mosiah 24:10-16)
I'm not going to go through all the details, you can read the story for yourself, but the most cited passage is likely the following:
I was trying to think of a modern-day application of these principles and I pulled the biography of Thomas S. Monson off the shelf, which included many experiences of East German Saints who lived behind the Berlin Wall, and President Monson's ministry among them. I flipped through looking for an appropriate section of the book to share in our family gospel study, and was blessed to find two pages that aligned closely with the travails of the people of Alma.
One story told how the translator had to edit then-Elder Monson's talks on the fly, such as changing references to President McKay to simply David O. McKay to avoid raising any suspicion with the government which was monitoring their activities. Another story told of how church leaders instructed the members that the only book they were allowed to have was the scriptures and everything else should be destroyed. One brother described how difficult it was for him, as he had spent years scraping together a small but cherished library of church books and manuals. Yet he decided to obey the counsel, and burned each one in the fire. He made the right decision, because his home was later searched by the police, and they did not find any unauthorized printed materials.
Those accounts are only a small sampling of the oppression which the East German Saints lived under, but President Monson described how faithful they were despite the difficult circumstances. At one point, he promised them in a church meeting that "if you will remain true and faithful to the commandments of God, every blessing any member of the church enjoys in any other country will be yours."
He felt the gravity of his promise later that night and prayed that his promise would be fulfilled, despite what seemed like insurmountable challenges. The words of the Psalm came to his mind, "Be still, and know that I am God."
I almost had to have someone else take over the reading, because I was having a hard time getting through it. The two accounts fit together so nicely.
"Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith. Nevertheless—whosoever putteth his trust in him the same shall be lifted up at the last day. Yea, and thus it was with this people. For behold, I will show unto you that they were brought into bondage, and none could deliver them but the Lord their God, yea, even the God of Abraham and Isaac and of Jacob." (Mosiah 23:21-23)
Like the people of Alma, the East German Saints desired to live by the word of God, and yet they did not enjoy the freedom to fully practice their religion. They could have decided that worship was not worth the trouble and turned against the God who was allowing them to suffer. Many of them may not even have been at fault for what had happened to their people, but they were still forced to live with the consequences of a wicked political regime. Many of them probably died without seeing the promise of deliverance fulfilled. And yet they were able to wait patiently on the Lord, knowing that he would not forsake them.
One story told how the translator had to edit then-Elder Monson's talks on the fly, such as changing references to President McKay to simply David O. McKay to avoid raising any suspicion with the government which was monitoring their activities. Another story told of how church leaders instructed the members that the only book they were allowed to have was the scriptures and everything else should be destroyed. One brother described how difficult it was for him, as he had spent years scraping together a small but cherished library of church books and manuals. Yet he decided to obey the counsel, and burned each one in the fire. He made the right decision, because his home was later searched by the police, and they did not find any unauthorized printed materials.
Those accounts are only a small sampling of the oppression which the East German Saints lived under, but President Monson described how faithful they were despite the difficult circumstances. At one point, he promised them in a church meeting that "if you will remain true and faithful to the commandments of God, every blessing any member of the church enjoys in any other country will be yours."
He felt the gravity of his promise later that night and prayed that his promise would be fulfilled, despite what seemed like insurmountable challenges. The words of the Psalm came to his mind, "Be still, and know that I am God."
I almost had to have someone else take over the reading, because I was having a hard time getting through it. The two accounts fit together so nicely.
"Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith. Nevertheless—whosoever putteth his trust in him the same shall be lifted up at the last day. Yea, and thus it was with this people. For behold, I will show unto you that they were brought into bondage, and none could deliver them but the Lord their God, yea, even the God of Abraham and Isaac and of Jacob." (Mosiah 23:21-23)
Like the people of Alma, the East German Saints desired to live by the word of God, and yet they did not enjoy the freedom to fully practice their religion. They could have decided that worship was not worth the trouble and turned against the God who was allowing them to suffer. Many of them may not even have been at fault for what had happened to their people, but they were still forced to live with the consequences of a wicked political regime. Many of them probably died without seeing the promise of deliverance fulfilled. And yet they were able to wait patiently on the Lord, knowing that he would not forsake them.
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Conference Reactions
The 190th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was earlier this month. My wife is a good example in that she pledged to stay off of Facebook for the weekend because she didn't want to see the reactions to everything. For some reason, I enjoy exploring social media to see what people are saying about conference. I guess I'm curious like a cat. That's why my friends call me Whiskers.
I'd like to address some of the negative reactions that I've run across regarding this conference.
In this time of trouble, many people were looking forward to General Conference to console their troubled hearts. However, many were disappointed to find out that the Church moved ahead with plans announced six months ago to center this conference around the bicentennial of the First Vision, instead of scrapping it and gearing everything towards our worries about COVID-19.
This attitude reminds me of the story in Matthew 26 when a woman used a precious ointment to anoint the Savior's head. She was criticized for using the ointment for such a purpose when it could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. Jesus corrected them by saying, "why trouble ye the woman?...for ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always." Even though there is a lot of uncertainty in the world right now, why shouldn't we take a weekend to commemorate the anniversary of what we believe to be the most significant world event of the past two centuries? There's only going to be one bicentennial. We'll see plenty more plagues in the years to come.
