Punishment without Volition

One of the hardest lessons I had to learn from my marriage was about agency. We often talk about agency like it's "free will" or the power to choose. But it is inarguable that the vast majority of us are very much "punished...for Adam's transgression." Here on earth, mortality is one long experience of being punished for the mistakes and sins of others.

Most of my tear-streaked nights were spent wrestling over the effect my divorce was going to have on my children and my eternity. I stayed in a marriage which had nothing to offer me almost from day one because I believed in the covenants I had made in the temple. I believed that if I was patient, things would work out for good. I thought that my ex would eventually see how much a covenant life had to offer, that he would be able to forgive me my failure, and we could work together towards God.

But that wasn't to be.

Some People Oppose Gay Marriage

There is a point at which argument is futile. When two sides of a disagreement are so firmly rooted in their own perceptions, and those perceptions are coming from intrinsically different structures, there is not enough common ground for discussion.

This is, perhaps, why I haven’t really addressed the gay marriage battles going on in the United States of America since they started. I have listened to both sides, found fault and good with both, and made my conclusions. And most of the time, when I try to share why I believe the way I do, I only invite attack.

I do wish to state, perhaps for my own benefit alone, that I do not support gay marriage. I used to, before I started blogging. Getting involved in blogs certainly catalyzed some of my change of mind. I’m sure there are many out there who discount my opinions because they assume they are solely religiously based, or because they come from a place of ignorance and fear. I can protest as much as I like, but I’m not likely to change the minds of people so unapologetically closed-minded. I’m not even going to bother.

There is much I could say about gaining respect for differing moral stances. The arguments for gay marriage are generally based on the moral structure of secularism, the arguments against gay marriage are generally based on a moral structure espoused by many religions of the world. I believe that “separation of Church and State” in our country was never meant to restrict moral opinions from the public sphere. In fact, I believe that creating a space where individuals can act according to their morality in a public sphere without fear of losing employment, housing, physical safety, the ability to reasonably conduct business according to their conscience, and relative peace in their private lives was a core point of our government.

And, like it or not, the bulk of efforts to remove that freedom from fear is coming from those who think secularly. Many believe that individuals should have no right to exercise religiously-based morality in a public sphere, but ought to be forced to behave according to secular morality.

I would fight—have fought—equally hard to defend a gay person’s right to behave according to their beliefs in a public sphere as I now defend my own. I would shop at a store owned by a gay person. I'm as likely to design a gay friend's wedding invitations as those for a straight friend, were one to ask me. But I believe that the right to behave a certain way is not the same as a right to be publicly supported for it.

Determination of the lines of law—deciding what the public should pay for, support, and condone by law—should only be legally determined by a slow and cautious approach to lawmaking, including ALL the branches of government. Rushing headlong, deliberately bypassing checks and balances in the legal system, will inevitably reap consequences in unexpected directions.

I am afraid, watching the way law is happening now. And even if you support gay marriage, you should be afraid, too. The rate at which individual freedom to act according to personal moral conscience is being denied is frightening. When legal paths have been opened, they are very difficult to close. Almost overnight, changes are being made that alter the way people are allowed to live their lives. Though that may work in your favor today, there are no guarantees for tomorrow.

I do not know if my feelings on gay marriage will soon rob me of my ability to act according to my conscience in my employment. My line of work makes me one of those who could easily be forced to participate in things I find reprehensible. I wish, even if gay marriage wins wholesale, that those of religious moral conscience will be able to win a space for themselves. Not only to protect religious institutions, but to protect religious people.

Make no mistake. This war is not just about gay marriage. It is much more fundamental than that. It is a war between religion and secularism, a clash of whether or not people will be allowed to act according to a religious source of morality. Whether or not their votes will be taken away. Whether or not they can choose to conduct their business as they believe they should. Whether or not they are allowed to raise their children in the faith they hold dear. Whether or not they are allowed to speak their hearts, or must remain silent for fear of dire consequence.

There are many voices of empty reassurance, claiming that such things could never happen. But they are already happening. People claimed that welfare for single moms wouldn't result in more single moms, that loosening divorce laws wouldn't result in more divorces. They are blind to the lessons of history, and ignorant to human nature.

Some rights cannot be granted without robbing the rights of another. You can't give the right to drink and drive without potentially robbing a drunk driver's victim of the right to life. You can't give gay people the right to demand the services they want from whom they want them without robbing the service provider of the right to sell their services to whomever they wish to sell them. There is always a price. Some ideals cannot be legislated without sacrificing other ideals.

I mourn for our country. Not because gay marriage is becoming legal, but because of the way that victory is being won and the intentions in the hearts of those who are winning it. Such desire to silence opposition exists everywhere, male and female, gay and straight, religious and secular, but when it is popular and celebrated—when it is in power—there is no one who will escape the price.

