I've said before that the most instructive part of my life is being a parent. As I try to be a good father, I gain insight on my Heavenly Father, which is important because I'm trying to emulate Him and His Son.
I give a fair amount of thought to how I (and we, including my wife) want to do things. We have certain rules in the house, of course, and I take a certain attitude toward my kids in which I try to treat them with the same intelligence and respect that I would show to anyone else. I try to grant my children responsibility for their actions so that they can learn from them. I try to avoid coercing them. I try to encourage talking when there's a problem. I aim to encourage good behavior and not encourage bad behavior. My wife and I do pretty well with it. Granted, I'm unfortunately lazy sometimes and with my imperfections I make a host of mistakes, but I have some practices that I've thought through and I want to keep.
I want my children to understand consequences because I want them to know why they should make good choices. Perhaps, though, imposed consequences are not always the best idea. Recently I again adjusted my outlook on parenting with the thought that there are going to be certain things that I do for my kids regardless of what they do beforehand. For example, I want to read to my kids before they go to bed, observe their night-time prayers, and sing to them as they lie down. Sometimes I've deprived them of the experience because it was late, they took too long getting ready for bed, because their room was messy, or a combination of those reasons. Really, though, I don't want to deprive them (or myself) of those things.
The thought is mirrored in a scriptural passage that has long been one of my favorites. In 3 Nephi 12:44-45 (and similarly in Matthew 5:44-45) Jesus is teaching about love and how we can be more like our Father in Heaven: "But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good."
I suppose that's what we call unconditional love. From what I'm told, that's the kind of love we're supposed to show to our family (and everybody else, too).
Last thoughts for now:
There are still going to be circumstances in my parenting when conditions apply and the kids will miss out on something good because they failed to meet a prerequisite. I want to show them true love, though, so that they really know that I love them. I want them to know that if they "turn away, or disobey, or go astray" ("Teacher, Do You Love Me?" -- Children's Songbook, page 178) I will still love them and be ready to help them just like my Father in Heaven is always there for me no matter how often I make dumb mistakes. I need to show them that love. So at bedtime I will make my song to sing for both the kids who are behaving well and the kids who aren't, just as God "maketh His sun to rise".
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The Few That Are Chosen
There are several ways of making a particular distinction; that is, several different appellations: an elect people, a chosen people, a peculiar people.
Doesn't it seem strange to consider some people as "special"? In principle, God loves us all, right? And he's no respecter of persons? Of course. (Acts 10:34, Doctrine and Covenants 1:35, 38:16) Then why and more importantly how are certain peoples distinguished in the eyes of the Lord?
I was reading to my children just now before they went to bed. Because it's Sunday, we were reading from the scripture story picture books produced by the Church. We read the story of the Jaredites. Something struck me as interesting, especially in the abbreviated form. While the Jaredites started out as a righteous people (or at least they were following a very righteous man--the brother of Jared), after they reach the promised land the next thing that happens is this: they become wicked. Very wicked. Wicked to the point of being destroyed (by themselves, in this case, but destroyed all the same).
This isn't really surprising, because there is already precedent. Those of us with extended hindsight can see the same occurrence happening throughout scripture. The first instance was with Adam and Eve, two of the most trusted of Heavenly Father's spirit children: a bulk of their children became so wicked that they merited destruction by flood. Another easily remembered example comes from the people of Isreal after the Exodus. They looked to a prophet for deliverance, trusted him enough to follow him out of Egypt, and received help from God in the form of many wonders, but then committed such abhorrent sins that they had to wander in the wilderness until that generation had died (40 years).
Another example is that of Lehi's family, though in their case it's more clear that the actions of a few people early on had a significant bad influence on their progeny. In general, however, we see simply that civilizations often have a trend of becoming wicked even if they have the best starting conditions. I know of only one exception; the city of Enoch was so righteous (a true Zion) that it was taken into heaven (see Moses 7:23). Even the Nephites, after having had the wicked sifted out from among them through disaster and having received a visit from the resurrected Christ Himself, only maintained their righteousness for a couple of centuries.