Some thought The The First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve showed poor leadership in a crisis situation. Apparently it would have been preferred for them to rewrite their talks on three weeks' notice to center around the novel coronavirus. I'm not sure how you get ten hours of material out of that, but apparently that's what some people wanted to hear. And what exactly were they supposed to say? Hey, we told you so? We told you to have at least a three-month supply of food, we told you to avoid unnecessary debt, we told you to live within your means. Maybe they should have just "played the hits" a la the Tabernacle Choir and re-ran old conference talks addressing the matter.
Many were offended that the Church moved ahead with other plans that had undoubtedly been in the works for months - the unveiling of a new symbol, the issuance of a proclamation, and the accompanying Hosanna Shout, apparently feeling that these actions were insensitive during a worldwide pandemic.
But it wasn't as if the church outright ignored the pandemic - President Nelson called for a worldwide fast for people of all faiths on Good Friday. Some scoffed at the notion that such an action would have any effect whatsoever on the current crisis. And on the surface, it doesn't seem like an earth-shattering solution to join with others in abstaining from food and drink for 24 hours. But isn't that what we're supposed to do in our own lives, when we're faced with problems that are beyond our mortal capacity to solve? To fast and to pray?
Again, I'm not exactly sure what people were expecting. I guess they were expecting President Nelson to get up and say, "Okay, here's what you need to do. Go wash yourself in the River Jordan seven times..."
I suspect what it's really all about is the Church's reserve fund - which everyone knows about thanks to "the whistleblower". They don't like that the Church has it, and apparently would like to see it spent on resolving the cornonavirus, because it's an emergency fund after all, and this is an emergency.
A fair response to all these criticisms is "hey, we're only a few weeks into this" - it's not as if this is something that has been going on for months on end. We don't know yet if the measures taken will have an effect and if things will moderate in the weeks to come. What kind of message would it send if the church just blew the whole chunk right now instead of waiting to see what happens? I'm sure that's part of the reason we're taught to have at least a short-term supply of our own...the church can't provide for everyone's needs every time we come to a bump in the road.
I for one, liked the church's controlled response - we should be concerned, we should take precautions, we should support the effort to control the spread, but there's no reason to panic. Isn't that the example we need? Calm down, relax, focus on the fact that we still have the gift of the restored gospel on the earth.
Some were disappointed that there was no earth-shattering announcement. Yes, another conference passed without any mention of ordaining women to the priesthood or a validation of same-sex relationships or a suspension of the law of tithing.
The proclamation on the restoration didn't reveal anything new, at least not to members of the church. But they aren't really hiding the ball anymore (if they ever were). Not only do we not wish to be referred to as Mormons anymore, but also, "We declare that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized on April 6, 1830, is Christ’s New Testament Church restored." I thought that was a pretty bold statement - hey, we aren't just another sect of Christianity...this here is the real thing.
I wonder if our church leaders get annoyed with church membership always expecting "a big announcement" and then being disappointed if there wasn't one, or it wasn't what we were expecting. I think it's okay to just have a general conference where there's nothing groundbreaking announced.
But in case you were too disappointed in everything that happened (or didn't happen) to notice, there was a big announcement.
Hey! We're building a temple in Dubai, per their request; and also, we're building one in MAINLAND CHINA.
I think that qualifies as "a big announcement".
I think the church's response to the pandemic can be summed up by a quote from Joseph Smith, Jr. himself:
"The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done."
In other words, we're not done yet, folks....
I'd like to address some of the negative reactions that I've run across regarding this conference.
In this time of trouble, many people were looking forward to General Conference to console their troubled hearts. However, many were disappointed to find out that the Church moved ahead with plans announced six months ago to center this conference around the bicentennial of the First Vision, instead of scrapping it and gearing everything towards our worries about COVID-19.
This attitude reminds me of the story in Matthew 26 when a woman used a precious ointment to anoint the Savior's head. She was criticized for using the ointment for such a purpose when it could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. Jesus corrected them by saying, "why trouble ye the woman?...for ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always." Even though there is a lot of uncertainty in the world right now, why shouldn't we take a weekend to commemorate the anniversary of what we believe to be the most significant world event of the past two centuries? There's only going to be one bicentennial. We'll see plenty more plagues in the years to come.
Some thought The The First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve showed poor leadership in a crisis situation. Apparently it would have been preferred for them to rewrite their talks on three weeks' notice to center around the novel coronavirus. I'm not sure how you get ten hours of material out of that, but apparently that's what some people wanted to hear. And what exactly were they supposed to say? Hey, we told you so? We told you to have at least a three-month supply of food, we told you to avoid unnecessary debt, we told you to live within your means. Maybe they should have just "played the hits" a la the Tabernacle Choir and re-ran old conference talks addressing the matter.
Many were offended that the Church moved ahead with other plans that had undoubtedly been in the works for months - the unveiling of a new symbol, the issuance of a proclamation, and the accompanying Hosanna Shout, apparently feeling that these actions were insensitive during a worldwide pandemic.
But it wasn't as if the church outright ignored the pandemic - President Nelson called for a worldwide fast for people of all faiths on Good Friday. Some scoffed at the notion that such an action would have any effect whatsoever on the current crisis. And on the surface, it doesn't seem like an earth-shattering solution to join with others in abstaining from food and drink for 24 hours. But isn't that what we're supposed to do in our own lives, when we're faced with problems that are beyond our mortal capacity to solve? To fast and to pray?
Again, I'm not exactly sure what people were expecting. I guess they were expecting President Nelson to get up and say, "Okay, here's what you need to do. Go wash yourself in the River Jordan seven times..."