Yet, despite my sorrow for the sins of this world, I know in whom I trust. The Book of Mormon is now more than ever before an obvious warning to the righteous, a chance to prepare. We may be called to lay down our lives as so many before us have. But if we keep the love of God in our hearts even as the mobs mock and ridicule, we will have a rock of faith through the trials to come.

“O, ye nations of the earth, how often would I have gathered you together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye would not!

“How oft have I called upon you by the mouth of my servants, and by the ministering of angels, and by mine own voice, and by the voice of thunderings, and by the voice of lightnings, and by the voice of tempests, and by the voice of earthquakes, and great hailstorms, and by the voice of famines and pestilences of every kind, and by the great sound of a trump, and by the voice of judgment, and by the voice of mercy all the day long, and by the voice of glory and honor and the riches of eternal life, and would have saved you with an everlasting salvation, but ye would not!”
D&C 43:24-25

Pro-Choice to Pro-Life

What this author describes is similar in nature to my own conversion, though I wasn't as shocked by certain things. It is my education in fetal development that has landed me squarely pro-life in values.

I think the best way to describe my stance is pro-education. I don't think you can wisely use law to prevent abortions. Such use of force only increases the danger. But I favor the use of law to require education before abortion. Let them watch an abortion via endoscope. Let them see and hear the reality of their fetus before they make that decision. No need to use scare tactics, just calmly and informatively educate them and let them make their own decision.

Chicken Politics

"For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

"Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.

"They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine."

—Isaiah 29:20-24

I don't like politics. And this recent embarrassment surrounding Chick-fil-A demonstrates exactly why.

In case someone reading this doesn't know, my understanding is that basically the CEO of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, was interviewed by Baptist Press, and "came out" in support of preserving one-man-and-one-woman marriage law. Those who support changing the law to include same-sex couples decided to boycott Chick-fil-A. So, those who side with keeping the law as-is decided to turn out en masse to buy chicken sandwiches.

Whereupon, people supporting same-sex marriage have decided to criticize the event, and pull out the usual name-calling of bigotry, hatred, callousness, etc.

And I think that both sides should be embarrassed.

I Don't Get Sports . . . or Politics

Perhaps it is a product of moving around so much, but I really don't get sports. I just can't conceive of being so emotionally tangled up in what is, in the end, JUST A GAME. Maybe I don't have enough emotional real estate to spend it on that.

If I or one of my loved ones were playing, I could see getting excited about it. But not when I'm supposed to be rooting for a team which has nothing to do with me except it is nominally residing in the same place I am. (Not that ANY of the team members have any loyalty to that same place, it's all about the scholarship or the money, right?)

Same goes for politics. Do people really think a vote makes much of a difference? Even if I were able to slog through all the detritus that makes up political "commentary" (I prefer the word "kvetching") to sift out whatever grains of Truth Gold might be lurking beneath the manure, I believe that our system is deliberately organized to keep any one person from making all that much of a difference, even the President.

Perhaps especially the President.

And I don't believe that there are more than a handful of politicians out there who really want to do good. But I admit I've become a rather vehement cynic.

Does it really matter which color shirt you're wearing? It's all the same game, right? And the players in either game don't switch sides based on loyalties, believe you me.

An Enemy to God

There is a lot of talk and buzz about Elder Packer's talk. I'm not really going to address the thrust of all that, but there is one related aspect which I would like to address.

There is a claim that teachings such as those in Elder Packer's talk cause innocent children to kill themselves, that by teaching that certain behaviors are sinful, we teach that people are disgusting and enemies to God, and therefore they kill themselves. (Specifically according to many people's interpretation in this case, homosexuality, but I don't wish to address that specific. I want to re-broaden the principle to ALL sin, whatever you might consider to be sin. I believe that's really what Elder Packer's talk was about, and that homosexuality is only one example.)

As I first heard these claims, the scripture came to my mind, "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord . . ."

Sin . . . all sin . . . makes us enemies to God. When we teach a person that their behavior makes them an enemy to God, we bring their attention to their behavior and give them a choice "to act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good . . . ." In other words, we elevate their behavior from simple animal reasoning and reactions to conscious choice. We take ourselves out of the dust and reach for the divine within ourselves to act rather than to just be acted upon by our environment, by our genetics. We are no longer helpless victims of circumstance, but true children of the Most High God.

Teaching the commandments of God does not drive people to kill themselves, or leave the church, or turn into Church-active automatons. When we give commandments as God gives them, in an environment of charity and love, we make ourselves more than our physical, scientific bodies. We then have the chance to umkehren . . . turn around . . . repent. God created us to act, not to be acted upon. To Elder Packer's amended rhetorical question, "Why would Heavenly Father do this to anyone?" The answer is He would not. He would never create a person incapable of action, unable to fight against that which takes them away from Him, and then turn and hold them accountable. Some may have fewer opportunities for action than others (such as babies, the mentally damaged or others) but where there are fewer opportunities to act, there is less accountability.