Why does this happen? Because we are granted the ability to exercise our own moral agency, and to maintain the standards of Zion requires full dedication, which most are not willing to give. God knows that, given our agency, we will use it in different ways, and we're all going to use it poorly at times. Individuals, families, and nations will often turn to wickedness. I suppose that God could at a given moment get a report showing what percent of His children, after their final judgment, merited each kingdom; either way, He knows that some will inherit celestial glory, some will inherit terrestrial glory, some will inherit telestial glory, and some will inherit no glory at all.
While God knows we will sin, He has planned for us to succeed. The key is that we have been provided with a Savior who has atoned for us all:
"O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.
And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.
And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.
And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.
And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it." (2 Nephi 9:20-24)
How do we receive the grace of our Savior? By making and keeping covenants. Without them, human nature will lead us to error (or, put differently, "the natural man is an enemy to God"--Mosiah 3:19). That's the distinguishing factor, and therein lies the "why" of the distinction as not just the "chosen people" or the "elect" but also as the "covenant people" of the Lord. We are distinguished in that we are supposed to make a demonstrated willful act to show that we will follow the will of God through His plan. Sure, we are still imperfect after making covenants; some of us will make mistakes and repent, and others will even fail to repent and lose their reward. Thus, among the covenant people of God there can still be and sometimes are great problems, and we are ever in need of prophets and other leaders to guide, inspire, and encourage us. But in each case of an "elect" people they have made covenants. Even in the passage above we see a necessary covenant: baptism. It is through baptism that we become the covenant people of the Lord, or, in other words, latter-day saints.
Last thoughts for now:
Making and keeping covenants is how we become the chosen people of God as members of His Church, and He has given us these covenants in order to allow us to be sanctified and justified and thus to fulfill His plan. That's the "why"; that's why some are "chosen" despite the fact that we all invariably misuse our agency to some degree. The beauty of it (and this is real beauty) is that "he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice". We all can receive the greatest blessings of God if we are willing, and if we take care to keep our hearts set on the kingdom of God. It is my goal to have such willingness in my heart. It is my goal to encourage others to do the same.
Doesn't it seem strange to consider some people as "special"? In principle, God loves us all, right? And he's no respecter of persons? Of course. (Acts 10:34, Doctrine and Covenants 1:35, 38:16) Then why and more importantly how are certain peoples distinguished in the eyes of the Lord?
I was reading to my children just now before they went to bed. Because it's Sunday, we were reading from the scripture story picture books produced by the Church. We read the story of the Jaredites. Something struck me as interesting, especially in the abbreviated form. While the Jaredites started out as a righteous people (or at least they were following a very righteous man--the brother of Jared), after they reach the promised land the next thing that happens is this: they become wicked. Very wicked. Wicked to the point of being destroyed (by themselves, in this case, but destroyed all the same).
This isn't really surprising, because there is already precedent. Those of us with extended hindsight can see the same occurrence happening throughout scripture. The first instance was with Adam and Eve, two of the most trusted of Heavenly Father's spirit children: a bulk of their children became so wicked that they merited destruction by flood. Another easily remembered example comes from the people of Isreal after the Exodus. They looked to a prophet for deliverance, trusted him enough to follow him out of Egypt, and received help from God in the form of many wonders, but then committed such abhorrent sins that they had to wander in the wilderness until that generation had died (40 years).
Another example is that of Lehi's family, though in their case it's more clear that the actions of a few people early on had a significant bad influence on their progeny. In general, however, we see simply that civilizations often have a trend of becoming wicked even if they have the best starting conditions. I know of only one exception; the city of Enoch was so righteous (a true Zion) that it was taken into heaven (see Moses 7:23). Even the Nephites, after having had the wicked sifted out from among them through disaster and having received a visit from the resurrected Christ Himself, only maintained their righteousness for a couple of centuries.