I suspect what it's really all about is the Church's reserve fund - which everyone knows about thanks to "the whistleblower". They don't like that the Church has it, and apparently would like to see it spent on resolving the cornonavirus, because it's an emergency fund after all, and this is an emergency.
A fair response to all these criticisms is "hey, we're only a few weeks into this" - it's not as if this is something that has been going on for months on end. We don't know yet if the measures taken will have an effect and if things will moderate in the weeks to come. What kind of message would it send if the church just blew the whole chunk right now instead of waiting to see what happens? I'm sure that's part of the reason we're taught to have at least a short-term supply of our own...the church can't provide for everyone's needs every time we come to a bump in the road.
I for one, liked the church's controlled response - we should be concerned, we should take precautions, we should support the effort to control the spread, but there's no reason to panic. Isn't that the example we need? Calm down, relax, focus on the fact that we still have the gift of the restored gospel on the earth.
Some were disappointed that there was no earth-shattering announcement. Yes, another conference passed without any mention of ordaining women to the priesthood or a validation of same-sex relationships or a suspension of the law of tithing.
The proclamation on the restoration didn't reveal anything new, at least not to members of the church. But they aren't really hiding the ball anymore (if they ever were). Not only do we not wish to be referred to as Mormons anymore, but also, "We declare that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized on April 6, 1830, is Christ’s New Testament Church restored." I thought that was a pretty bold statement - hey, we aren't just another sect of Christianity...this here is the real thing.
I wonder if our church leaders get annoyed with church membership always expecting "a big announcement" and then being disappointed if there wasn't one, or it wasn't what we were expecting. I think it's okay to just have a general conference where there's nothing groundbreaking announced.
But in case you were too disappointed in everything that happened (or didn't happen) to notice, there was a big announcement.
Hey! We're building a temple in Dubai, per their request; and also, we're building one in MAINLAND CHINA.
I think that qualifies as "a big announcement".
I think the church's response to the pandemic can be summed up by a quote from Joseph Smith, Jr. himself:
"The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done."
In other words, we're not done yet, folks....
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Temple and Priesthood Preparation Meeting
I was recently tasked with planning the annual temple and priesthood preparation meeting for our ward. The internet wasn't terribly helpful for my situation. The church's official description didn't really answer my specific questions such as, "what exactly should the program look like" and the blogosphere was offering me mostly ideas on printables and coordinated decorations and refreshments. Which makes sense as this is a meeting typically planned by primary leaders. But I'm a young men leader. My situation was a little unique as we have five boys advancing to deacons quorum next year but no girls advancing to young women's. So it wound up a little more boy-oriented. Here's an outline of my program which might be helpful if you ever find yourself in a pinch.
Conducting: Bishopric Member
Opening Song: I Am a Child of God
Opening Prayer: Deacons Quorum Member
Talk: Young Men's Leader on the priesthood. I gave the talk and used this video
Talk: Deacons Quorum Presidency Member on "The Duties of a Deacon"
Intermission: With some adult supervision, Deacons Quorum President takes deacons and 11-year-old boys to chapel and teaches about passing the sacrament. Parents and other leaders stay behind for questions on their children becoming part of the youth programs and activities.
Video (to bring the reverence back after sending a pack of boys out of the room)
Talk: Bishopric Member on entering the temple and receiving a temple recommend
Closing Song: I Love to See The Temple
Closing Prayer: Deacons Quorum Member
Refreshments (This is a church meeting after all)
It worked pretty well for something put together in less than 48 hours. You would probably need to adapt it somewhat if girls were invited to attend.
Conducting: Bishopric Member
Opening Song: I Am a Child of God
Opening Prayer: Deacons Quorum Member
Talk: Young Men's Leader on the priesthood. I gave the talk and used this video
Talk: Deacons Quorum Presidency Member on "The Duties of a Deacon"
Intermission: With some adult supervision, Deacons Quorum President takes deacons and 11-year-old boys to chapel and teaches about passing the sacrament. Parents and other leaders stay behind for questions on their children becoming part of the youth programs and activities.
Video (to bring the reverence back after sending a pack of boys out of the room)
Talk: Bishopric Member on entering the temple and receiving a temple recommend
Closing Song: I Love to See The Temple
Closing Prayer: Deacons Quorum Member
Refreshments (This is a church meeting after all)
It worked pretty well for something put together in less than 48 hours. You would probably need to adapt it somewhat if girls were invited to attend.
The Book of James
James is an amazing book of scripture. I first really gained an appreciation for it about three years ago, but as it was the gospel study lesson in Come, Follow Me this past week, I enjoyed going back through it again. James is kind of underrated in my opinion.
Among Latter-day Saints, James is famed for giving us the fifth verse of the first chapter: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. And with good reason: that single verse unlocked a flood of revelation in the latter days.
But what about some of the other gems?
For instance, verses 22 through 28 of chapter 1, which teach of us the importance of living our religion daily. I especially like 23 and 24: For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass. For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. Our practice of religion has to be more than an occasional glance in the mirror. We need to be monitoring our progress on a regular basis - daily is ideal.
Chapter 2, verse 10 seems a little harsh: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. But what about being imperfect, and occasionally stumbling? Does this mean our weaknesses wipe away the good things that we do? I had to think about it a little, and I don't think that's what it means. Think of it in terms of qualifying for a temple recommend. There's no allowance for being out of line on one or two questions in the interview. You're either compliant with all of the Lord's standards, or you don't get the recommend. I think it's a matter of being "all in" as we've heard in some recent conference talks, and avoiding the pitfalls of selective obedience.