So the answer is not to back down from the morality taught by God, whether it be homosexuality, anger management, or obsession with worldly possessions. It is to make certain that morality is taught in a framework of love.

And I think the Church does a great job of teaching that we make ourselves into enemies of God, and we likewise have the power to no longer be His enemy. Hopefully more people will get the knack of it before more children feel so unloved they choose to take their own lives.

God Conforming to Men

Something keeps coming up in the discussions of polygamy I see wandering about the web. I have heard it said that polygamy probably wasn't God's commandment because if it had been, the Church would not have discontinued the practice.

My question is why?

Why is it not possible that God could have the Church conform to legal laws when the tension between legal and spiritual laws becomes so tight, the Church as a whole faces extinction?

Wouldn't the Lord prefer we follow the laws of the land than have His authority and restored gospel lost from the earth again, especially when He promised that would not happen?

Isn't God adapting His laws to men what most of the Old Testament and Law of Moses is about?

Religious Bully?

Interestingly, the court in a recent court case in Utah ruled against privately-erected memorials for deceased highway troopers shaped like crosses, saying that they connoted an endorsement of Christianity.

I find it interesting because the predominant religion in Utah, although Christian, does not use the cross to symbolize its religion, and by telling private parties that they can't use certain symbols when erecting memorials, the state is interfering in church. From what I understand of history, the point of "separation of Church and State" was not to keep any person from mentioning religion, but to keep the government from subsidizing a particular religion preferentially. The only ways that would cause a problem is if someone desired to erect a memorial for a state trooper in another religion's symbol for death and was refused, or if the government was somehow paying to have a religion promoted.

To me, this is clearly a case of drawing boundaries around the law which interfere with other core legal principles. By refusing the right to put up memorials with any sort of historically religious connotations, the government is controlling a party's right to religion. But I'm neither a lawyer, nor a historian.

I also find this interesting because I have lately come to realize that fears have become a part of my life which could potentially cause the very things I fear.

By being so afraid of any tint of religion in government, we are giving the government a religion: atheism. Shouldn't the point be to celebrate/tolerate all religions which do not interfere with life, liberty or property, not forbid them? Isn't the point to keep the state from becoming a religious bully?

Odd that the Founding Fathers' attempts to prevent religious bullying are now being used to create it.

The Benefits of Red Wine, Without the Alcohol

I thought this product has fascinating possibilites, though I've never tried it. Perhaps there is an alternative to alcohol when cooking that keeps the flavor?

There are also sherry and Chablis versions, besides the Burgundy.

Culture vs. Doctrine: Conformity is not a Swear Word

I have been thinking quite a lot over the past several years about a few issues that seem to fall into the same basket—women wearing pants to church, women longing for the priesthood, two-hour block meetings, lesson correlation, who says prayers in what order—and proposed behavior in regards to these issues. These issues trouble me because although I can agree with the dilemmas inherent in these issues, I most strongly do not agree with most of the grassroots actions proposed by complainants.

To clarify, let me use one recent example of what I mean. A woman posts a link about wearing pants to Church and the conflict that has been caused by it, listing her reasons for wearing pants despite knowing the conflict and discomfort it is likely to cause. Many other people vent their spleens about how backwards and anti-woman no-pants-wearing-at-church-rules are, some sharing stories about injustices suffered, others sharing stories about how it made no difference. Some imagine up saucy rejoinders to say to any unfortunate leader trying to correct such behavior, others belabor the notion that dress-wearing is cultural bias, not salvational doctrine. (With the automatic assumption that anything cultural is worthless.) Wearing pants to church becomes a symbol of intelligence and strength. And, usually, anyone who might proffer an opinion that it is less than appropriate to wear pants is perceived as backwards, suppressed, or other such adjectives. (Please note that this example is about a principle, not about pants. Frankly, Scarlett, I don't care if a woman wears pants to Church. To me, if it really is a symbol of true strength and intelligence, no one would feel the need to flaunt it and make it into a status symbol.)

I came across a rather interesting scripture that I think applies to situations like this where people feel a need to flaunt their actions which are against ambient culture.

"If any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

"As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

"But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

"But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

Basically, this is teaching that although you might know that a particular practice is ridiculous from an eternal standpoint, and has no bearing on eternity, that it is a sin against Christ to actively work to flaunt that knowledge in the face of those who do not have the same understanding.

