My New Calling: Sunday School Lesson Recaps

[Anonymous]

Today, we wrapped up the monthly theme of “Prophets and Revelation” by focusing on two scriptural stories that describe very different situations but the same action: killing someone else. I used these stories (Abraham & Isaac and Nephi & Laban) to explore what revelation really means and when people generally receive revelation, specifically to address personal revelation in the future of each of the students.

We started by revisiting the story of Abraham being tempted to kill Isaac. I asked everyone to pinpoint the “revelation” in this story – to tell me what the revelation was. One of the students immediately answered: “Obedience brings blessings.” I pointed out that the story can lead to a lesson about obedience, but obedience wasn’t the revelation – since obedience had been taught for a long time prior to that moment. At that point, they were stumped, so I altered the question a bit to be: “What was revealed to Abraham that had been hidden / unknown previously?” After some discussion, they understood that the revelation was that human / child sacrifice was to be discarded as a form of worship – and that animal sacrifice was to take its place.

So, in a very real way, the revelation in the story was a clear statement of what would be worded in Moses’ time as:

“Thou shalt not murder (your children)” – with an additional understanding of the Atonement that he hadn’t possessed previously.

We then turned to the account of Nephi and Laban, and I asked again what the revelation was in this story. Since nobody could answer that immediately, we read the main verses in 1 Nephi 4 that talk about it. We talked about what it means to be “constrained” (“confined; restrained; compelled; etc.”). We talked about Nephi’s reaction to the idea that he needed to kill Laban (“No way! I’ve never killed anyone and can’t do it.”) – and then we talked about the difference between that reaction and Abraham’s reaction first thing the next morning. (“Okay, let’s get going so I can do this.”)

[Just to add something for this forum that I didn’t include in the lesson, that wording (first thing in the morning) implies a dream vision, NOT a visitation.]

We discussed the concept that Abraham had to be “constrained” NOT to kill Isaac (since he was inclined naturally by his upbringing to kill his son), while Nephi had to be constrained TO kill Laban (since he lived with a long-time practice of animal sacrifice, not human sacrifice) – and how the Isaac story might have been different if Abraham had reacted like Nephi did. (If the change in sacrificial ordinance was the intended outcome, God might have gone ahead and revealed that to Abraham right away, without all the drama.)

We read the verses that explain Nephi’s justification of his actions, ending with the “revelation” (the new understanding) in verse 13:

Quote:

It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

I pointed out that, up until the time when Nephi was faced with doing something he would not have done naturally, he simply was “honoring his father” and “being a good son”. His dad told him they needed to get the plates, so he tried to do that. They asked for the plates, and they tried to buy the plates. Finally, he went into the city on his own and discovered Laban passed out drunk. It only was when he was faced with killing Laban (something that went beyond being a good son) that he was able to see WHY he had to get the plates – beyond the generic, “God commanded it.” The revelation wasn’t the command to get the plates; rather, it was gaining a vision of the reason for the command.

In Abraham’s situation, likewise, the revelation came ONLY when he was ready to do something that he didn’t understand naturally – NOT killing his son. He had “gone through the motions” of blind obedience and, unlike Nephi, had to be stopped from killing because he followed his natural instincts rather than thinking and questioning first.

[Also, just for this forum, I think there is a very reasonable justification for Nephi killing Laban, especially for that time period and the overall story – but for this lesson I stayed with the theme, “Killing people is not right or a good thing in any situation other than an extreme exception. If you ever have the thought that you should kill someone, ignore it – and get professional help if it persists.”]

Finally, to follow the concept of really studying scriptures to understand the people and the stories, not just what they taught, I briefly summarized (since we were almost out of time) the story of King Mosiah changing the government structure at the end of his life. Rather than re-create that summary, I am copying something about it that will post on my personal blog soon.

---

Quote:

We tend to take the summary, abridged descriptions in the Book of Mormon at face value and, often, don’t step back a bit and remember that what we have is presented as not even 1/100th of what could have been included – or that it was recorded by very few individuals from their own perspectives. We can accept them as prophets and good people without sacrificing our acknowledgment that they also were humans with personal biases and motives that influenced their writings – especially in the case of Mormon, who, like any historian with space and time constraints, had to pick and choose what to share and what to exclude.

For example, when I read the chapters about Mosiah’s actions near the end of his life regarding the future governmental structure of his people, something jumps out at me that is easy to overlook:

---

1) Mosiah had taken leadership of a people more numerous than the Nephites. That simple fact opens all kinds of issues relative to his government-altering actions before he died.

2) If one of his sons wasn’t going to take his place, there was a good chance that one of the people of Mulek who already was influential and popular would do so – especially if the kingship was determined by popular vote. Again, it is stated clearly in the text that the people of Mulek greatly outnumbered the descendants of Nephi in that area. In fact, the moment Mosiah’s sons rejected the throne (and Alma the Younger also did), those other influential Mulekite contenders might have started agitating for the position very quickly.

3) Nehor is described as being another King Noah, in philosophy and intent. Amalici was one of his disciples. They are said to have gained a following FAR too quickly to have started a grass-roots campaign from scratch at the end of Mosiah’s life.

4) If Mosiah knew either of them was likely to become the king, it would have provided the best possible motivation to change the system.

5) If you think about it, the best possible reason for Nehor, and then Amlici, to be extremely upset and demand what they had assumed they would attain would have been what they would have seen as an attempt to perpetuate the minority rule of the Nephites over them. Consider the situation in some Islamic countries even today; there are striking parallels.

6) It’s easy to condemn Nehor and Amlici, given the descriptions we have of them, and I’m not trying to endorse them in any way – but it’s harder to realize that they might have had a very compelling legal argument and an incredibly strong emotional appeal to a majority people ruled by those of the minority.

Many things are less clear than we tend to assume in hindsight – and many things in the Book of Mormon are pretty amazing when looked upon a bit more expansively than we tend to do.

