In teaching youth each Sunday I get to observe them. I've spent quite a bit of time instructing young men over the last seven years. The boys I help teach right now are a bit hard to keep focused on the Spirit. When I talk to them about knowing the Holy Ghost, and what the Holy Ghost produces inside us, I get the sense that they don't know the Spirit as well as they could. They're not used to recognizing the Holy Ghost, and in a sense seem to be unaware of the very real presence that is there when we're correctly testifying of Christ and the Gospel.
It's understandable; I didn't have a full sense of what the Holy Ghost was like when I was young. It took time to develop that sense.
There's also something else. In the Missionary Training Center our teachers taught us of the importance of helping others to recognize and identify the Holy Ghost as we taught them. This made sense to me in a basic way, but I struggled a bit initially. I didn't feel like I was able to do it. I went on with my time there, and one day, in the middle of a class, I thought to myself, "Wow; the Spirit is really strong here right now." Then, I suddenly realized that I had done it. I had recognized the influence of the Spirit. What's more, I had done so many times in the past, but from that point on I learned to be more sensitive to the feelings that the Holy Ghost produces in us.
It's really more than just simple feelings, though we certainly do feel and experience the things described in Galatians 5:22.
My hope for the young men that I teach is that they also gain a greater sensitivity to the Spirit.
While in Afghanistan I had several discussions about science and religion with another officer. I rather enjoyed the discussions, and I hoped in a way that one day he would be interested in seeking a testimony of the restored Gospel. In one discussion he brought up a scientific study he'd heard of that involved people being attached to electrodes (around the brain) and feeling "the Spirit of God", or the same feelings that God produces in us, after being stimulated electrically. He took it as proof that our feelings are not, in fact, from God. I saw it quite in the opposite way; when I've felt the Holy Ghost many times in the past, I'm quite certain I didn't have electrodes hooked up to my brain, so the only other place the feelings could come from is God.
One of my favorite life experiences is to listen to the simple words of an Apostle during General Conference and feeling a strong witness from the Holy Ghost. There's no inspiring music at that moment, no external influence of any kind, and of course no brain-wired electrodes that could possibly provide me a counterfeit feeling like that of the Holy Ghost. The pure and beautiful truth that they speak, inviting the Holy Ghost to testify to us, is the only thing that it could possibly be.
Over the last few years, with some particular struggles, I've grown weaker at times. When we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, we're instructed with a specific verb: "receive". We have to act in order to stay close to the presence of the Spirit of God. Throughout our lives, we can draw closer to God or let ourselves slip farther away, and it's vital that we make daily efforts to move closer.
Last thoughts for now:
I hope to grow closer to the Spirit of God again and to be strong in service to my Heavenly Father and His children. I hope to assist the young men I help teach to truly know the Holy Ghost, whose power and influence they so definitely need right now and will need in the future.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Love, Charity, Truth
Mark 12:29-31 -- "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is...thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength...And the second is...Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
John 13:34 -- "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
Moroni 7:47 -- "...charity is the pure love of Christ"
Moroni 7:46 -- "...if ye have not charity, ye are nothing"
I've heard it said more than once that despite the commandment we've been given to love everyone, it's not possible. I think it was spoken with a sense of practicality by people who readily acknowledged that there were people they knew whom they definitely did not love. I understand that, and I appreciate their candor, but what they said wasn't true. The fact is that we can love everyone. Maybe we can't all to do so all at once, without growing and exercising ourselves to gain that love, and sometimes there are people who are particularly difficult to love and who may have injured us seriously in some way. But we have great examples of others, Jesus Christ being the foremost but many more mere mortals as well, who have shown great love to others who were the most difficult to love or the least deserving.
I try to love everyone. I sure don't always succeed. But I have felt that love for everyone before, and I try to keep it with me. Interestingly, some of the times when I've most strongly felt the emotion of love for all were times when I was experiencing great trials. Otherwise, when I feel the greatest love is when I am engaged in service toward them. That service is a key component, and without taking the time for others I'm sure it would be impossible to gain or keep a love for them.
While service is essential, there are many good things which are not sufficient in and of themselves. The words of 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 strike me particularly: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
One way to serve others is by declaring truth in this world so full of falsehood and deception. If we love those around us, we'll want the best for them. We'll want to speak the truth to enlighten them, if we happen to have light to share. (And we'll want to gain that light so that we can share it.) However, we run a certain risk. When we speak to what is true or right we either explicitly or implicitly speak to what is false or wrong. In doing so, some will feel as if we're condemning ("judging") them. Perhaps it's a rare thing these days for people to speak the truth while still genuinely loving those who don't seem to live by it, but I don't think that's the real problem. I think instead the real problem is the underlying but widely prevalent message that to disagree with someone's actions or lifestyle is to hate them. Love is preached to be synonymous with complete acceptance of not only the basic person but of everything they do.