To use another example, I design the ward bulletin. Every week, I take the various bits of information and put them together. Two weeks in a row, I was told that the "Smith" and the "Brown" couples would be speaking. The first week, I put Sister Smith before Brother Smith on the agenda, the second week, I put Brother Brown before Sister Brown. They switched themselves (I suppose because of the cultural practice that dictates women speak before men.) It bothered me because it seemed to be a slap in the face. (It is a pet peeve of mine when people assume unspoken instructions.) However, after thinking a great deal about it, I realized that it was nothing more than my own pride that was bruised. It doesn't really matter who speaks first, and if they want to arrange it that way, it harms nothing in an eternal sense.

I understand that this principle can be taken too far the other way. Conformity for conformity's sake has a place, but in moderation. One could drive oneself batty trying to match everyone's expectations. However, like everything else, there is a balance. Culture may be wrong, but if squabbling over a petty cultural false conception means that another person will be filled with anger and/or mimic your behavior out of rebellion, it is not worth it.

Sometimes (but not always) Christ's purposes are better filled by simply conforming. After all, He may have rubbed the lawmakers of His day the wrong way by disobeying their made-up spiritual laws, but He very rarely made a point of it unless they first came after Him. Look at Ammon. By judiciously conforming, he changed the course of spiritual history for his entire people.

I Believe in the Law

Articles of Faith #12
[I] believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

One thing that always mildly interested me as a foreign missionary in Germany was that, although two large religious groups made a habit of knocking on doors and interrupting people on the streets to share their religion, only one had a license from the government to do so. We were instructed to keep this license, a gray passport-like pamphlet, on our persons at all times.

Because we are painstakingly compliant to local laws wherever we go, the LDS church has been granted many freedoms that other religions have not always enjoyed. Countries in the Middle and Far East have welcomed us in as service missionaries when we were not allowed to proselyte. We were one of few religions allowed practice in Cold War East Germany. Doors have opened to us multiple times in multiple places because we show respect to the law.

Historically, the LDS Church was persecuted for practicing polygamy and laws were created to end it. Moving outside of US legal jurisdiction, polygamy was practiced until Utah was swallowed up in Manifest Destiny, and it was clear that there was no legal way to make it permissible. Then, the Church bowed to the law. Many are conflicted by this, feeling that if a doctrine is of God, the Church should never have submitted. But as Wilfred Woodruff asked in the footnotes of Official Declaration 1, "Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people . . . or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law . . . ?" In the case of polygamy, the eternal principle of plural marriage was temporally opposed by the principle of this Article of Faith. Eventually, a time came when the cost to the Church in not obeying the law of plural marriage was overshadowed by the cost of continuing its practice under legal opposition.

Joseph Smith also found himself arrested multiple times, but preached one of the most powerful sermons on worldly law found in religious texts. This entire section of the D&C ought to be read and pondered, particularly in the light of recent political unrest. It has given me many things to think about.

Scientific Evidence for Modesty in Clothing

A study at Princeton* found that when men see pictures of women wearing bikinis, the part of their brain associated with using tools activates, and the part associated with assessing a person's motivations deactivates. The conclusion is that men see scantily-clad women as objects. This is a bit of evidence that suggests what the Lord's servants have been saying all along: that modesty is important if a person wishes to be seen as a person and not as an object.

Being a bit of a scientist, myself, I would like to see a few more studies before drawing any meaningful physiological conclusions:

1. Men's reaction in various American cultures to sleeveless shirts and/or short skirts.
2. Men's reaction to pictures of women they have a romantic relationship with, fully clothed and less clothed.
3. Women's reaction to similar and analogous images.

It does indicate that the argument that men should simply deal with women dressing how they want to dress might have a few holes in it.

No pun intended.

---

*National Geographic
CNN

I Believe in Obedience and Sacrifice

Articles of Faith #3
[I] believe that through the Atonement of Christ, [I and] all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Coming to understand the Atonement has been a long, hard lesson. Although I learned in Primary (children's religious study) that Jesus loves me and died for my sins, what I learned there was nothing compared to the reality of the Atonement.

I have heard the endless debates over faith vs. works to be saved, and I have heard even more endless accusations against those who obey before they gain full knowledge. Like with so many things of the Gospel, faith and works, obedience and knowledge must be balanced to truly follow Christ's example.

After and during some recent serious upheavals in my life, I went through a period of dark depression. I was convinced that I was incapable of pleasing anyone, that I was unwanted and a burden to those around me. My mistakes were unconquerable and numerous. I failed to give my husband enough time, failed to present a kind and gentle heart to those around me. I was full of complaints and frustration. I failed with even the simple task of providing nourishment to my new and precious daughter. I could not connect with people in the Church, could not fulfill the callings I was given . . . . The list went on forever. Every time I grasped at even the slimmest redeeming quality in me, voices clamored in my mind to demean it or turn it into a weakness.