---

I emphasized that prophets often do things not from revelation (though Mosiah wasn’t a prophet, he might have seen his decision as revelatory) but rather from a perceived need at the time. [Another example I didn’t share in the class would be Moses’ interaction with the daughters of Zelophehad – where he first allowed them to keep the lands of their inheritance when they married (since their father had died without having sons) and then restricted them to marrying only someone in their own tribe (so their tribe would not lose the lands of their father’s inheritance when they married).] There is nothing wrong with leaders making non-revelatory decisions, since leaders often have to make decisions for organizations on their own, based on their best understanding – but we need to be careful not to confuse those decisions and personal views as “revelation” and accept everything they do and say, by default, as the pure word of God.

I ended the lesson by mentioning that I believe all of them will be faced in the future with something(s) that requires them to gain new understanding (to have something “revealed” to them) and that I believe most of those revelations will come to them only when they have thought, pondered, questioned, considered, discussed, studied, prayed, etc. diligently – when they are at the point where they simply can’t understand something better through their own efforts. At those times, through patiently “enduring to the end”, a new insight will hit them and they will understand FAR better than if they simply had followed conventional wisdom and relied on the testimonies / understanding of others. Those times hopefully won’t involve an impression to kill someone, but the deepest insights generally will come in the times of deepest struggle and trial. I told them I hope they don’t give up before the revelation they need comes to them, no matter how it comes to them – even if it seems to be only an idea that makes sense as a solution to what they face.

[Anonymous]

The topic this month is “Priesthood and Priesthood Keys”.

I explained to the students that the lesson outlines had been written before Elder Oaks gave his talk in the April General Conference about the authority and power of the Priesthood, and since it dealt with two of those outlines (men and women working together in the Church and how councils operate), we were going to go through his talk sentence-by-sentence and discuss what he said and how it changes the way we should talk about priesthood, keys, authority, power, offices and ordination from how we did so when I was their age.

For the purposes of this summary, I will quote the sentences we discussed and give a synopsis of the discussions. We only managed to discuss the first six paragraphs, so we will continue next week – and the following week, if necessary.

Quote:

1) “We do not “step down” when we are released, and we do not “step up” when we are called. There is no “up or down” in the service of the Lord. There is only “forward or backward,”

I asked them if we really believe this, since it goes against everything about our natural person view of “positions and responsibilities”. We talked about a corporate President being asked to become a secretary and how many would accept that change. We talked about members of the Church going from Bishop or Stake President to Nursery Leader.

Quote:

2) While addressing a women’s conference, Relief Society general president Linda K. Burton said, “We hope to instill within each of us a greater desire to better understand the priesthood.” [Said Elder Oaks,] That need applies to all of us

The direct implication is that “all of us” don’t understand the Priesthood well enough, which also implies we need to accept that our understanding needs to change and grow – that what we have believed in the past wasn’t full and isn’t good enough / adequate anymore. Thus, what Elder Oaks said after this point constitutes “new understanding” that needs to replace our old understanding.

Quote:

priesthood ordinances and priesthood authority pertain to women as well as men.

I asked them how many of them had heard someone say in the past that priesthood authority pertains to women. None of them had heard that. I told them that Elder Oaks explained that change in the next few paragraphs, and that it is important to start thinking about women using Priesthood authority from now on.

Quote:

President Joseph F. Smith described the priesthood as “the power of God” (to do lots of things).

So, at heart, “priesthood” can be defined as “power” – most specifically “power to do God’s work” (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man[kind]). Jesus is taught to have accomplished the immortality part (living forever as resurrected beings), so our work falls within the eternal life part (being / becoming like God).

Quote:

“Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth.”

We discussed the concept that, given this wording, changes to how priesthood authority and power are used is up to people who have keys to direct, control and govern – and, as we will read further on in the talk, ultimately we teach that Jesus has the final word. So, what happens in a ward is up to the Bishop, within some limitations directed by those who hold more keys (like the Stake Presidents and Apostles) and “confer” Bishop-specific keys on the Bishop (give them to him and authorize him to use them). Thus, at the local level, leaders with keys can do things differently in many ways than others at that same level but in different locations, subject to restrictions put in place by those with more keys.

Quote:

As Elder M. Russell Ballard has explained, “Those who have priesthood keys … literally make it possible for all who serve faithfully under their direction to exercise priesthood authority and have access to priesthood power.”

We spent more time on this statement than any other one. I asked the students who, according to this sentence, can exercise priesthood authority and access priesthood power. It took a little time, but they came to see that ALL means all – so all who are set apart in any calling or who accept any assignment from someone having keys can do so. Focusing on the ward, that means it’s not just men and young men who can exercise priesthood authority and access priesthood power, but it also is the YW class presidencies, the Primary and Relief Society Presidency, the Ward Chorister, the Librarians, the Primary and Sunday School teachers, etc. I asked them how often they had heard about any of those people exercising priesthood authority and accessing priesthood power – and none of them had heard that previously. I reiterated that this is something that they are going to have to accept and understand, even if older people like me struggle to do so from decades of hearing it explained differently.

Quote:

In the controlling of the exercise of priesthood authority, the function of priesthood keys both enlarges and limits. It enlarges by making it possible for priesthood authority and blessings to be available for all of God’s children. It limits by directing who will be given the authority of the priesthood, who will hold its offices, and how its rights and powers will be conferred. For example, a person who holds the priesthood is not able to confer his office or authority on another unless authorized by one who holds the keys. Without that authorization, the ordination would be invalid. This explains why a priesthood holder – regardless of office – cannot ordain a member of his family or administer the sacrament in his own home without authorization from the one who holds the appropriate keys.

We talked about two things from this paragraph:

1) The limits on who will be given authority, hold office and receive rights and powers are set by the people who hold the keys – at whatever level they are. Thus, the enlarging also is in their hands – subject, of course, to what they perceive to be the will of the Lord. That can change, as was the case with OD2 and the lifting of the race-based Priesthood ban. People who previously had been unable to hold Priesthood office, perform Priesthood ordinances, attend the temple, etc. were authorized to do so from that point forward – because those holding the keys to direct, control and govern those things “enlarged” the former boundaries to include people who had been “limited” previously.