We don't have to lay a finger on another person in order to hurt them. Just as physical injuries may have a lifelong affect, emotional and spiritual wounds may stay with us for years. And in modern times, it's even easier to hurt people with words - and we don't even need to open our mouths. We just need a keyboard and an internet connection. Spend a few minutes on social media or message boards and see what I mean. Try reading those verses again and replace "tongue" with "fingers" and see how well the counsel still applies.
Chapter 4, verse 14. Our life here on this earth is only temporary: For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
I was reading chapter 5 a couple of years ago and verses 14 and 15 really stood out to me. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
It was a passage that stopped me in my tracks. Did that just say what I think it said? That if we receive a priesthood blessing with faith to be healed physically, that our sins are forgiven? It does indeed give that promise. The same faith in Christ that allows for our bodies to be healed is the same faith in Christ that allows us to become clean spiritually.
Among Latter-day Saints, James is famed for giving us the fifth verse of the first chapter: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. And with good reason: that single verse unlocked a flood of revelation in the latter days.
But what about some of the other gems?
For instance, verses 22 through 28 of chapter 1, which teach of us the importance of living our religion daily. I especially like 23 and 24: For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass. For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. Our practice of religion has to be more than an occasional glance in the mirror. We need to be monitoring our progress on a regular basis - daily is ideal.
Chapter 2, verse 10 seems a little harsh: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. But what about being imperfect, and occasionally stumbling? Does this mean our weaknesses wipe away the good things that we do? I had to think about it a little, and I don't think that's what it means. Think of it in terms of qualifying for a temple recommend. There's no allowance for being out of line on one or two questions in the interview. You're either compliant with all of the Lord's standards, or you don't get the recommend. I think it's a matter of being "all in" as we've heard in some recent conference talks, and avoiding the pitfalls of selective obedience.
Chapter 3 provides us great caution regarding our communications, in verses 5 through 8: Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
Chapter 4, verse 14. Our life here on this earth is only temporary: For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
I was reading chapter 5 a couple of years ago and verses 14 and 15 really stood out to me. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
It was a passage that stopped me in my tracks. Did that just say what I think it said? That if we receive a priesthood blessing with faith to be healed physically, that our sins are forgiven? It does indeed give that promise. The same faith in Christ that allows for our bodies to be healed is the same faith in Christ that allows us to become clean spiritually.
Anyways, those are some of my favorite passages from James. I didn't even include them all! I have maybe a half-dozen others that I have marked but didn't comment on above.
To finish off the post, here's one last verse, which is also the last verse in the book of James. Another great promise of forgiveness: Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
Adventures in Teaching Primary
At church, I teach a primary class of kids 7 and 8 years old. Sometimes things go as planned, but often they don't. Last Sunday, I was teaching them about shepherds and sheep - as in Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and how he said that a good shepherd would leave the ninety and nine and go after the one that was lost. The manual offered a rendering of a sheep, and suggested making one for each member of the class and to write their name on it, both for those that come regularly and those that do not, to illustrate the concept of each of us being one of Jesus' fold.
First of all, check out this sheep. If you fell asleep while counting sheep and then woke up in the middle of the night and found this staring at you, would you be going back to sleep that night?
I think not.
I finished my prepared material a little early and I kind of had in my back pocket one of the suggested enrichment activities where the children could write a note to the absent class members telling them that they were missed at primary. And since I had a little sheep of paper with each person's name, I figured it would be easy enough to just use that to write the note on.
I second-guessed myself almost immediately, because is that rude, to deliver a note to someone with a sheep on it, implying that they have gone astray because they missed one Sunday?
But the activity was already underway. At least I know that I explained it well enough that one of my kids "got it":
Some kids didn't quite have the right tone:
And then there was this one:
First of all, check out this sheep. If you fell asleep while counting sheep and then woke up in the middle of the night and found this staring at you, would you be going back to sleep that night?
I think not.
I finished my prepared material a little early and I kind of had in my back pocket one of the suggested enrichment activities where the children could write a note to the absent class members telling them that they were missed at primary. And since I had a little sheep of paper with each person's name, I figured it would be easy enough to just use that to write the note on.
I second-guessed myself almost immediately, because is that rude, to deliver a note to someone with a sheep on it, implying that they have gone astray because they missed one Sunday?
But the activity was already underway. At least I know that I explained it well enough that one of my kids "got it":
And then there was this one:
So yeah, I decided not to deliver these. But they provided some good entertainment.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Book Review: David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism
David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory A. PrinceMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Different than the traditional biography of an LDS Church President, which have been typically published shortly after their ascendance to the office but before their death, this telling of the David O. McKay story focuses on the time period of 1951-1970 when he served as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For this reason I enjoyed the book as it detailed the accomplishments and difficulties of his actual term of service. Looking back at those years through a 21st century lens added a unique perspective. I would love to see similar volumes emerge in the coming years, for instance a record of the years 1995-2008, when Gordon B. Hinckley led the church, perhaps the most dynamic church leader since McKay.