The real challenge for me is to live in such a way that people know I love them. When the situation arises in which they could interpret my words as either condemnation or encouragement, they won't just see me as a "sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." They will know that I really do want what is best for them and that I still love them even with their incorrect choices, just as I hope others will still love me despite my choices that either are wrong or seem wrong to them.
Last thoughts for now:
I know that some people will never feel the love I have for them even when I'm doing my very best to have that love. I know that I haven't overcome selfishness and have certainly not achieved perfect charity in my heart. But I know that it is right and good that I should have that love. I know that I need to keep that love as a constant goal in my life and that without it, nothing else matters. I hope that I can teach it to my children and encourage it in all those around me. Charity is greater than hope, but I'll keep hope in a world that knows real charity.
John 13:34 -- "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
Moroni 7:47 -- "...charity is the pure love of Christ"
Moroni 7:46 -- "...if ye have not charity, ye are nothing"
I've heard it said more than once that despite the commandment we've been given to love everyone, it's not possible. I think it was spoken with a sense of practicality by people who readily acknowledged that there were people they knew whom they definitely did not love. I understand that, and I appreciate their candor, but what they said wasn't true. The fact is that we can love everyone. Maybe we can't all to do so all at once, without growing and exercising ourselves to gain that love, and sometimes there are people who are particularly difficult to love and who may have injured us seriously in some way. But we have great examples of others, Jesus Christ being the foremost but many more mere mortals as well, who have shown great love to others who were the most difficult to love or the least deserving.
I try to love everyone. I sure don't always succeed. But I have felt that love for everyone before, and I try to keep it with me. Interestingly, some of the times when I've most strongly felt the emotion of love for all were times when I was experiencing great trials. Otherwise, when I feel the greatest love is when I am engaged in service toward them. That service is a key component, and without taking the time for others I'm sure it would be impossible to gain or keep a love for them.
While service is essential, there are many good things which are not sufficient in and of themselves. The words of 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 strike me particularly: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
One way to serve others is by declaring truth in this world so full of falsehood and deception. If we love those around us, we'll want the best for them. We'll want to speak the truth to enlighten them, if we happen to have light to share. (And we'll want to gain that light so that we can share it.) However, we run a certain risk. When we speak to what is true or right we either explicitly or implicitly speak to what is false or wrong. In doing so, some will feel as if we're condemning ("judging") them. Perhaps it's a rare thing these days for people to speak the truth while still genuinely loving those who don't seem to live by it, but I don't think that's the real problem. I think instead the real problem is the underlying but widely prevalent message that to disagree with someone's actions or lifestyle is to hate them. Love is preached to be synonymous with complete acceptance of not only the basic person but of everything they do.
The real challenge for me is to live in such a way that people know I love them. When the situation arises in which they could interpret my words as either condemnation or encouragement, they won't just see me as a "sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." They will know that I really do want what is best for them and that I still love them even with their incorrect choices, just as I hope others will still love me despite my choices that either are wrong or seem wrong to them.
Last thoughts for now:
I know that some people will never feel the love I have for them even when I'm doing my very best to have that love. I know that I haven't overcome selfishness and have certainly not achieved perfect charity in my heart. But I know that it is right and good that I should have that love. I know that I need to keep that love as a constant goal in my life and that without it, nothing else matters. I hope that I can teach it to my children and encourage it in all those around me. Charity is greater than hope, but I'll keep hope in a world that knows real charity.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Faith In God, Faith In Science
I recently read the book A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. I was enthusiastic to get into it; after all, Stephen Hawking is supposed to be one of the finest scientific minds of our day, and modern physics is fascinating stuff.
Well, I was disappointed.
Some of the theory seemed to be based on circular logic. Having observed forces between matter particles, people search for an explanation as to what creates those forces. They come up with the idea of force-carrying particles that are emitted by one matter particle and absorbed by another, which would change the velocity of each "just as if there had been a force between" them. Hawking states that these force-carrying particles "cannot be directly detected by a particle detector. We know they exist, however, because they do have a measurable effect: they give rise to forces between matter particles."