2) Even an apostle can’t baptize his own grandchildren without the authorization of the Bishop, since that key (directing, controlling and governing right) is given to the Bishop to use.

Quote:

With the exception of the sacred work that sisters do in the temple under the keys held by the temple president, which I will describe hereafter, only one who holds a priesthood office can officiate in a priesthood ordinance.

I asked if women can perform Priesthood ordinances in the Church, and their initial reaction was, “No.” When I told them to re-read that sentence and then asked them the same question again, they all said, “Yes, but only in the temple.” I asked them WHY women can perform Priesthood ordinances in the temple, and they saw that it is because Temple Presidents have been authorized to use their keys (that allow them to direct, control and govern what happens in the temple) to allow women to perform those ordinances there – even without “holding a priesthood office”. (I compared a priesthood office with an office in a building – a room certain people are allowed to enter to perform specific tasks.) So, looking at that sentence, outside the temple, the distinction is that women currently can’t hold priesthood offices (aren’t allowed in those rooms). That “limitation” hasn’t been removed, so an “enlargement” hasn’t occurred like it did with OD2. I asked them if there was anything in the talk so far that said women never will be able perform priesthood ordinances outside the temple, and they saw that there isn’t. I told them that we would talk about that topic next week as we continued to read more from the talk.

We ran out of time at that point, so we will pick up with the next paragraph next week.

[Anonymous]

Priesthood and Priesthood Keys: Elder Oaks’ General Conference talk – Part 2

We had three students in class today who weren’t in attendance last week, so I took about ten minutes for a quick review of last week’s lesson (the first six paragraphs of Elder Oaks’ talk). It was good for the others to hear it again. (If anyone wants to review that lesson before reading this one, it is the comment above this one.)

Today, we covered the next six paragraphs. Like I did with last week’s summary, I am going to quote the parts we discussed and provide a summary of the discussions:

Quote:

Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals and how those keys will be used. We are accustomed to thinking that all keys of the priesthood were conferred on Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple, but the scripture states that all that was conferred there were “the keys of this dispensation” (D&C 110:16). At general conference many years ago, President Spencer W. Kimball reminded us that there are other priesthood keys that have not been given to man on the earth, including the keys of creation and resurrection.

We talked about what this means about possible changes in the future – that it is another reminder that the way we do things currently is not necessarily unchangeable, eternal doctrine – and that we have to be open to radical changes if they occur.

Quote:

The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures – matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.

We discussed the difference between “administration” and “the priesthood”. We defined “administer” as “oversee; supervise; direct”. We discussed what that means in terms of the sacrament. We talked about why it is incorrect to say, “The sacrament will be administered and passed by the Priesthood.” First, I simply pointed out that the Priesthood is different than the people who do things with Priesthood authority and power – as has been stated numerous times by apostles recently. I asked who administers the sacrament and who passes it. Their first responses were the Priests, Teachers and Deacons, so we dug further into what happens with that ordinance.

The Bishop (or Branch President or presiding key holder), as the presiding Priest, administers the sacrament, as do the Priests. The other offices in the Aaronic Priesthood (the Deacons and the Teachers) have been authorized to “help” the Bishop and the Priests – not actually to administer but to assist in an official way – and every single person in the congregation passes the sacrament among themselves. (D&C 20:58 explicitly says that Teachers and Deacons are NOT authorized to administer the sacrament.) This means that “administer” and “prepare and pass” MUST be different things, while “bless” (pronounce the prayer) is part of the administration. Administering (including blessing) is a responsibility specific to a Priesthood office (Priest), while the others are assignments made by the presiding Priest to help / assist – NOT to administer.

We talked about how the exact method or pattern of distributing the sacrament is different from congregation to congregation, based on the size and demographics of the congregation. We mentioned various ways the sacrament could be “passed” – from a tiny unit where everyone goes up to the sacrament table and takes it directly from the person who blesses it (with nobody “passing” it) to a larger branch in another part of the world where there are dozens of members but only one man who is ordained to an office in the priesthood and the women (young and old) pass the sacrament throughout the congregation completely on their own – including practical applications that look much like what we see regularly with AP young men. [I know of situations where that happens in some countries.] We talked about the fact that HOW it happens is determined by the person who holds the keys to “direct, control and govern” it – and how nearly every aspect about it is “cultural”, when it comes right down to it, since nearly every aspect can change depending on the unique congregational situations. (Outside of the prayer wording and the current restriction on who can voice the prayer [since voicing the prayer is part of the administering], there might be nothing else that couldn’t be adapted by a Bishop, Branch President or Area Authority.)

We re-read the last sentence in that paragraph, and I simply pointed out that, as far as we know, women have not been ordained to offices in the priesthood at any point in our scriptural history – so our current leadership does not see that as a matter of practice or policy. Rather, they see it as a “pattern”. Therefore, just as was the case prior to OD2 and the lifting of the race-based ban, they don’t feel “authorized” to change it without direct revelation from God. I told the students that I hope such a revelation will be received at some point, but I understand why it can’t change without revelation to the church leadership. I told them that, lacking such revelation, we need to work on everything else laid out in this talk – that, maybe, this is a case of learning and changing line-upon-line and precept-upon-precept.

Quote:

I come now to the subject of priesthood authority. I begin with the three principles just discussed: (1) priesthood is the power of God delegated to man to act for the salvation of the human family, (2) priesthood authority is governed by priesthood holders who hold priesthood keys, and (3) since the scriptures state that “all other authorities [and] offices in the church are appendages to this [Melchizedek] priesthood” (D&C 107:5), all that is done under the direction of those priesthood keys is done with priesthood authority.

I pointed out that Elder Oaks’ use of “man” in the first point MUST mean the generic “mankind” or “humanity”, given everything he had said up to that point in the talk. We talked about how often we fall back on the language with which we are familiar, even when we are teaching new understandings. I told them that we can accept that and be charitable, or we can get upset and take offense – but that we ought not “make a (person) an offender for a word” and not focus on one word and let it negate everything else the person has said.