Why does this happen? Because we are granted the ability to exercise our own moral agency, and to maintain the standards of Zion requires full dedication, which most are not willing to give. God knows that, given our agency, we will use it in different ways, and we're all going to use it poorly at times. Individuals, families, and nations will often turn to wickedness. I suppose that God could at a given moment get a report showing what percent of His children, after their final judgment, merited each kingdom; either way, He knows that some will inherit celestial glory, some will inherit terrestrial glory, some will inherit telestial glory, and some will inherit no glory at all.
While God knows we will sin, He has planned for us to succeed. The key is that we have been provided with a Savior who has atoned for us all:
"O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.
And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.
And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.
And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.
And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it." (2 Nephi 9:20-24)
How do we receive the grace of our Savior? By making and keeping covenants. Without them, human nature will lead us to error (or, put differently, "the natural man is an enemy to God"--Mosiah 3:19). That's the distinguishing factor, and therein lies the "why" of the distinction as not just the "chosen people" or the "elect" but also as the "covenant people" of the Lord. We are distinguished in that we are supposed to make a demonstrated willful act to show that we will follow the will of God through His plan. Sure, we are still imperfect after making covenants; some of us will make mistakes and repent, and others will even fail to repent and lose their reward. Thus, among the covenant people of God there can still be and sometimes are great problems, and we are ever in need of prophets and other leaders to guide, inspire, and encourage us. But in each case of an "elect" people they have made covenants. Even in the passage above we see a necessary covenant: baptism. It is through baptism that we become the covenant people of the Lord, or, in other words, latter-day saints.
Last thoughts for now:
Making and keeping covenants is how we become the chosen people of God as members of His Church, and He has given us these covenants in order to allow us to be sanctified and justified and thus to fulfill His plan. That's the "why"; that's why some are "chosen" despite the fact that we all invariably misuse our agency to some degree. The beauty of it (and this is real beauty) is that "he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice". We all can receive the greatest blessings of God if we are willing, and if we take care to keep our hearts set on the kingdom of God. It is my goal to have such willingness in my heart. It is my goal to encourage others to do the same.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
What Christmas Should Be About
(Note: I started writing this before Christmas but never finished until now.)
I was in a bookstore recently and while passing through the children's section I saw a large wall, centrally located, that was dedicated to Christmas-themed books. I was struck by the fact that the books, toys, and and other items on the wall universally lacked one crucial element of Christmas. The one truly important part of Christmas was completely absent from the wall.
Understanding that this is one of those times that I'm going to be disagreeing with most of the world again, here is what should not be the focus of Christmas:
1. Christmas should not be about a fictitious flying fat man in red who encourages greed. It should not be about mythical elves and reindeer. These are distractions that help a soda company to sell its product but that don't really enrich or inspire us.
2. Christmas should not be about sleigh bells, trees, chestnuts, romance, or any number of other things people sing about in "Christmas" tunes. These things are mostly harmless and can be parts of fun traditions for the season, but they're ancillary appendages with the potential, like the fat guy, to distract us and our children. (We have enjoyed Christmas trees every year, though I was recently shown a passage at the beginning of Jeremiah 10 that seems to condemn the practice. I'd have to study context more to be sure.)
3. People sometimes say that Christmas is about "learning that it's better to give than to receive". That statement is true, and Christmas is as good a time as any to experience the goodness of giving to others, but I think that under the surface most people support giving because necessarily, receiving occurs along with giving, and if everybody is engaged in the act of giving everybody is also receiving. Net result: we get spoiled with a lot of presents. Christmas should not be about giving or receiving gifts, even if we engage in either or both.