Really? It makes me think that I could come up with my own theory for what causes forces between matter particles and use the same justification for believing in them. Forces are caused by two-headed micro-demons that breath against pairs of matter particles, causing them to move away from each other. These demons cannot be detected, but we know they exist because they have a measurable effect: the give rise to forces between matter particles. That idea is facetious, but the logic behind "knowledge" of micro-demons is the same as that used for the "knowledge" of force-carrying particles.
At first the book was a fairly interesting read, but I soon saw that there was little I could do to think through the processes that modern scientists have used to develop their theories. Hawking basically goes over the ideas they came up with, referring to calculations without showing them. That's understandable, really; I wouldn't expect to understand in a few minutes or a few pages what very smart and educated people have taken years to develop. Among the scientific community leading minds can compare notes and evaluate each other's detailed thoughts. However, as the theories become as far-fetched as anything we read in scripture, what Hawking is telling the average person, through this book, is to accept the theories without seeing how they really work.
What he's asking us to do is to believe without seeing.
Isn't that the essence of faith?
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Alma 32:21 "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."
More than 99% of all people who have ever lived have no hope of ever understanding modern physics, but everyone who knows how to read can investigate the scriptures and then turn to God in prayer to have their faith rewarded with knowledge. Even those who cannot read can hear the word of God preached to them. Anyone can listen to the Holy Ghost within their hearts.
Last thoughts for now:
I don't reject outright the world's best modern ideas in physics; I'm glad to have the technology we have that is based on those ideas. It would be wildly interesting to study the best theories in depth and contribute to them. But if the average person is to accept modern science on faith, is it unfair to ask them to accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ on faith? Not at all. Indeed, it is a wonderful thing to invite others to seek and test their faith in God and His Son, and to see that faith rewarded with sure knowledge.
Well, I was disappointed.
Some of the theory seemed to be based on circular logic. Having observed forces between matter particles, people search for an explanation as to what creates those forces. They come up with the idea of force-carrying particles that are emitted by one matter particle and absorbed by another, which would change the velocity of each "just as if there had been a force between" them. Hawking states that these force-carrying particles "cannot be directly detected by a particle detector. We know they exist, however, because they do have a measurable effect: they give rise to forces between matter particles."
Really? It makes me think that I could come up with my own theory for what causes forces between matter particles and use the same justification for believing in them. Forces are caused by two-headed micro-demons that breath against pairs of matter particles, causing them to move away from each other. These demons cannot be detected, but we know they exist because they have a measurable effect: the give rise to forces between matter particles. That idea is facetious, but the logic behind "knowledge" of micro-demons is the same as that used for the "knowledge" of force-carrying particles.
At first the book was a fairly interesting read, but I soon saw that there was little I could do to think through the processes that modern scientists have used to develop their theories. Hawking basically goes over the ideas they came up with, referring to calculations without showing them. That's understandable, really; I wouldn't expect to understand in a few minutes or a few pages what very smart and educated people have taken years to develop. Among the scientific community leading minds can compare notes and evaluate each other's detailed thoughts. However, as the theories become as far-fetched as anything we read in scripture, what Hawking is telling the average person, through this book, is to accept the theories without seeing how they really work.
What he's asking us to do is to believe without seeing.
Isn't that the essence of faith?
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Alma 32:21 "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."
More than 99% of all people who have ever lived have no hope of ever understanding modern physics, but everyone who knows how to read can investigate the scriptures and then turn to God in prayer to have their faith rewarded with knowledge. Even those who cannot read can hear the word of God preached to them. Anyone can listen to the Holy Ghost within their hearts.
Last thoughts for now:
I don't reject outright the world's best modern ideas in physics; I'm glad to have the technology we have that is based on those ideas. It would be wildly interesting to study the best theories in depth and contribute to them. But if the average person is to accept modern science on faith, is it unfair to ask them to accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ on faith? Not at all. Indeed, it is a wonderful thing to invite others to seek and test their faith in God and His Son, and to see that faith rewarded with sure knowledge.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Fisher Family Traditions: Family Time
I've always found it important to re-evaluate the way we do things and make changes as necessary (which should be normal, really, if we're repenting as we should). However, when we think we've got a good idea we tend to want to hold onto it. One of our favorite family traditions is something call Family Time.
Family Time is a lot like Family Home Evening, except that it's simpler and we do it every day. In the Church we've repeatedly been counseled to pray together daily as a family and to read scriptures together daily. We've also been counseled that music invites the Holy Ghost. These things are the foundation of Family Time.