I fought with waning energy to twist myself out of it. I tried counselling, which didn't help. I was desperate for a friend to talk to, but afraid to burden anyone else with the intensity of my emotion, even had there been any one at the time. My slender conviction in Christ, what felt like a wild hope of redemption, was what got me through my daily ritual. All of the "little obedience sticks" like praying, scripture reading and church participation suffered.

Though I can't remember how or when, it was probably in my sporadic scripture reading, that I came across the words of Christ in D&C 50:41-42: "Fear not, little children, for you are mine, and I have overcome the world, and you are of them that my Father hath given me; And none of them that my Father hath given me shall be lost."
I received an unmistakable confirmation that I was included among those the Father had given to Christ. My wild hope strengthened almost imperceptibly. For the first time in years, I had really felt the Spirit in regards to me. It gave me the strength to keep fighting. In short, my faith in the Atonement led to works.

Some time later, I read this again, "if [you] come unto me I will show unto [you your] weakness. I give unto [you] weakness that [you] may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if [you] humble [yourself] before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto [you]." Suddenly, I realized that the covenant I had made to never give up was beginning to bear fruit. I was reliving depression because I needed to understand where I was coming from. I needed to see that everything I became from then out was because of my Savior.

When I came to understand this, my "works" were illuminated. My efforts were not to prove my worth, or to mold myself into His image, they were the simple expression of devotion. Suddenly, I wanted to obey! I yearned to submit and to serve. I realized that I could be saved through obedience, not because I had to conform, but because those laws and ordinances I followed would bring me joy.

I do not always understand or perfectly agree with the things I am told by the leadership of the Church. But I do know that I will be blessed for my conscious, devoted obedience to the laws of Christ and His Church. It may take courage to rebel against established authority, but it takes more courage to trust and submit without a perfect understanding.

I don't understand the Atonement. I don't know how Christ could love me enough to do all that He has, both in life and after His death. I don't know or understand all His dealings with His anointed servants. But I "know in whom I have trusted." I know His capacity for forgiveness and trust His capacity to change the hearts of men. And so, I will obey.

A Rant Against Judicial Fashion Sense

There are few things that have infuriated me as much as what I have heard about the California judicial system's high-handed attempt to justify legalization of gay marriage while blocking the logical follow-through of legal consensual adult polygamous marriage. How can they possibly dupe themselves into believing that such an arbitrary line is just and impartial? Like the old correlation of homosexuality and child molestation, I especially "love" how they lumped it in with incest, as if the two are at all the same kettle of fish. I think it's a big kettle of rosy red herring.

The only explanation I can think for the calumny is that being pro-gay is in vogue, but pro-polygamy is not. I'm not looking to add a wife to my husband's family, but this whole situation is so utterly illogical I'm completely floored and disgusted.

Perhaps the warnings from God through the Church against danger of gay marriage legalization is only partially about gay marriage itself and even more insidiously about the corruption of the government. As the judicial system overthrows majority vote and lose whatever pretense of impartiality they had, I can see some very bad things coming down the sump pipe in the not-so-far future.

So, fire up the rainbow flag and drape it across your sequined dress and pumps because that is Politically Correct, but prepare to be burned at the stake covered in verbal waste if you show the least bit of sympathy towards something less trendy.

Ye Whited Sepulchres

Increasingly, I have heard those who are careful with the details of obedience referred to as Pharisaical, particularly when the speaker believes an item of obedience to be pointless (such as the skirt-wearing which I previously discussed). I've realized, in thinking about this, that the sin of the Pharisees was twofold and that neither aspect of their particular sin was their careful obedience. Most interesting to me, it is those sins that allowed them to be only nation that would crucify their God.

The first aspect of their sin is they created law which transgressed the law of God and then expected everyone else to live it. Multiple times in the New Testament, they watch for Jesus and His disciples to transgress the man-made law in order to deem them sinners. Take-away message 1) if you choose to follow a stricter law than that which the prophets have set forth, do not insist that all others follow that same law.

The second aspect is that they then used their created laws as a substitute for true righteousness and judged themselves more righteous than their neighbors. Judgment belongs to God. Take-away lesson 2) worry about your own righteousness, not others'. (Though that isn't to say not to preach God's principles, just not to judge application of those principles to another person unless God has specifically called you to do so.) Also, as important as it is to be obedient, obedience alone does not qualify a person for righteousness. Obedience should be a natural outgrowth of charity. Charity encompasses the weightier matters of the law Christ referenced. Take-away lesson 3) obey in love, not in resentment.

Obedience without that charity is empty. When a person is truly devoted to the Lord, they will long to obey the words of His servants, no matter how trivial they may seem at first. They will seek for things they can do to demonstrate their compassion and to purify their souls. As they strive for obedience, they will find the Spirit cleansing them and making them white, both inside and out. Not all who are white are whited sepulchres.