We talked about what “appendages” means: “a subordinate part attached to something; an auxiliary part; addition“. I pointed out that Elder Oaks said that “ALL authorities and offices in the church” are auxiliary to the priesthood itself – which means that even the “office” of apostle is an appendage, governed by keys just like any other calling or office. We talked about the concept that Paul taught about all parts of the body being necessary and no more important than any other body part – that “appendages” are of equal importance when, as Elder Oaks said in the first paragraph of the talk, there is no “up and down” in the Church structure. We talked about the idea that, if ALL is subordinate to the priesthood itself and ALL is done with priesthood authority (and priesthood power), then appendages are complementary – especially when at the same organizational level within the Church. Thus, the Young Men quorums are the male equivalent of the Young Women classes (as complementary appendages), and the Relief Society is the female equivalent of the MP quorums. All of them are, based on Elder Oaks’ reframing, “priesthood” groups – meaning they can act with priesthood authority and exercise priesthood power. He addresses this further in the following paragraph.

We also talked about what Priesthood “offices” means. I asked them what the word “office” means outside a discussion of the Priesthood. We agreed that offices are rooms (or spaces) where people do certain things that are assigned to them or that are their responsibilities. That basic definition works for Priesthood offices, as well – figurative locations that are “unlocked” (by keys) to allow people to do certain things therein. Using the AP offices, the Deacons are given access to one room where certain things are authorized to be done – and Teachers are given access to that room and one more, where other things are authorized to be done – and Priests are given access to those rooms and one more – etc. The “office” is nothing more than the authorization to do specific things – to be allowed into that room of the overall Priesthood house, per se.

Quote:

How does this apply to women? In an address to the Relief Society, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said this: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.”

I pointed out that, linguistically, President Smith had modified the first phrase (“While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood’) to clarify what he meant (“it has not been conferred upon them [through ordination to an office])” – and how that is an important distinction, since it supports the concept that women DO have priesthood authority and can exercise priesthood power. He then said that women can do things that are “binding” AND “necessary for salvation” – that are just as “binding” as what men who have been ordained to offices in the Priesthood do. We talked about how the priesthood itself is the same no matter who uses it, which also means the admonitions in D&C 121 about unrighteous dominion apply equally to men and women. We talked about how “binding” and “sealing” mean, in practical terms, the exact same thing – and how women perform “sealing” ordinances in the temple, just like men. Again, the only restrictions in place right now are ordinance-specific – meaning men are authorized to do some things women currently can’t do.

Quote:

In that notable address, President Smith said again and again that women have been given authority. To the women he said, “You can speak with authority, because the Lord has placed authority upon you.”

We talked about how women have authority within themselves – that Priesthood keys don’t let women use a man’s priesthood but rather allow women to use the priesthood authority and power that the Lord has placed upon them (particularly in the temple, when they are endowed). Thus, the young women in the class don’t use the Bishop’s authority and power in their callings; they use their own.

Quote:

He also said that the Relief Society “[has] been given power and authority to do a great many things. The work which they do is done by divine authority.” And, of course, the Church work done by women or men, whether in the temple or in the wards or branches, is done under the direction of those who hold priesthood keys. Thus, speaking of the Relief Society, President Smith explained, “[The Lord] has given to them this great organization where they have authority to serve under the directions of the bishops of the wards … , looking after the interest of our people both spiritually and temporally.”

Thus, it is truly said that Relief Society is not just a class for women but something they belong to—a divinely established appendage to the priesthood.

We finished with me explaining a “soapbox” issue – a pet peeve – of mine. I told them that I hope as they perform their callings in leadership positions, they never let their organizations be just classes and social clubs – that they treat them like Priesthood groups who have responsibilities to serve and bless people – that they never defer to others to tell them what to do but rather embrace their own authority and power to make decisions and receive personal revelation. I mentioned specifically Relief Society and Young Women, but I told the young men what I was saying applied to them, as well. I stressed that the adults in the youth organizations are not supposed to be the “leaders” or “decision makers” – that those roles are supposed to belong to the youth presidencies. I begged the young women to remember that when they move into Relief Society – that they are supposed to run that organization and report to the Bishop, not ask for permission in everything they do, and, particularly, not let it become just a class and a social club. I told them that there is tremendous potential for life-changing service in the Relief Society and that they need to lead the necessary change to make it what it can be.

I ended with the concept of new wine and old bottles, and I told them that a lot of members my age and older simply can’t understand and accept the changes outlined in Elder Oaks’ talk very easily, if at all – that the youth are the new bottles that can handle the new wine without bursting and that I hope they step up and help lead the older folks to where we need to go.

[Anonymous]

Last week’s lesson summary posted on my personal blog this morning, and a commenter pointed out something that made me realize I had been a bit sloppy in my summary. As a result, I edited the outline above to reflect a better summary, as well as add one point (the reference to D&C 20:58) that I will address in the lesson tomorrow.

Rather than ask people to re-read the entire lesson summary, I am pasting below the paragraphs that were edited – with a note afterward that I included in my personal blog comment section but not in the lesson or the lesson outline itself.

Quote:

We discussed the difference between “administration” and “the priesthood”. We defined “administer” as “oversee; supervise; direct“. We discussed what that means in terms of the sacrament. We talked about why it is incorrect to say, “The sacrament will be administered and passed by the Priesthood.” First, I simply pointed out that the Priesthood is different than the people who do things with Priesthood authority and power – as has been stated numerous times by apostles recently. I asked who administers the sacrament and who passes it. Their first responses were the Priests, Teachers and Deacons, so we dug further into what happens with that ordinance.