A while back we also picked up a part I called "gathering". With that added in, here's how our tradition goes before the kids' bedtime:
Gathering consists of tidying up the living room (which helps Mama to keep the house clean) and then sitting reverently while I play some music on the piano (generally from the Children's Songbook). I explain to the kids that when we're reverent, we listen to the Holy Ghost, and I sometimes ask what the Holy Ghost told them. I figure that by practicing reverence at home, the kids will be better at being reverent at church and at other appropriate times.
After gathering, we sing a song together. For now this is usually from the Children's Songbook instead of the Hymnal. Sometimes we sing a song that we don't know well, and occasionally one that none of us has even heard before. If we need to, one of the parents speaks a line of the lyrics before we sing them. We then read several verses of scripture. The passage could be as short as two verses (not very often at all) or even a whole chapter (also not very often), though usually it's closer to five or six verses. The length of the passage is not really important; mostly we want to talk about whatever idea or ideas are contained in the given passage. We've been reading the Book of Mormon from the beginning, and after a few years we're almost through 3 Nephi. We give everyone a chance to "read"; the younger kids repeat back the words of a verse as a parent reads them. (At one point our three-year old displayed some unwillingness to participate; we used his natural sense of possessiveness to our advantage. We ask, "Who gets to read Marshall's verse?" to which he happily raises his hand and says, "Me!" It works almost without fail.) As the kids participate this way they're also practicing their skills with either reading or memory. Depending on what the passage, we might even act out what we've read so that the kids can better understand. After we've read scripture we pray. For this prayer we kneel in a circle, and lately we've taken to also holding hands as well.
We try to keep up the tradition even when it's not convenient, such as when travelling. We've even had Family Time in the van. Sometimes we cut it a little bit short if necessary, though I'm always wary of selling ourselves short. The kids are accustomed to it and prod us as well. When we've wanted to keep it short by just having a family prayer, our sweet little three-year-old reminds us that we "forgot to read scriptures". Because of his encouragement, I've made sure to make the effort to read together even if it's late.
When we get the opportunity, we invite others to participate in our Family Time. It's a treat for us, and it provides a missionary experience as well when our guests are not members of the Church. I think it's one of the best ways to bring the Holy Ghost to people.
And, on Mondays, we have Family Home evening, which at a minimum also includes an opening prayer and a lesson but often also involves testimonies, an activity, and a treat.
Last thoughts for now:
Family Time is a wonderful tradition for us. I know that our family and our individual children are strengthened because of it. The kids expect it, and while we still need a lot of practice being reverent, they're learning a bit every day. I'm grateful for the counsel of living prophets and am glad that we've found a good tradition by which we can obey that counsel.
Family Time is a lot like Family Home Evening, except that it's simpler and we do it every day. In the Church we've repeatedly been counseled to pray together daily as a family and to read scriptures together daily. We've also been counseled that music invites the Holy Ghost. These things are the foundation of Family Time.
A while back we also picked up a part I called "gathering". With that added in, here's how our tradition goes before the kids' bedtime:
Gathering consists of tidying up the living room (which helps Mama to keep the house clean) and then sitting reverently while I play some music on the piano (generally from the Children's Songbook). I explain to the kids that when we're reverent, we listen to the Holy Ghost, and I sometimes ask what the Holy Ghost told them. I figure that by practicing reverence at home, the kids will be better at being reverent at church and at other appropriate times.
After gathering, we sing a song together. For now this is usually from the Children's Songbook instead of the Hymnal. Sometimes we sing a song that we don't know well, and occasionally one that none of us has even heard before. If we need to, one of the parents speaks a line of the lyrics before we sing them. We then read several verses of scripture. The passage could be as short as two verses (not very often at all) or even a whole chapter (also not very often), though usually it's closer to five or six verses. The length of the passage is not really important; mostly we want to talk about whatever idea or ideas are contained in the given passage. We've been reading the Book of Mormon from the beginning, and after a few years we're almost through 3 Nephi. We give everyone a chance to "read"; the younger kids repeat back the words of a verse as a parent reads them. (At one point our three-year old displayed some unwillingness to participate; we used his natural sense of possessiveness to our advantage. We ask, "Who gets to read Marshall's verse?" to which he happily raises his hand and says, "Me!" It works almost without fail.) As the kids participate this way they're also practicing their skills with either reading or memory. Depending on what the passage, we might even act out what we've read so that the kids can better understand. After we've read scripture we pray. For this prayer we kneel in a circle, and lately we've taken to also holding hands as well.