I am of a younger generation, born a few years after McKay's death, so I did not know a lot about him going in, but I did gain an appreciation for his marvelous service. Holding such a high calling is not easy, as McKay in many cases had to separate his own personal convictions from his responsibility to members of a worldwide church. He also had to manage competing opinions and agendas of other church leaders, often at his own expense. But there are a few people in the world whom everyone seems to respect, regardless of differences, and David O. McKay was one of those, as indicated by the tribute given by the Cathedral of the Madeleine Catholic Church in Salt Lake City during his funeral procession.
As indicated in other reviews, the book does tend to get a bit gossipy in sections and the authors seem to draw a lot of unsupported conclusions about what a particular individual's motivations may have been in various situations. But it was interesting to read that the Quorum of the Twelve do not necessarily agree with one another on the various issues that come before them. Although we're insulated from it in our day, there are certainly still heated debates that go on in their meetings. With fiery personalities such as Dallin H. Oaks, Jeffrey R. Holland, and David A. Bednar populating church hierarchy, do you honestly think they just sit around and say, "Hey, I'm chill with that if you are, brother"?
I do kind of wonder what bias the authors may have had given the voluminous resources they had at their disposal. To a point, they could have told just about any story they wanted to. They seemed to go out of their way to make heroes of "church intellectuals" then and now but disparaged Harold B. Lee and Ezra Taft Benson to the point that left you wondering how either of these men eventually became successors to President McKay.
Probably my favorite story in the book was the relationship between McKay and Lyndon B. Johnson, and how McKay inquired of Johnson regarding an Army policy which made it difficult for LDS chaplains to serve. Essentially Johnson demanded the Army accommodate the church, based primarily on his friendship with McKay and his respect for the Mormon way of life.
I would recommend this book despite its flaws. It left me with a testimony of David O. McKay's calling as a prophet.
View all my reviews
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Oh, Brother!
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is known for having its own unique terminology and customs. New members might be perplexed to find that a "stake center" is not a "steak center" and even more seasoned members may not be able to tell you the difference between PEC and BYC. And MTC is not the acronym for Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
In the church, it is customary to use titles when addressing other members, i.e. Brother Black and Sister Snow rather than using first names only. Missionaries use the titles "Elder" or "Sister" and local priesthood leaders go by "Bishop" or "President". It's a way of showing respect for the office they hold, not unlike the way "Pastor" or "Father" are used in other churches. When we use "Brother" or "Sister" it is used both as a show of respect but also as a reminder to us that we are all spiritual brothers and sisters, children of one Heavenly Father.
And I'm okay with all of that.
Except for one little part.
I don't like it to be used on me. I don't hold any position in the church that would necessitate a special title, but I don't like being addressed as "Brother". And I've found that I'm quite casual about bypassing the convention myself, which makes me wonder how other members feel about me using their first names.
In some situations, I still find it entirely appropriate. Children should speak to adult members using "Brother" or "Sister". And if you are approaching someone much older than yourself, who you don't know well, it's also probably a good idea. And of course, using titles for church leaders is always the way to go.
But if someone who is approximately my own age uses "Brother" it kind of bothers me. It doesn't imply a brother/sister type closeness at all. Instead, it feels like they are establishing that our relationship is church-only. They aren't comfortable with me. They don't want to know me on a more personal level. It's almost like they are putting up a barrier. For me, using the first name feels welcoming. "Church or no church, we're friends".
I'm not saying that I'm right and everyone should agree. I talked to my wife about this and she doesn't agree with me at all. And we typically agree on stuff. I'm sure that I am overthinking the matter and that not everyone perceives it the same way that I do.
And I'm okay with all of that.
Except for one little part.
I don't like it to be used on me. I don't hold any position in the church that would necessitate a special title, but I don't like being addressed as "Brother". And I've found that I'm quite casual about bypassing the convention myself, which makes me wonder how other members feel about me using their first names.
 |
| Image Courtesy of David Castillo Dominici/FreeDigitalPhotos.net |
But if someone who is approximately my own age uses "Brother" it kind of bothers me. It doesn't imply a brother/sister type closeness at all. Instead, it feels like they are establishing that our relationship is church-only. They aren't comfortable with me. They don't want to know me on a more personal level. It's almost like they are putting up a barrier. For me, using the first name feels welcoming. "Church or no church, we're friends".
I'm not saying that I'm right and everyone should agree. I talked to my wife about this and she doesn't agree with me at all. And we typically agree on stuff. I'm sure that I am overthinking the matter and that not everyone perceives it the same way that I do.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Don't Mean to Get All Churchy on Ya - 2nd ed.
The LDS version of the scriptures contains tons of cross-referencing footnotes. You won't find any cross references to actual events from modern church history, but wouldn't that be a fun project for a future edition?
I was reading in Alma 35 this week - again, I'm not much of a scriptorian, I mainly just read a few verses as the last thing I do each day - and was struck by a particular verse.
At this point, Alma and Amulek have just finished preaching to the Zoramites. There were a few believers, and after consulting together, the more popular part of the Zoramites decided to cast the believers out of the land. These people then came over to the land of Jershon, to dwell with the people of Ammon.
(For some reason, this majorly ticked off the Zoramites, who demanded that the people of Ammon also cast off these people. They refused, and it set off the series of wars that consume most of the remainder of the Book of Alma. I'm not sure exactly where the Zoramites expected them to go - but that's beside the point.)
This is what it says in Alma 35:9 regarding the behavior of the people of Ammon towards the Zoramites and their castoffs:
"And now the people of Ammon did not fear their words; therefore they did not cast them out, but they did receive all the poor of the Zoramites that came over unto them; and they did nourish them, and did clothe them, and did give unto them lands for their inheritance; and they did administer unto them according to their wants."