4. People also say that Christmas is about peace, love, and kindness. To me, this is like saying that a hamburger is about mustard and ketchup, or that Mondays at work are about work. Peace, love, and kindness only have meaning in that in showing these qualities we emulate our Savior who, through His Atonement, gave us hope, because without him, all of our positive thoughts, feelings, and actions would have been meaningless as we would be eternally lost (see 2 Nephi 9:7-10 and the rest of the chapter). Also, while December is a great month for peace, love, and kindness, so is every other month, too.
What should Christmas be about? Christmas should be the celebration of the birth of a man who came into the world to teach us, live for us, suffer for us, die for us, and intercede at the judgment bar of God for us. We refer to this man as the Christ.
So those of us who care about our religion wonder how we can stay focused on what is important. Often we try to come up with some sort of Christ-centered activity in addition to our regular traditions such as gift-giving, but in these cases I question whether or not we're really focusing ourselves on Jesus Christ. Even as we include such an activity, people tend to look forward to other parts of our holiday (a word derived from the words "holy day"; that's what it ought to be if it's about Jesus Christ). Kids invariably look forward most to opening presents, others look forward to the same thing or any of the other things mentioned above.
If it's what we're looking forward to the most, it's what we're focused on, and I'm quite sure that no one is thinking about Christ while pulling apart pretty wrapping paper to see what toy or treat they get.
Matthew 6:20-21 "But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
Where is our heart at Christmastime?
An Army major I know (a concerned Christian man, who showed me the Jeremiah passage above), determined with his wife a few years ago that his family would not celebrate Christmas at all. I wonder if we're wrong to do so many distracting things in the name of Christmas, and thus in the name of Christ. Are we thus taking our Lord's name in vain (Exodus 20:7)?
Do our Christmas traditions deserve reconsideration?
Last thoughts for now:
My wife and I keep re-evaluating our Christmas traditions (and Easter, too, for that matter). I think I want to severely de-emphasize the gift-giving, and maybe even get rid of it altogether or move it to another day. I like to give my wife gifts (and the kids, too, though they have lots of toys already), but I don't want our Christmas to be about gifts. We like our kids' re-enactment of the Nativity each Christmas Eve, and I think I like the idea of spending time together on Christmas and reading or singing about Christ every hour. While I'm still figuring out all of that, I know that I want to keep some traditional stuff away. I don't want to lose my focus on Christ.
I was in a bookstore recently and while passing through the children's section I saw a large wall, centrally located, that was dedicated to Christmas-themed books. I was struck by the fact that the books, toys, and and other items on the wall universally lacked one crucial element of Christmas. The one truly important part of Christmas was completely absent from the wall.
Understanding that this is one of those times that I'm going to be disagreeing with most of the world again, here is what should not be the focus of Christmas:
1. Christmas should not be about a fictitious flying fat man in red who encourages greed. It should not be about mythical elves and reindeer. These are distractions that help a soda company to sell its product but that don't really enrich or inspire us.
2. Christmas should not be about sleigh bells, trees, chestnuts, romance, or any number of other things people sing about in "Christmas" tunes. These things are mostly harmless and can be parts of fun traditions for the season, but they're ancillary appendages with the potential, like the fat guy, to distract us and our children. (We have enjoyed Christmas trees every year, though I was recently shown a passage at the beginning of Jeremiah 10 that seems to condemn the practice. I'd have to study context more to be sure.)
3. People sometimes say that Christmas is about "learning that it's better to give than to receive". That statement is true, and Christmas is as good a time as any to experience the goodness of giving to others, but I think that under the surface most people support giving because necessarily, receiving occurs along with giving, and if everybody is engaged in the act of giving everybody is also receiving. Net result: we get spoiled with a lot of presents. Christmas should not be about giving or receiving gifts, even if we engage in either or both.
4. People also say that Christmas is about peace, love, and kindness. To me, this is like saying that a hamburger is about mustard and ketchup, or that Mondays at work are about work. Peace, love, and kindness only have meaning in that in showing these qualities we emulate our Savior who, through His Atonement, gave us hope, because without him, all of our positive thoughts, feelings, and actions would have been meaningless as we would be eternally lost (see 2 Nephi 9:7-10 and the rest of the chapter). Also, while December is a great month for peace, love, and kindness, so is every other month, too.