We try to keep up the tradition even when it's not convenient, such as when travelling. We've even had Family Time in the van. Sometimes we cut it a little bit short if necessary, though I'm always wary of selling ourselves short. The kids are accustomed to it and prod us as well. When we've wanted to keep it short by just having a family prayer, our sweet little three-year-old reminds us that we "forgot to read scriptures". Because of his encouragement, I've made sure to make the effort to read together even if it's late.
When we get the opportunity, we invite others to participate in our Family Time. It's a treat for us, and it provides a missionary experience as well when our guests are not members of the Church. I think it's one of the best ways to bring the Holy Ghost to people.
And, on Mondays, we have Family Home evening, which at a minimum also includes an opening prayer and a lesson but often also involves testimonies, an activity, and a treat.
Last thoughts for now:
Family Time is a wonderful tradition for us. I know that our family and our individual children are strengthened because of it. The kids expect it, and while we still need a lot of practice being reverent, they're learning a bit every day. I'm grateful for the counsel of living prophets and am glad that we've found a good tradition by which we can obey that counsel.
The Sacrament and the Gospel
While the sacrament is being administered to us, I generally whisper to one of my children (whichever is closest to me at the time) to ask them about the meaning of the sacrament and explain as necessary. It makes for a lot of repetition, but I really want them to understand the importance and meaning of the covenant. They know that when they're eight years old they'll be baptized, and then they'll start taking the sacrament each week also. (Right now they don't; I don't want them to be taking the bread and water out of habit only, but rather to meaningfully renew covenants as they eat and drink.)
On another topic:
When we used to teach people about the Gospel of Jesus Christ as missionaries, and as I've taught and been taught many times since, some central ideas about the Atonement of Jesus Christ are that He overcame two major obstacles for us: physical death ("the grave") and spiritual death("hell"). Because of the Fall we are mortal and subject to physical death, at which time our spirits will lose the marvelous bodies that God has given us. Also, with our moral agency we are free to choose our actions, and we all will make choices that separate us from God (and thus causing spiritual death). Jesus suffered for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, suffering such pain that He bled from the pores of His skin. He then died and was later resurrected.
Perhaps the connection is already obvious in stating this much. In any case, here's what my whispered conversation with my kids tends to sound like:
Daddy: "Why do we take the sacrament?"
Child: (waits)
Daddy: "We take the sacrament to renew our covenants. We make promises to Heavenly Father when we're baptized. We covenant to be like Jesus, to take His name upon us, and to obey the commandments. What does the bread remind us of?"
Child: "Jesus' body."
Daddy: "Yes. Because Jesus died, and his body went in a tomb for three days. What happened then?"
Child: "He was resurrected."
Daddy: "That's right, and because He was resurrected, we all will be, too."
As the water is being administered:
Daddy: "What does the water remind us of?"
Child: "Jesus' blood."
Daddy: "Yes, because Jesus paid for our sins and it hurt Him so much that he bled. Because He paid for our sins, we can all repent and live with our Heavenly Father again."
I don't think I've ever heard anyone teach that the sacrament is directly related to Jesus' resurrection and His experience in the Garden of Gethsemane, but it makes sense to me that way.
Last thoughts for now:
I want my kids to be ready for baptism. I want them to have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Just as elements of teachings in the temple are symbolic, the bread and water definitely are also. Jesus is the bread of life and the water of life, He died and was resurrected so that we will be too, and He atoned for our sins so that we can repent and be forgiven. All of us.
On another topic:
When we used to teach people about the Gospel of Jesus Christ as missionaries, and as I've taught and been taught many times since, some central ideas about the Atonement of Jesus Christ are that He overcame two major obstacles for us: physical death ("the grave") and spiritual death("hell"). Because of the Fall we are mortal and subject to physical death, at which time our spirits will lose the marvelous bodies that God has given us. Also, with our moral agency we are free to choose our actions, and we all will make choices that separate us from God (and thus causing spiritual death). Jesus suffered for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, suffering such pain that He bled from the pores of His skin. He then died and was later resurrected.
Perhaps the connection is already obvious in stating this much. In any case, here's what my whispered conversation with my kids tends to sound like:
Daddy: "Why do we take the sacrament?"
Child: (waits)
Daddy: "We take the sacrament to renew our covenants. We make promises to Heavenly Father when we're baptized. We covenant to be like Jesus, to take His name upon us, and to obey the commandments. What does the bread remind us of?"