After reading this passage, I thought of the people of Quincy, Illinois, who in the winter of 1838-1839 received thousands of Mormons into their city. The Mormons had been driven from their homes in Missouri after an extermination order had been issued by the governor of Missouri. The Mormons were heading eastward to find a new place to settle - which of course, was eventually Nauvoo, 40 miles up the Mississippi River from Quincy. The parallels between the two stories are very interesting.
I haven't done a ton of research on this, so I'm not sure exactly sure of the background of the people who inhabited Quincy, Illinois in the mid-nineteenth century - what would cause them to respond with such charity to these Mormons refugees? We know a little more about the people of Ammon - they too had once been cast out of their land, so they were likely "paying it forward", and as is pointed out continously in the Book of Alma, they were something of a remarkable people anyways.
I don't know how much this sort of thing happens in our day - people nowadays seem to tend to respond negatively to dissimilar people showing up in their towns and cities - the tendency is to tell people to go back where they came from. So it's not an easy thing to do, being charitable.
It's also interesting to note that in 2002, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir performed in Quincy as a way of repaying their good deeds. If that wasn't enough, the church also donated the proceeds from the concert to the city.
I was reading in Alma 35 this week - again, I'm not much of a scriptorian, I mainly just read a few verses as the last thing I do each day - and was struck by a particular verse.
At this point, Alma and Amulek have just finished preaching to the Zoramites. There were a few believers, and after consulting together, the more popular part of the Zoramites decided to cast the believers out of the land. These people then came over to the land of Jershon, to dwell with the people of Ammon.
(For some reason, this majorly ticked off the Zoramites, who demanded that the people of Ammon also cast off these people. They refused, and it set off the series of wars that consume most of the remainder of the Book of Alma. I'm not sure exactly where the Zoramites expected them to go - but that's beside the point.)
This is what it says in Alma 35:9 regarding the behavior of the people of Ammon towards the Zoramites and their castoffs:
"And now the people of Ammon did not fear their words; therefore they did not cast them out, but they did receive all the poor of the Zoramites that came over unto them; and they did nourish them, and did clothe them, and did give unto them lands for their inheritance; and they did administer unto them according to their wants."
After reading this passage, I thought of the people of Quincy, Illinois, who in the winter of 1838-1839 received thousands of Mormons into their city. The Mormons had been driven from their homes in Missouri after an extermination order had been issued by the governor of Missouri. The Mormons were heading eastward to find a new place to settle - which of course, was eventually Nauvoo, 40 miles up the Mississippi River from Quincy. The parallels between the two stories are very interesting.
I haven't done a ton of research on this, so I'm not sure exactly sure of the background of the people who inhabited Quincy, Illinois in the mid-nineteenth century - what would cause them to respond with such charity to these Mormons refugees? We know a little more about the people of Ammon - they too had once been cast out of their land, so they were likely "paying it forward", and as is pointed out continously in the Book of Alma, they were something of a remarkable people anyways.
I don't know how much this sort of thing happens in our day - people nowadays seem to tend to respond negatively to dissimilar people showing up in their towns and cities - the tendency is to tell people to go back where they came from. So it's not an easy thing to do, being charitable.
It's also interesting to note that in 2002, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir performed in Quincy as a way of repaying their good deeds. If that wasn't enough, the church also donated the proceeds from the concert to the city.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Time to Get My Sap On
I can get a little sentimental, and I'm about to. So hold onto your butts.
So today is (was) Mother's Day. At church they always strive to drive home the point that it is a day to celebrate all women. I was sort of pondering upon that point - is there any merit to it, or is it just the PC thing to do? Not pondering in an insensitive jerk sort of way, but wondering what kind of case could be built.
While our thoughts rightly turn first to our own mothers and the mothers of our children, are those really the only mother figures we ever have in our lives? We also can extend this celebration of mothers to grandmothers and aunts. In most cases, those individuals are as close as you can get to the real thing.
But are there more than just our relatives?
As many young Mormon lads do, when I turned nineteen I left home to serve a two-year mission. One of the issues to deal with is that your own mother is essentially taken away from you for that two-year period. You're sent to a strange place where you've never been to live among people you don't know. You get a weekly letter in the mail and a phone call twice a year. That's pretty much it.
It was rough on me, as it is for a lot of young elders. Eventually, I adapted to the void, partially through passage of time and I believe partialy through many of the great sisters who lived in the wards within the Tacoma Washington area. Not that they had any sort of parental relationship with me - but my missionary companions and I were the beneficiaries of their motherly qualities. They did many of the things that a mother would do for her son - giving gifts, baking birthday cakes, preparing delicious meals, offering compliments, and welcoming us into their homes - not just as members of the church fulfilling an obligation, but as friends.
So reflecting on these ladies and their acts of kindness today - I guess you can say it got a little dusty in the chapel for a few seconds today. I haven't seen or talked to most of them in 15 years. At least one of them has passed away. It's a select group - I could count the specific sisters I was thinking of on my two hands and have a few fingers left. I guess I don't necessarily need to name them here, but I could if I wanted to. I won't ever forget them, and on Mother's Day 2011 I salute them for how they blessed my life.
And so, a woman can be a mother to anyone, even if only temporarily.