What should Christmas be about? Christmas should be the celebration of the birth of a man who came into the world to teach us, live for us, suffer for us, die for us, and intercede at the judgment bar of God for us. We refer to this man as the Christ.
So those of us who care about our religion wonder how we can stay focused on what is important. Often we try to come up with some sort of Christ-centered activity in addition to our regular traditions such as gift-giving, but in these cases I question whether or not we're really focusing ourselves on Jesus Christ. Even as we include such an activity, people tend to look forward to other parts of our holiday (a word derived from the words "holy day"; that's what it ought to be if it's about Jesus Christ). Kids invariably look forward most to opening presents, others look forward to the same thing or any of the other things mentioned above.
If it's what we're looking forward to the most, it's what we're focused on, and I'm quite sure that no one is thinking about Christ while pulling apart pretty wrapping paper to see what toy or treat they get.
Matthew 6:20-21 "But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
Where is our heart at Christmastime?
An Army major I know (a concerned Christian man, who showed me the Jeremiah passage above), determined with his wife a few years ago that his family would not celebrate Christmas at all. I wonder if we're wrong to do so many distracting things in the name of Christmas, and thus in the name of Christ. Are we thus taking our Lord's name in vain (Exodus 20:7)?
Do our Christmas traditions deserve reconsideration?
Last thoughts for now:
My wife and I keep re-evaluating our Christmas traditions (and Easter, too, for that matter). I think I want to severely de-emphasize the gift-giving, and maybe even get rid of it altogether or move it to another day. I like to give my wife gifts (and the kids, too, though they have lots of toys already), but I don't want our Christmas to be about gifts. We like our kids' re-enactment of the Nativity each Christmas Eve, and I think I like the idea of spending time together on Christmas and reading or singing about Christ every hour. While I'm still figuring out all of that, I know that I want to keep some traditional stuff away. I don't want to lose my focus on Christ.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Moderation in Good Things
My wife and I were in a used book store recently. Book stores are fun places for me; it's neat to be surrounded by aisles full of shelves full of books.
At the same time, I realize that I will never read most of them. That's not just because time is short, and I wouldn't have the opportunity to read them all; it's because I know that many aren't worth reading. The books' quality of writing and worthiness of material are often inadequate, but a lot are just trashy. A lot of filth is published that doesn't merit being read.
Sometimes I've flipped through a book casually; whether by doing so or by reading a full book I think I've noticed a trend: somewhere between one quarter to halfway through a book, and author will often include a scene containing some sexuality. In a way I think this is supposed to make the protagonist seem more impressive, but I also figure that the scene is included so as to keep a reader reading far enough that eventually their investment of time in the book leads them to want to keep reading the rest. Meanwhile, there are hints that lead up to these scenes and entice the reader in the same way.
Maybe I'm wrong about why the trash is there, but it's often there. The other thing I notice is that there's only a little bit of it. I'm sure there are plenty of books of other types that are filled with garbage, but in a common novel there's just a bit. Just enough to taint it, in my view. It's as if the author, publisher, or average reader feels that, while a lot of sexuality is bad, or "in poor taste", a little bit of sexuality is good. They might say that we should seek balance, and that "excessive" sexuality would not be great but a lack of it would be "boring", "stale", or negative in some other way.
Of course I would disagree with them.
I notice that something similar occurs in another fiction medium: film. So often we see a movie that is entertaining and that we like except for a few small parts. So often. Sometimes the first thought I have after a movie ends is, "Well, we won't own that one," because of a bit of bad language, sexual innuendo or discussion, or stark violence. Interestingly, a commonly accepted movie rating, PG-13, allows for this small amount of objectionable material. Frequently, people tolerate smaller offenses just because they are smaller, and frequently we then become accustomed to them in a way described by Alexander Pope:
At the same time, I realize that I will never read most of them. That's not just because time is short, and I wouldn't have the opportunity to read them all; it's because I know that many aren't worth reading. The books' quality of writing and worthiness of material are often inadequate, but a lot are just trashy. A lot of filth is published that doesn't merit being read.