The Bishop (or Branch President or presiding key holder), as the presiding Priest, administers the sacrament, as do the Priests. The other offices in the Aaronic Priesthood (the Deacons and the Teachers) have been authorized to “help” the Bishop and the Priests – not actually to administer but to assist in an official way – and every single person in the congregation passes the sacrament among themselves. (D&C 20:58 explicitly says that Teachers and Deacons are NOT authorized to administer the sacrament.) This means that “administer” and “prepare and pass” MUST be different things, while “bless” (pronounce the prayer) is part of the administration. Administering (including blessing) is a responsibility specific to a Priesthood office (Priest), while the others are assignments made by the presiding Priest to help / assist – NOT to administer.

We talked about how the exact method or pattern of distributing the sacrament is different from congregation to congregation, based on the size and demographics of the congregation. We mentioned various ways the sacrament could be “passed” – from a tiny unit where everyone goes up to the sacrament table and takes it directly from the person who blesses it (with nobody “passing” it) to a larger branch in another part of the world where there are dozens of members but only one man who is ordained to an office in the priesthood and the women (young and old) pass the sacrament throughout the congregation completely on their own – including practical applications that look much like what we see regularly with AP young men. [I know of situations where that happens in some countries.] We talked about the fact that HOW it happens is determined by the person who holds the keys to “direct, control and govern” it – and how nearly every aspect about it is “cultural”, when it comes right down to it, since nearly every aspect can change depending on the unique congregational situations. (Outside of the prayer wording and the current restriction on who can voice the prayer [since voicing the prayer is part of the administering], there might be nothing else that couldn’t be adapted by a Bishop, Branch President or Area Authority.)

Since preparing and passing are NOT specific to a Priesthood office but rather assignments given through the keys of the presiding Priest, I believe, according to Elder Oaks’ talk, this is one area where changes could be made to who prepares and passes (an area where what Elder Oaks referred to as an expansion) without any change in doctrine. In other words, since who “prepares and passes” is a policy or practice, it would not require revelation to change it. Theoretically, this sort of expansion could be done by the presiding Priest in a congregation, since he holds the key to that ordinance (like what happens in some congregations that have only one or no presiding Priest) – but I think that would be seen by so many members as a doctrinal change that it probably would receive push-back in many areas.

[Anonymous]

Priesthood and Priesthood Keys: Elder Oaks’ General Conference talk – Part 3

This lesson covered the next seven paragraphs in Elder Oaks’ talk.

Quote:

We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

We talked about this as being a rephrasing of what we had discussed in the first week’s lesson – that everyone who acts under the direction of the presiding Priesthood keys does so with the authority and power of God – the classic definition of the Priesthood. We talked about how traditionally young men serving missions has been considered a Priesthood duty but young women have been told they can serve missions or not, whatever they want, without any pressure to do so – since “preaching the Gospel” has been considered a Priesthood duty. We talked about how the lowering of the minimum age for young women goes hand-in-hand with seeing women as working with Priesthood authority and power, as well. Therefore, serving a mission is a good example for Elder Oaks to use when talking about how we need to start seeing Priesthood authority and power differently than in the past.

Quote:

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities. That is a principle needed in society at large. The famous Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is quoted as saying, “It is time … to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.” Latter-day Saints surely recognize that qualifying for exaltation is not a matter of asserting rights but a matter of fulfilling responsibilities

.

This could have been tricky, but I focused on the concept that Elder Oaks already had said that everyone can exercise Priesthood authority and power, so, with that foundation (not talking about Priesthood offices and the performance of ordinances but only exercising Priesthood authority), it really is more important to talk about what is done with that authority (one’s responsibilities) than focusing on a right we all have anyway. I mentioned explicitly that this paragraph has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights. We also talked about how different Mormon theology is with regard to responsibilities relative to exaltation than Protestant theology relative to the right to salvation merely by confessing the name of Jesus.

Quote:

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.” Men hold the priesthood, with a sacred duty to use it for the blessing of all of the children of God.

I repeated from last week’s lesson that the leadership sees a historical pattern of a male-only Priesthood office structure, but, as we discussed in a previous lesson about the sacrament, “the priesthood” is not the men who hold offices and preform ordinances outside the temple. We then talked again about how easy it is to slip into the vocabulary of our formative years, like even Elder Oaks did when he said “men hold the priesthood” – after he had made it clear throughout the talk that what he had to mean is that men are ordained to offices in the priesthood and administer ordinances outside the temple. I emphasized that most people will continue to use the term “hold the priesthood” when what they mean, usually without realizing it, is “be ordained to offices in the priesthood and administer ordinances outside the temple”.

Prior to reading the next few paragraphs, I emphasized that Elder Oaks now was starting to talk about a new topic – and that he was NOT repeating the oft-stated idea that priesthood is the male counterpart to motherhood. That is easy to misunderstand with a quick reading only, but that former comparison makes no sense in light of the entire talk. I also told them explicitly that the next paragraphs contain good examples of cultural assumptions that are hard to release, even in a talk as paradigm-altering as this one.

Quote:

The greatest power God has given to His sons cannot be exercised without the companionship of one of His daughters, because only to His daughters has God given the power “to be a creator of bodies … so that God’s design and the Great Plan might meet fruition.” Those are the words of President J. Reuben Clark.

It makes no sense to read “the greatest power God has given to His sons” as being the Priesthood, since men can exercise the Priesthood without the companionship of women – and, according to Elder Oaks in this talk, women can exercise the Priesthood, as well. The ONLY logical meaning of that “greatest power” is the ability to have kids – or “procreation” in Mormon-speak. I simply added that this is kind of a “Duh!” statement and that Pres. Clark, whom I really respected and admired, was wrong in a way – since a woman is NOT “a creator of bodies” all by herself. I grinned and said that a man has to be involved, as well – that they both are creators of bodies.

Quote:

He continued: “This is the place of our wives and of our mothers in the Eternal Plan. They are not bearers of the Priesthood; they are not charged with carrying out the duties and functions of the Priesthood; nor are they laden with its responsibilities; they are builders and organizers under its power, and partakers of its blessings, possessing the complement of the Priesthood powers and possessing a function as divinely called, as eternally important in its place as the Priesthood itself.”