So today is (was) Mother's Day. At church they always strive to drive home the point that it is a day to celebrate all women. I was sort of pondering upon that point - is there any merit to it, or is it just the PC thing to do? Not pondering in an insensitive jerk sort of way, but wondering what kind of case could be built.
While our thoughts rightly turn first to our own mothers and the mothers of our children, are those really the only mother figures we ever have in our lives? We also can extend this celebration of mothers to grandmothers and aunts. In most cases, those individuals are as close as you can get to the real thing.
But are there more than just our relatives?
As many young Mormon lads do, when I turned nineteen I left home to serve a two-year mission. One of the issues to deal with is that your own mother is essentially taken away from you for that two-year period. You're sent to a strange place where you've never been to live among people you don't know. You get a weekly letter in the mail and a phone call twice a year. That's pretty much it.
It was rough on me, as it is for a lot of young elders. Eventually, I adapted to the void, partially through passage of time and I believe partialy through many of the great sisters who lived in the wards within the Tacoma Washington area. Not that they had any sort of parental relationship with me - but my missionary companions and I were the beneficiaries of their motherly qualities. They did many of the things that a mother would do for her son - giving gifts, baking birthday cakes, preparing delicious meals, offering compliments, and welcoming us into their homes - not just as members of the church fulfilling an obligation, but as friends.
So reflecting on these ladies and their acts of kindness today - I guess you can say it got a little dusty in the chapel for a few seconds today. I haven't seen or talked to most of them in 15 years. At least one of them has passed away. It's a select group - I could count the specific sisters I was thinking of on my two hands and have a few fingers left. I guess I don't necessarily need to name them here, but I could if I wanted to. I won't ever forget them, and on Mother's Day 2011 I salute them for how they blessed my life.
And so, a woman can be a mother to anyone, even if only temporarily.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Don't Mean to Get All Churchy on Ya
I do try to read a little scripture every day, although it's usually the low-quality type of study we are encouraged not to do. There is a little bit of excitement whenever a short chapter comes up in my scriptural queue. Something like say, Mosiah 6, which is all of seven verses. If most people were asked what is in Mosiah 6, they wouldn't be able to tell you. Me included, before this time. I decided to read the seven verses keeping an eye out for what is significant about the chapter.
I found the first two verses to be interesting:
And now, king Benjamin thought it was expedient, after having finished speaking to the people, that he should take the names of all those who had entered into a covenant with God to keep his commandments.
And it came to pass that there was not one soul, except it were little children, but who had entered into the covenant and had taken upon them the name of Christ.
So the whole bit about everyone entering into a covenant with God to keep his commandments (save little children) - it sounds a lot like baptism. In fact, if you go back and look at Mosiah 5, it is basically a discussion of the people entering into a covenant and what the covenant meant - phrases such as "born of him" and "called by the name of Christ" are used. It sounds pretty much like the baptismal covenant which is more famously laid out a few pages later in Mosiah 18.
The interesting thing about Mosiah 5 and 6 - although it talks a lot about the covenant, words such as "baptism" and "water" are never used.
So my question is - when did the Nephites begin practicing baptism by immersion as the accompanying ordinance to the baptismal covenant?
Any mentions of baptism before Mosiah 18 seem to be either prophetic references or commandments to be baptized - there are no firsthand accounts. And even the Mosiah 18 story is a bit unusual. Upon performing his first baptism, Alma also immerses himself in the water. It isn't made clear why he does this - whether it's the fact that he had never been baptized himself or if it was some sort of do-over for his years as one of the wicked priests under King Noah. Either way, Alma apparently had the priesthood authority to perform baptism.
Post Mosiah 18, we read more frequent accounts of baptism. So either Alma pioneered the doctrine of baptism among the Nephites, or it was practiced all along but never explicitly mentioned. I'm not sure. I guess I'm still in the "pondering" phrase of study. I haven't prayed about it because the answer wouldn't seem to have any impact on my own salvation - it's basically just a curious matter, kind of like when back in the day groups of missionaries would sit around and try to trace the line of priesthood authority among the Nephites.
I found the first two verses to be interesting:
And now, king Benjamin thought it was expedient, after having finished speaking to the people, that he should take the names of all those who had entered into a covenant with God to keep his commandments.
And it came to pass that there was not one soul, except it were little children, but who had entered into the covenant and had taken upon them the name of Christ.
So the whole bit about everyone entering into a covenant with God to keep his commandments (save little children) - it sounds a lot like baptism. In fact, if you go back and look at Mosiah 5, it is basically a discussion of the people entering into a covenant and what the covenant meant - phrases such as "born of him" and "called by the name of Christ" are used. It sounds pretty much like the baptismal covenant which is more famously laid out a few pages later in Mosiah 18.
The interesting thing about Mosiah 5 and 6 - although it talks a lot about the covenant, words such as "baptism" and "water" are never used.
So my question is - when did the Nephites begin practicing baptism by immersion as the accompanying ordinance to the baptismal covenant?
Any mentions of baptism before Mosiah 18 seem to be either prophetic references or commandments to be baptized - there are no firsthand accounts. And even the Mosiah 18 story is a bit unusual. Upon performing his first baptism, Alma also immerses himself in the water. It isn't made clear why he does this - whether it's the fact that he had never been baptized himself or if it was some sort of do-over for his years as one of the wicked priests under King Noah. Either way, Alma apparently had the priesthood authority to perform baptism.