Sometimes I've flipped through a book casually; whether by doing so or by reading a full book I think I've noticed a trend: somewhere between one quarter to halfway through a book, and author will often include a scene containing some sexuality. In a way I think this is supposed to make the protagonist seem more impressive, but I also figure that the scene is included so as to keep a reader reading far enough that eventually their investment of time in the book leads them to want to keep reading the rest. Meanwhile, there are hints that lead up to these scenes and entice the reader in the same way.
Maybe I'm wrong about why the trash is there, but it's often there. The other thing I notice is that there's only a little bit of it. I'm sure there are plenty of books of other types that are filled with garbage, but in a common novel there's just a bit. Just enough to taint it, in my view. It's as if the author, publisher, or average reader feels that, while a lot of sexuality is bad, or "in poor taste", a little bit of sexuality is good. They might say that we should seek balance, and that "excessive" sexuality would not be great but a lack of it would be "boring", "stale", or negative in some other way.
Of course I would disagree with them.
I notice that something similar occurs in another fiction medium: film. So often we see a movie that is entertaining and that we like except for a few small parts. So often. Sometimes the first thought I have after a movie ends is, "Well, we won't own that one," because of a bit of bad language, sexual innuendo or discussion, or stark violence. Interestingly, a commonly accepted movie rating, PG-13, allows for this small amount of objectionable material. Frequently, people tolerate smaller offenses just because they are smaller, and frequently we then become accustomed to them in a way described by Alexander Pope:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
(“Essay on Man,” Epistle II, line 135.)
That's the danger. The danger is that we come to accept something that is bad.
I've often heard the expression, "Moderation in all things," or "all things in moderation." Perhaps it's implicitly understood by some that "all things" doesn't include vice (Joseph Smith clearly used the phrase in the thirteenth Article of Faith to refer to all good things), but I seem to see a lot of tolerance of evil in the world.
If I ever were to share the quote myself, I would feel it necessary to remove the ambiguity by not using the word "all". I'm definitely comfortable with omitting some things from my life.
If I ever were to share the quote myself, I would feel it necessary to remove the ambiguity by not using the word "all". I'm definitely comfortable with omitting some things from my life.
Having cited either the fact that Jesus and his disciples drank wine or studies that show health benefits of the drink, I've heard people state that alcohol is good in moderation. Certainly, such a standard does not align with covenants I've made.
And certainly, there are many other worldly standards that aren't sufficient for my covenants.
Last thoughts for now:
I struggle sometimes when deciding what media I'm going to allow in my home, and deciding on what I'm going to spend money (2 Nephi 9:51 "Wherefore, do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy.") I'm sure that sometimes I don't find the right balance, but I know that some things shouldn't be a part of my home, my conversation, my meal, or any other aspect of my life. Instead of seeking moderation in things that are not of God,I know I must "seek after these things" that are "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy". Instead of a balance between good and evil, I should find balance between family responsibilities, Church, work, and other worthwhile pursuits. I sure haven't mastered it yet, but that's my challenge.
I struggle sometimes when deciding what media I'm going to allow in my home, and deciding on what I'm going to spend money (2 Nephi 9:51 "Wherefore, do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy.") I'm sure that sometimes I don't find the right balance, but I know that some things shouldn't be a part of my home, my conversation, my meal, or any other aspect of my life. Instead of seeking moderation in things that are not of God,I know I must "seek after these things" that are "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy". Instead of a balance between good and evil, I should find balance between family responsibilities, Church, work, and other worthwhile pursuits. I sure haven't mastered it yet, but that's my challenge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)