So, to those who love to accuse the carefully obedient of being Pharisees, I challenge you to find in your heart that charity and understanding for which you so constantly beg. You cannot see another person's heart. You cannot possibly know if they are truly whited sepulchres or if they are pure in heart, and woe unto you should you judge wrongly.

The only way to gain understanding and to judge righteously is to obey the voice of God's servants, no matter how tough it is to do so. Obedience is not easy, but it is a harsh and beautiful process. Through obedience, we are purified. Once purified, the windows of heaven open and we can finally understand. The Lord does not make excuses for His commandments, but He blesses those who obey.

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Bound on Earth, Bound in Heaven

I was reading a blog post a short while ago, and thought a very interesting question was raised: the difference between marriage and sealing. I thought I'd do a bit of study on the topic. This is by no means complete, and I welcome any thoughts on the subject.

In the scriptures, I noted two kinds of binding: binding in captivity and binding for eternity, otherwise known as sealing. Although the first is undeniably restrictive, the second type of binding possesses the ironic twist in meaning that is found so often in scripture and doctrine, namely, that binding can actually lead to freedom, such as when men are bound to uphold laws. This type of binding, even the Lord God is subject to. In a way, this is not an intuitive concept for mankind, mortal and limited as we are. In another way, it is almost instinctual. Even a small child learns that when they obey the rules parents set, they are given more freedom. It is additionally obvious that in order to create a society, a people must be able to set boundaries on themselves. Otherwise, there is anarchy and no promise of protection.

Sealing is a type of binding. The interesting thing is, although the term in modern days is used almost solely in relation to spousal sealing, and, as a corollary, child-to-parent sealing, the term was not originally so restrictive. The Bible speaks often of sealing as we would speak of a government seal, a way to confirm the authenticity of a bargain. The Doctrine & Covenants uses the term "record" as a synonym of "seal".

To bridge this seeming gap between sealing/recording and sealing/marriage, the most common instances where I found the concepts of "seal" and "marriage" together is in the phrase "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise". Often, when the Lord first explained the covenant of eternal marriage, this phrase comes into play. Essentially, he says if a marriage is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise through one given authority by Christ, that marriage is not valid in the eternities. This sealing of the Holy Spirit is not limited to marriage, however. In fact, the term is more often used in terms of being sealed to salvation. Therefore, all marriages must be sealed, but not all sealing by the Holy Spirit is marriage (or, by association, generational). If you substitute the word "record" in addition to "confirmed" or "authorized", the sealing ordinance becomes a little clearer. The ordinance, much like the ordinance of baptism, is not a guarantee of that sealing, it is a covenant that if you do all involved in that ordinance, you will be sealed to salvation.

So, why is sealing necessary to be saved? Of course, I don't know, though I have some thoughts. In order to explore them, I have to delve back a little further than our current sealing ceremony.

When God covenanted with Abraham, He promised him that He would keep the covenant with all of Abraham's children through Isaac. This covenant, or birthright, followed through Jacob, Joseph, and Ephraim. We learn in several places that the covenant is to bless the people of the earth, but how will they be blessed? A small clue shows us that at least part of that blessing is to share the Gospel, to "push the people together" as it were. The Abrahamic Covenant includes the promise that the Gospel will be brought to the children of Adam through the children of Abraham (and that the children who are brought to the Gospel will become the children of Abraham, sharing in that blessing and responsibility). When you are being "sealed" or "recorded" or "confirmed" in baptism, you are being recorded as part of that covenant.

To push understanding of the sealing a little further, God also made a covenant with Adam that the consequences of his transgression would be swallowed up in a perfect sacrifice. Because there was no way for Adam to take back his transgression (or for us to repair our own transgressions and sins), there needed to be a volunteer to live a perfect life, to feel the sins, sorrows and mistakes of all mankind, and then to die according to the curse of mortality given to Adam, only to break that curse and return to life. He suffered so He could mitigate pain. He died to redeem us from the curse of Adam, to assert His supremacy over that law. This met the law of justice in a way which allowed Him to extend mercy.

The sealing ordinance which occurs between a man and woman is a likeness of the covenants which were made after the Transgression and after the Fall. Essentially, we are accepting the same responsibility for the Fall of Adam, and also accepting the same dependence on a Savior. We take those covenants together, as Adam and Eve did, and thus pass them on to our children, who then may take them if they wish. This binds us into the family of Adam by choice, as well as by birth, and gives us the strength of a conscious exercise of our Agency.

When one member of a couple breaks those bonds, it neither invalidates the covenant the other member made, nor the legacy which is passed on to the children. One person's choice only cuts themselves out of the family of Adam, it cannot cut out another. When we choose to make those covenants, we are allowing the Savior to seal us his, contingent upon our obedience to His law, much like we are protected by the same government and law we promise to keep.