I pointed out that, all by themselves, these sentences make little sense when compared with the rest of Elder Oaks’ talk – that the rest of this talk up to this point actually changes many of the assumptions in Pres. Clark’s words. Either Elder Oaks was using the quote because it was quoted often over the years or he is talking about something else. The next sentence shows he is talking about something else.

Quote:

In those inspired words, President Clark was speaking of the family.

Thus, Elder Oaks used Pres. Clark’s quote not to discuss Priesthood authority and power but to discuss family and marriage structure and responsibility.

Quote:

As stated in the family proclamation, the father presides in the family and he and the mother have separate responsibilities, but they are “obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

I simply mentioned how frustrating it is for me to hear members cite the Proclamation to insist that men and women have to adhere to the traditional roles described as “primary responsibilities” in the Proclamation – since the part about helping each other as equal partners says it applies to “these responsibilities” inclusively and then goes on to talk about how each couple needs to make adaptations that work for them. Given this wording, just like the distinction between rights and responsibilities in exercising the authority and power of the Priesthood, it’s not about who does what (rights) but simply that everything that is supposed to happen actually happens (responsibilities). Thus, I know stay-at-home dads who are married to full-time working moms – which now is said to be completely fine if decided mutually by those spouses.

I also mentioned that “preside” now means something very different than it did when I was their age, as emphasized in the next thing Elder Oaks quoted.

Quote:

Some years before the family proclamation, President Spencer W. Kimball gave this inspired explanation: “When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner.”

I pointed out that this quote was a pre-cursor to the Proclamation and that it fundamentally changes the way we ought to talk about marriage. We talked about “full partnerships” by discussing joint checking accounts – that my wife and I each don’t have access to half of our money but that each of us has access to all of it. It’s not 50/50; it’s 100/100. Likewise, a full marriage partnership means each spouse has equal access to everything done in the marriage – that there isn’t one who is the final decision maker or ultimately the boss. Too many older members, especially, still see it that way, but it’s not consistent with Pres. Kimball’s quote or this talk.

Quote:

In the eyes of God, whether in the Church or in the family, women and men are equal, with different responsibilities.

We ended the lesson by talking more about what it means to be equal but have different responsibilities – and that how the determination of how those responsibilities are divided among men and women is up to spouses in the family and “key holders” in the Church – and that changes to how responsibilities in the Church currently are up to the leadership, subject to revelation that may change the current division of responsibilities.

The remaining portion of the talk won’t take long to cover this Sunday, so most of the lesson time will be for open Q&A and recap.

[As an aside for this forum only, it has been extremely encouraging to see how relatively easy it is for these young men and women to understand and accept all of this new framing. They get it almost instinctively, and none of them come from homes with parents whom I would classify as heterodox. They are quite representative of the future leaders of the Church, and they simply get it.]

[Anonymous]

Priesthood and Priesthood Keys: Elder Oaks’ General Conference talk – Part 4

Last Sunday, we covered the last five paragraphs of Elder Oaks’ talk – with paragraph defined loosely.

Quote:

I close with some truths about the blessings of the priesthood. Unlike priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations, the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and to men on the same terms.

I mentioned that Elder Oaks said this, with different words, multiple times throughout the talk (including in the upcoming paragraphs) – but that he was about to use two specific examples that rarely have been discussed in those terms in the past.

Quote:

The gift of the Holy Ghost and the blessings of the temple are familiar illustrations of this truth.

We defined “the priesthood” one more time (the power of God) and I asked the students if they could list times / events in life when we could say we represent God in some way. The obvious responses were ordination for the young men and baptism, so we talked about those and others.

1) We believe we all are children of God, so, in a very real way, if we believe that, we also believe we can represent him as his children. That is emphasized in our theology by our belief in the light of Christ, which we equate with our consciences. Everyone, with a few exceptions, represents God in this way.

2) When we are baptized, we covenant to take the name of Jesus upon us – to become “Christian”. That is a direct commitment to do what Jesus would do and represent him.

3) When we are confirmed, we are told to receive the Holy Ghost – which we equate to striving to understand and do the will of God.

4) We talk of the Priesthood in terms of service – which, phrased differently, is participating in the work and glory of God.

5) When members are endowed in the temple, every ordinance men experience, women also experience – and women perform almost all of them. We talked about each ordinance – what it is meant to convey, what blessings are promised, what covenants are made, what symbolism is used, etc. I told them that there are two primary wording differences for men and women in the endowment and the sealing – and that I personally see them as cultural remnants of our earlier history that don’t match a lot of what has been taught in numerous talks over the last couple of decades and the last part of what we discussed last week from Elder Oaks’ talk. (the description of marriage as a full partnership of equals) I told them that this talk ought to change the way we look at those wording differences and that I hope the wording is changed at some point, now that Elder Oaks has changed the framing with this talk.

All of these things are “exercising the authority and power of the Priesthood” – and all of them are available, according to Elder Oaks, to men and women alike. Currently, the only exceptions are, in his words, “priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations” – and those can change if the top leadership receive revelation that would change the historical “pattern” they see right now.

Quote:

In his insightful talk at BYU Education Week last summer, Elder M. Russell Ballard gave these teachings:

Quote:

“Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other . . . When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power . . . Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.”

This is another reiteration of one of Elder Oaks’ central themes – but it is one of the first times I have heard two apostles say unequivocally that women are endowed with priesthood power when they attend the temple. As was the case with his words earlier in the talk, Elder Oaks did NOT frame this as women having access to the priesthood power men are given; rather, once again, he framed it explicitly as women having / being given the same power men are given – that the priesthood power they exercise is their own power, endowed directly and personally to them.

We talked about the temple garment – the “garment of the holy priesthood”. I explained that both men and women wear symbolic clothing (“robes”) in the temple that represent the ceremonial clothing temple priests wore in the Old Testament time. Thus, in the temple, men dress as priests and women dress as priestesses. We talked about how men AND women leave the temple “clothed in the garment of the holy priesthood” – which means, in a tangible way, BOTH men and women “hold the priesthood” when they leave the temple. In other words, when women wear the garment, they are “putting on the priesthood” once again, symbolically – and that the garment is the tangible representation of their priestess robes outside the temple. Again, with that in mind, when women do the Lord’s work outside the temple, they are doing it as priestesses through the priesthood power with which they were endowed when they first went through the temple.