Child: "Jesus' body."
Daddy: "Yes. Because Jesus died, and his body went in a tomb for three days. What happened then?"
Child: "He was resurrected."
Daddy: "That's right, and because He was resurrected, we all will be, too."
As the water is being administered:
Daddy: "What does the water remind us of?"
Child: "Jesus' blood."
Daddy: "Yes, because Jesus paid for our sins and it hurt Him so much that he bled. Because He paid for our sins, we can all repent and live with our Heavenly Father again."
I don't think I've ever heard anyone teach that the sacrament is directly related to Jesus' resurrection and His experience in the Garden of Gethsemane, but it makes sense to me that way.
Last thoughts for now:
I want my kids to be ready for baptism. I want them to have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Just as elements of teachings in the temple are symbolic, the bread and water definitely are also. Jesus is the bread of life and the water of life, He died and was resurrected so that we will be too, and He atoned for our sins so that we can repent and be forgiven. All of us.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
"Getting It Done", Percentages, and the Real Needs of Children of our Heavenly Father
While preparing for a talk I gave in church today, I came across the following words in a talk from W. Grant Bangerter in the October 1975 General Conference, entitled The Power of the Priesthood:
"I would like to ask tonight, 'What kind of a testimony do you have concerning the power of the priesthood?'
"How many brethren here are home teachers? Would you please raise your hands. Those of you who are listening in may also raise your hands. Now since we have just closed out the month of September, how many of you home teachers 'got your home teaching done?' Well, brethren, that’s a catch phrase. You know, the devil taught us to say those words: 'Did you get your home teaching done?' That is a very poor way to refer to the comprehensive mission embodied in home teaching. By getting us to ask 'Did you get your home teaching done?' the devil destroys 90 percent of our effectiveness. All that question implies is a quick visit the last day of the month so that we can send in the report." (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/the-power-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng&query=teach+in+home)
It strikes me that I've often heard the same language in reference to home teaching--"getting it done". Before today it had never struck me that the devil had taught us those words. I understand the attitude, though. It's faulty to be concerned with whether or not someone made a perfunctory visit to someone's house during a given 28-, 30-, or 31-day period.
Part of the inadequacy of the "get your home teaching done" attitude comes when we ask the question, "Is there anything we can do for you?" The answer, more often than not, will be something like, "No, we're fine." I've found that it's much more helpful to appropriately probe a bit with specific questions. "How is your car running?" "Do you have plenty of food in your fridge?" "Are you in need of a priesthood blessing?" "How is your health?" These sorts of questions allow us to A) show that we actually care, and B) serve as the eyes and ears of the elders quorum president (or high priests group leader) and bishop, who really shouldn't be the first people to hear about someone's needs.
We also talk about home teaching percentages and I think we often fail to inspire ourselves and others properly to perform one of the most important priesthood duties we have. Here again, we miss the mark. When it comes to percentages, the following are true: 1) The percentage of families visited by home teachers is an important part of quarterly reporting so that Church leaders can have a sense of how well the priesthood holders of a given unit are fulfilling their duties. 2) Having a high reported home-teaching percentage (and thus projecting an image of obedience) should not be our goal. 3) Any percentage below 100 indicates that families we know and love (or should love, at least) are being neglected.
Instead of setting percentages as our goals, what should we focus on? People. Real people. Real children of our Heavenly Father, with real needs. The underlying facts beneath some percentage of home teaching being conducted are that Brother X doesn't understand his responsibilities as a leader and teacher in his home or how to accomplish them; Sister Y is struggling financially and is critically losing faith; and the Z Family is passing year by year without any reason to believe that the Church of Jesus Christ inspires anyone, because no one from the Church cares enough to even stop by! Home teaching is a vital priesthood service for both spiritual and temporal reasons, and is often the key to families resuming activity in the Gospel and in the Church. Even if a given family has few evident needs during some month, we are still negligent as priesthood holders if we are not dedicating time to care for that family in their home.
Last thoughts for now:
It's perhaps easy for me to speak of home teaching mistakes we make in general when I haven't been assigned as a home teacher for months. All the same, I know how important these assignments are, and I don't want to be found negligent by my God when reviewing my life with Him. I don't want others to miss the blessings of the Gospel and of salvation because I failed to care. I don't want to just "get my home teaching done". The Gospel is about love, and if I am to show love to my fellow members of the Church I'll take the time to visit them and attend to their real needs.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
He Maketh His Sun to Rise
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".
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".
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)