More on the Word Vs. the Spirit of God

I was struck lately by the Book of Mormon's reconciliation of that age-old false dichotomy between following the Spirit of God and following the Word (Law) of God in the very first few chapters. In these first chapters, Nephi kills, lies, steals, bullies and coerces, all in the name of listening to the Spirit. It would be easy to see how to use his example to justify doing whatever you like and citing the Spirit as a reference. People throughout history have done just that. You don't even need to appeal to the Devil. However, there are a few good things to keep in mind when following the Spirit.

1. The Spirit does not contradict God's laws.

Of course, the trick to that is knowing God's laws. First and foremost is to bring about the salvation of man. Nephi's actions accomplished these things. Less ultimate laws such as "do not kill" and "pay tithing" are created to serve that law, not for it to serve them.


2. Ultimately, you will have to answer to the Lord for your actions.

In other words, you'd better make sure of yourself before acting on an impulse. You'll note that Nephi had a bit of a scuffle before he finally followed the Spirit's drastic promptings.


3. Lastly, be cautious when the Spirit is prompting you to do something counter to what the prophets have advised.

Rare is the time you will have to go to the measures Nephi did. You'll also notice he exhausted all other options, first. If it's scripturally shady or downright black territory, especially if you WANT to do it, chances are good you're deluding yourself.

There is no real conflict between following the Law of God and the Spirit of God. Neither extreme will apply to all situations. You'll find, as with many things in the Gospel, that the truth is not so easily pigeonholed.

A House of Holiness

I have felt to write about several topics over the last few days, most of them forgotten once I sit down to write. This is something, however, that has stuck with me. It is a topic very close to my heart. I am aware that the internet is not always the best venue in which to share deeply spiritual things, as there are those who may read them who will mock them. Despite knowing this, I feel it important for me to share what I can of what I feel and know on this subject, despite feeling awkward and unwieldy in my words.

There is too much back story to share it all, but I'll share what I can. When I was fourteen, I had an experience which inspired me to want to serve a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From fourteen to twenty, my future plans were centered around this event. For any reading who are not aware, before a man or woman serves a mission for the Church, they must receive what are called "endowments" in the temple of God. These endowments consist of additional covenants with the Lord, much like baptismal covenants. These covenants, again like baptism, help you become what you must become to follow Jesus Christ and return to our Father in Heaven. Typically, no one makes these covenants until they are preparing to either serve a mission for the Church or to be married for eternity. When I was nineteen, I felt a strong impression from the Spirit of God that I should go to the temple, despite being two years away from a mission and much longer than that from marriage.

I had heard many rumors about the temple, some of which were a bit unnerving. But I prayed and continued to feel the strong desire to go. My parents were against the notion. Although they were both members of the Church, they felt that I should wait until later, until a time more typical for this step. After months of praying, searching the scriptures and counseling with my bishop and stake president, I decided to go. This was a difficult decision. My father was stationed in Korea at the time and my mother was far enough away to make it impossible for either to attend. My only family members in attendance were my paternal grandparents and one of my mother's sisters.

Despite this, the entire experience was beautiful beyond description. There were parts I had not expected, but the session was filled with the most glorious power of the Spirit. I learned things I had read before, but never properly understood. I learned empowering things about who I am and who I could become. I learned about the work and glory of the Lord, and I covenanted to be a part of that great undertaking. I felt whole for the first time in my life. I felt that I was part of something, that I belonged.

It wasn't until much later that I learned that the temple experience was not that way for many. There are some who found the experience mundane or even physically hot and uncomfortable. There are some who find it to be simply a hoop to jump through in order to be a "perfect Mormon". There are some who are not comfortable with the promises made or the things said. One of my favorite companions was one of these. We were so much alike in many ways, but her first experience in the temple was downright panicky for her. We spent many hours during that six weeks talking about the temple and about our different perspectives. I think she felt better about things, understood them better, after our talks.

I understand that the temple is a thing of mystery and sometimes fear for many, but I know that it can be the most beautiful experience imaginable. I am grateful that I did not have to work for that first understanding of its power and beauty, but I am not exempt from the need to work for that understanding now. And it does take work for most of us. Even now, though my feelings of unity with God and His children are not guaranteed every time I go, I long to be in the temple. It is quiet there. It is home. Only in the temple can I truly step away from this life for awhile and obtain an eternal perspective. There I can feel the love of God more strongly than anywhere else. Whether you who read these words are an LDS member or not, study and learn about the temple in the hopes of eventually attending and strengthening your bond with God. In the end, it will be an experience unparalleled.