Quote:

I testify of the power and blessings of the priesthood of God, available for His sons and daughters alike. I testify of the authority of the priesthood, which functions throughout all of the offices and activities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I testify of the divinely directed function of the keys of the priesthood, held and exercised in their fulness by our prophet/president, Thomas S. Monson. Finally and most important, I testify of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose priesthood this is and whose servants we are, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I told the students that if they wanted an interesting experience they should go through the talk again, in its entirety, and count the number of times Elder Oaks said that men and women both have access to the power and authority of God and exercise it in everything they do in the Church. I asked why he would have to repeat it so many time, and, after we talked about that, I told them that I think it’s because members who are close to my age and older need to have it repeated that many times to have it register and to understand and accept it. I asked them to be patient when they heard members repeat the former framing – to understand how hard it can be to let go of things that were learned when those people were teenagers and early adults – but to commit to make sure they helped change the Church into more of what Elder Oaks described than it currently is.

I told them that I would prepare another lesson for next week, but that I hope to spend the class as a Q&A session about the talk. I asked them all to read the talk during the upcoming week from start to finish and highlight anything that jumps out at them – either things that really impress them or things about which they have questions.

[Anonymous]

These are great! Been really enjoying these recaps!!

[Anonymous]

Last Sunday was the 5th Sunday, and, since I was leading the 3rd hour combined lesson on “Using the Internet to Share the Gospel”, I decided to teach the same lesson in my Sunday School class, as well. I justified it in a month with a topic of “Priesthood” by mentioning that preaching the Gospel is framed as a priesthood duty and that Elder Oaks had used serving missions as an example of how women are authorized to exercise priesthood authority – meaning that sharing the Gospel online can be seen as a priesthood duty for both men and women. (Creativity can be fun – and it shows how easy it is to justify what we want to do if we try. 😆 )

I read (and we discussed briefly) the following sentences from Elder Ballard’s commencement speech at BYU-Hawaii in Dec 2007 (“Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet“) that was reprinted in the July 2008 Ensign:

Quote:

I am in my 80th year. By some accounts that makes me pretty old. Actually, some folks think some of the Brethren may be too old to know what’s going on in your world. Let me assure you we are very much aware.

Ours is the world of cyberspace, cell phones that capture video, video and music downloads, social networks, text messaging and blogs, handhelds and podcasts. This is the world of the future, with inventions undreamed of that will come in your lifetime as they have in mine. How will you use these marvelous inventions? More to the point, how will you use them to further the work of the Lord?

There is truth in the old adage that “the pen is mightier than the sword.” In many cases it is with words that you will accomplish the great things that you set out to do. And it’s principally about ways to share those words that I want to talk to you.

The emergence of new media is facilitating a worldwide conversation on almost every subject, including religion, and nearly everyone can participate. This modern equivalent of the printing press is not reserved only for the elite.

There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches . . . Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time.

All of you know that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are reminded and encouraged continually to share the gospel with others. The Church is always looking for the most effective ways to declare its message.

Now, may I ask that you join the conversation by participating on the Internet to share the gospel and to explain in simple and clear terms the message of the Restoration.

Remember, as the proverb states, that “a soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). And remember that contention is of the devil (see 3 Nephi 11:29). There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs. There is no need to become defensive or belligerent . . . We simply need to have a conversation, as friends in the same room would have.

I then shared ten suggestions for internet participation taken from a post by Daria Black in February 2007 that I found when I started blogging entitled “The Blogger’s Guide to Comment Etiquette”, plus two more I added, and we discussed how each suggestion relates specifically to sharing the Gospel online. For this summary, I will skip the obvious applications but add an explanation for suggestions that aren’t as obvious.

1. Write a comment, not spam.

Quote:

Spam is the bane of all webernet existence and has caused many a blogger to resort to counterproductive measures such as closing their comment section. Even worse than spam, however, are comments that do little more than consume bandwidth. What most bloggers are looking for is feedback that continues the discussion about the topic at hand. Comments like “You don’t know what you’re talking about” or “I was here first,” are not helpful.

Take the time to read the blog entry and put some effort into writing a response that adds to the conversation and/or helps the blog writer. Your comment is your calling card. The webernet is an open rolodex and as such, how you present yourself through your words will tell people whether or not they want to look you up.

I simply mentioned that the first few comments a person writes in any comment thread (and the first few posts a person writes on a new personal blog) can establish that person’s reputation and determine, to a large degree, how seriously that person will be taken by others. I emphasized that they don’t have to try to write “perfect” or deeply profound comments and/or posts, but they should try to make sure they are commenting and furthering the discussion – or creating an opportunity for thought and/or conversation.

2. Stay on topic.

Quote:

This policy may differ from blog to blog. Some blogmasters don’t care if the participants drift off onto tangent. Others will do a round house kick on you if you get too close to the white line. As a general rule if you find that you fall into a discussion with other visitors about something unrelated to the post, offer to email them privately.

We talked about “threadjacks” and how it is impolite to change the course of the discussion from what the author of a post intended – that when a person takes the time to write something, respect is shown best by honoring that intent. I did mention that some blogs and authors don’t mind threadjacks, especially if lots of comments and good discussion have occurred prior to the threadjack.

3. Respect the rules.

Some bloggers will have an official comment policy in place. Usually because of issues they’ve run into with their feedback. Read it and respect it. Visiting someone’s blog is just like being a guest in their house. The last thing they want is you pooping all over their couch and doing so will usually result in them pushing you out the front door.

The kids got a kick out of that image. (I had to warn the adults in the 3rd hour about it and offer a quasi-apology before we started.)