Post Mosiah 18, we read more frequent accounts of baptism. So either Alma pioneered the doctrine of baptism among the Nephites, or it was practiced all along but never explicitly mentioned. I'm not sure. I guess I'm still in the "pondering" phrase of study. I haven't prayed about it because the answer wouldn't seem to have any impact on my own salvation - it's basically just a curious matter, kind of like when back in the day groups of missionaries would sit around and try to trace the line of priesthood authority among the Nephites.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Wasn't Going to Happen Anyways
Just so I'm not the last person in the universe to have an opinion on the BYU Honor Code situation, here goes:
It kind of sucks to be that guy. The best BYU basketball team in at least 30 years, and it just went out the window. But as it has been said - it's not like he didn't know the rules.
It's been interesting to hear the opinions of some of the local sports media the past couple of days. I always listen to Vic and Gary in the morning. Vic Lombardi is a sportscaster for CBS4. He attended Notre Dame and admitted that while Notre Dame had an honor code, it wasn't quite as strict as the one at BYU. However, he praised BYU for having values and sticking to them.
Mark Kiszla had a column in the Denver Post this morning about it. He basically said that BYU had done the kid wrong by booting him off the team, but at the same time he seemed to praise BYU for sticking to their guns. That's pretty high praise considering Kiszla is probably the most negative person in the Denver sports media.
Obviously, being a BYU graduate, I don't disagree with the decision and certainly wouldn't expect anything less. When I was a student there, I remember them holding star running back Luke Staley out of a football game because he had dropped a class and wound up under the minimum credit hours. So BYU benched him to keep on the right side of the NCAA law.
While BYU does love their sports, they do take a back seat and you'll never see them sell their souls to the devil for a chance at a national championship the way many other programs around the country do.
As for the notion that the suspension cost BYU a chance at the Final Four - let's be serious, folks. The Cougs were probably not going to the Final Four, with or without Brandon Davies. This is a program that hasn't made the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA tournament since 1981. Regardless of whether or not they would have received a #1 or #2 seed, they probably would have been out in Round 2 just like every other year. How's that for pessimism?
While I think it is really cool that BYU was 27-2 and ranked #3 in the country just six days ago, I'm not a rabid Cougar fan the way many other alumni are. I'm glad to see when they do well, but I don't walk around sporting BYU gear and I'm too indifferent to even drive to Colorado Springs or Fort Collins to see them play. And I don't have the right TV package, so I can't even watch any BYU games on TV if I wanted to, because I don't get that Mtn. channel.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if BYU had made a run at the Final Four, given that the semifinal games are played during the Priesthood session of General Conference, and the final is played on Monday night - smack in the middle of Family Home Evening time. BYU doesn't play football on the Saturday of fall conference and back when I was a student they didn't play basketball on Monday nights unless it started after 10.
And now we'll never get to find out how they would have handled it. Maybe it's a good thing we had this controversy first. It kind of preempts the controversy which was to come.
It kind of sucks to be that guy. The best BYU basketball team in at least 30 years, and it just went out the window. But as it has been said - it's not like he didn't know the rules.
It's been interesting to hear the opinions of some of the local sports media the past couple of days. I always listen to Vic and Gary in the morning. Vic Lombardi is a sportscaster for CBS4. He attended Notre Dame and admitted that while Notre Dame had an honor code, it wasn't quite as strict as the one at BYU. However, he praised BYU for having values and sticking to them.
Mark Kiszla had a column in the Denver Post this morning about it. He basically said that BYU had done the kid wrong by booting him off the team, but at the same time he seemed to praise BYU for sticking to their guns. That's pretty high praise considering Kiszla is probably the most negative person in the Denver sports media.
Obviously, being a BYU graduate, I don't disagree with the decision and certainly wouldn't expect anything less. When I was a student there, I remember them holding star running back Luke Staley out of a football game because he had dropped a class and wound up under the minimum credit hours. So BYU benched him to keep on the right side of the NCAA law.
While BYU does love their sports, they do take a back seat and you'll never see them sell their souls to the devil for a chance at a national championship the way many other programs around the country do.
As for the notion that the suspension cost BYU a chance at the Final Four - let's be serious, folks. The Cougs were probably not going to the Final Four, with or without Brandon Davies. This is a program that hasn't made the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA tournament since 1981. Regardless of whether or not they would have received a #1 or #2 seed, they probably would have been out in Round 2 just like every other year. How's that for pessimism?
While I think it is really cool that BYU was 27-2 and ranked #3 in the country just six days ago, I'm not a rabid Cougar fan the way many other alumni are. I'm glad to see when they do well, but I don't walk around sporting BYU gear and I'm too indifferent to even drive to Colorado Springs or Fort Collins to see them play. And I don't have the right TV package, so I can't even watch any BYU games on TV if I wanted to, because I don't get that Mtn. channel.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if BYU had made a run at the Final Four, given that the semifinal games are played during the Priesthood session of General Conference, and the final is played on Monday night - smack in the middle of Family Home Evening time. BYU doesn't play football on the Saturday of fall conference and back when I was a student they didn't play basketball on Monday nights unless it started after 10.
And now we'll never get to find out how they would have handled it. Maybe it's a good thing we had this controversy first. It kind of preempts the controversy which was to come.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Spiritual Thought on Real Estate
I never before had seen this condemnation of townhouse developers in the scriptures:
"Wo unto them that join house to house, till there can be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!" (2 Nephi 15:8)
"Wo unto them that join house to house, till there can be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!" (2 Nephi 15:8)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)