If you are curious about what you will do in the temple, I can tell you that everything you need to know is in the scriptures. If you read, pray and prepare, you will open yourself to understanding. D&C 38: 30-33

I tell you these things because of your prayers; wherefore, treasure up wisdom in your bosoms, lest the wickedness of men reveal these things unto you by their wickedness, in a manner which shall speak in your ears with a voice louder than that which shall shake the earth; but if ye are prepared ye shall not fear*.

And that ye might escape the power of the enemy, and be gathered unto me a righteous people, without spot and blameless—Wherefore, for this cause I gave unto you the commandment that ye should go to the [temple]; and there I will give unto you my law; and there you shall be endowed with power from on high;

And from thence, whosoever I will shall go forth among all nations, and it shall be told them what they shall do; for I have a great work laid up in store, for Israel shall be saved, and I will lead them whithersoever I will, and no power shall stay my hand.

*Prepare yourself with prayer and by reading the scriptures - the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon - and you can be an even greater part of His great work: the salvation of His people.

Lacunae, Part 2b - The Spirit, Charity and the Law

Okay, I know it's been a long time coming, but here it is. For this second part, I'd like to preface it with an admonition. When examining the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law in others (the most readily available research source) do not judge their hearts, always look at them in the most charitable light. By this I mean that in seeking to become like God, never forget that you cannot be like Him without love for His children. That is His single, greatest attribute. All else radiates from this quality. This is not the Relief Society "I love you sisters" sort of love. This is a bittersweet, lay-down-your-life but be-willing-to-live-your-life-for-them sort of love. Christ didn't just die for us, He lived for us. That is what the Gospel holds at its core. When you feel His love, even in the smallest part, the tenets of the Gospel suddenly fall into place. It is important to understand that in a discussion like this, because it is far too easy to begin examining others and categorizing them. (Often people do this by labeling the "Liahonas" and the "Iron Rodders".) This only serves to divide, when I hope to bring points of doctrine together.

When trying to discover how to more fully follow the will of the Lord, it quickly becomes obvious that the law leads to the spirit which leads to the law. There is no one place to start. When you read scriptures such as Galatians 3, it begins to seem that there is no need for law if one is faithful enough. According to Paul, the law is a temporary measure when one is in a state of sin, a taskmaster to teach those who do not have the Spirit how to behave. When reading this, however, it is important to remember that Paul is talking to a group of people affected by the Pharisaical Mosaic Law. The Pharisees took the laws of God and turned them into a god of their own merits - a god that could be interpreted and manipulated at their pleasure. They did not understand that when Christ came, He fulfilled the law and gave the law of the Spirit. He did not change the law, he fulfilled it. There was nothing in the law of the Spirit that contradicted God's principles behind the law of Moses. The spirit of the law does not supersede the letter. You cannot live the spirit of the law while breaking the letter of it. Even Nephi killing Laban was within the bounds of the law under which he lived.

Although one cannot live the Spirit without living the letter, it is obvious how easily one can begin redefining the letter of the law to suit one's own purposes. Simply watch any time a conference speaker says something controversial. In the world of LDS blogs, for example, the pattern of outrage, reasoning and rejection will quickly emerge. It is so easy to define the words of the prophets by one's own understanding, yet we have been taught not to lean unto our own understanding. Yet, learning is not evil. As we discussed before, it is necessary to know the Gospel in order to live it. So, how do we live the Spirit of the law AND the letter without falling into our own trap? How do we approach from the side of law without losing grasp of the spiritual goal? The answer is "easy": we become learned, but listen to the councils of God. To do that, we must be humble. To be humble, we must not only know the gospel, we must understand it. To understand it, we must reach a deeper rapport with the Spirit than simple yes-no answers. We must realize that we have the same access to complete Spiritual revelation as the prophets. We must come to the place between humility and the vision of glory. We must fill the gap between the Law and the Spirit with patience and humility. We must remember that our lack of understanding pales in the light of the love of Christ - an attribute that can only be felt through the Spirit.

Lacunae, Part 2a - The Spirit, Charity and the Law

Finally, I have found my next doctrinal lacuna to discuss. I often hear people use the term "the spirit of the law" versus "the letter of the law" to explain a less-than-literal treatment of the Lord's commandments. In this second installment of my attempts to discuss doctrine, I wish to discuss the terms and their basic meaning. This first part will be rather short, as I have a Thanksgiving dinner to cook and a living room to clean.

It is interesting to find where the term "spirit of the law" came into play. Though nonexistent in the Old Testament, you'll find the concept emphasized in the New Testament in scriptures such as Galatians and Romans. At that time, the early apostles had an uphill battle to combat the Pharisaical enforcement of Mosaic law. The term is used often in latter-day revelations as well. The most interesting aspect of this discussion is how often the "spirit of the law" is cited as a reason to disobey the "letter" in application, though there is little to no scriptural justification for that.

After the holidays, I'll delve into this more deeply to illustrate the tension between following the Spirit and following the word of the Lord.