4. Comments should be comprehensible.

Quote:

Make an effort to use good grammar and spelling and to communicate your thoughts clearly. People cannot respond effectively to your concerns if they cannot understand what they are in the first place. Don’t forget that people cannot see your expression or hear your voice. Flame wars are often the result of a misinterpretation of the meaning of your words. This is why smilies and snark tags, such as “sarcasm”, were invented. Use them.

Also, be sure your writing reflects the level of formality of the blog. Throwing around slang terms on a blog that is highbrow may cause you to appear uneducated even though you are Mensa member. On the other hand, using language more suitable for a doctoral thesis on a blog that is very informal may come across as pretentious and snooty.

We talked about how lots of people assume Mormons are ignorant and how badly worded comments, with grammatical and spelling errors can reinforce that perception and actually hinder sharing the Gospel in a meaningful way. Again, I emphasized that comments don’t have to be perfect and can include a mistake here and there, but that lots of people write a comment or post in Word first and run SpellCheck prior to copying it into a comment or post.

5. Avoid setting the whole blog ablaze when flaming a topic.

Quote:

Let’s face it there are some subjects in life that, no matter how hard we try, cause us to flip out at the mere mention of them. But while you have the right to act like a jerk when the topic is raised, unless you want to be banned from the internet I suggest you refrain from doing so.

I mentioned, explicitly, that there is a reason some people refuse to talk about religion and politics – that they are highly emotionally-charged issues. We listed some religious topics that fit that description: abortion, gay marriage, morality, polygamy, witnessing/testifying, abuse by leaders, etc. I simply pointed out that we need to comment and post about these topics as carefully as we can, understanding how emotional they are.

We talked about respect for differing views and the idea that all people have the right to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences – without being called stupid, blind, idiotic, apostate, etc. for following their own consciences.

6. Follow up on comments.

Quote:

Be sure to respond to comments directed at you even if just to say you don’t wish to talk about the subject. Services such as Co-Comment can help you track conversations you are involved in.

In the context of sharing the Gospel, I mentioned that I had commented recently on Facebook about a newspaper article that badly mis-characterized the recent statement from the FP and Q12 about the priesthood and apostasy. The title was, “LDS Church leadership says that only men are worthy to have the priesthood” – and my comment was simply, “That title is extremely inaccurate – and the inaccuracy is important.” I told them that a high school classmate with whom I had not talked in decades responded with, “Why is that, Ray?” I then had a chance to go into more detail about what the statement actually said, as well as Elders Oaks’ and Ballards’ most recent statements about the priesthood.

If I hadn’t looked at that thread (followed-up on my comment), I would have missed a golden opportunity to share the Gospel with that friend in that way. I also pointed out that it would have been simply disrespectful not to follow-up and answer a sincere question.

7. Keep it to a reasonable length.

Quote:

Most blog topics don’t require more than a one or two paragraph response. Avoid writing a novel especially if it is your first visit to a blog. It also helps to read the other comments to make sure you are not adding to the broken record effect.

I asked the students how they respond when they realize something they want to read is multiple times longer than they thought it would be. They all agreed that they often skip it entirely. I mentioned that when the same person writes long epistles all the time, people simply see the person’s name and skip all of their comments entirely. I told them they can’t share the Gospel if nobody reads what they write.

I also emphasized that it is better to say, “I agree with Mary,” or, “Wonderful comment, Mary,” than to say exactly what Mary said in another comment.

8. Link to your sources.

Quote:

When citing material to make your case, provide a link so that the participants can read it at their leisure. Be careful of linking to your own website when you first start commenting at a group site, since this can be seen as spam if you are a first time visitor.

Particularly when sharing the Gospel, if you are quoting or summarizing someone (like an apostle), sharing a link to what they actually said is important – and allows someone to go to lds.org, for example, in a non-threatening way. They might or might not read more there, but at least they have the opportunity to do so. It’s also critical to make sure you quote or summarize them accurately, since it can be highly embarrassing to have the person read the linked talk and come back with, “I read your link, and the person didn’t say what you claimed was said.”

9. Do not feed the trolls.

Quote:

They’ll just follow you home and poop on your doorstep.

The students loved this, and we talked about how intentional trolls often strive to derail good conversations by being inflammatory and diverting the thread into a verbal fistfight – and how they will keep doing so if fed but leave if ignored. I also used it as a chance to talk about how we (Mormons) can be trolls, if we: 1) go to conversations about other religions and start preaching the Mormon gospel there (like commenting on baptism for the dead in a thread about Catholic communion); 2) do nothing in our comments except call people to repentance; 3) go to a liberal or conservative blog and comment from the opposite perspective simply to show them how wrong they are; etc.

I also told them that they should read each comment as if someone else was writing it to them – and that, if they wouldn’t like it being said to them they probably shouldn’t say it to someone else – that they might be acting as a troll if they submitted that comment.

10. A word about anonymous commenting.

Quote:

For one reason or another, people feel the need to make anonymous comments. This practice is not right, wrong, good or bad. In some cases this is the only option available especially when personal safety is a concern. However, just so you know using a pseudonym is the same as talking to people with a paper bag over your head which can hurt your credibility. Even when leaving negative comments, it’s best to leave either your name or your web identity.

I told the students that I agree completely that there are times and situations when commenting anonymously is important, and I used StayLDS as an example (without mentioning the site name but talking about people who are struggling with faith crises and are worried about how family, friends and church leaders might react if they used their real names), but that, generally speaking and especially when sharing the Gospel, if they don’t feel comfortable attaching their real name to a comment they probably shouldn’t submit the comment as written.

The last two suggestions (the ones I added) were:

11. Don’t participate just to argue, correct, testify or call to repentance.

We had talked about that with a couple of the other suggestions, but I wanted to emphasize it at the end of the lesson, as well.

12. Pick compatible group blogs.

I told them that my personal blog has a section that lists multiple Mormon-themed blogs, another one that lists a few aggregators of Mormon-themed blogs and another one that is my personal blog roll of individual blogs I like to read regularly. I mentioned a few of the larger group blogs in order to illustrate just a bit how diverse the options are: By Common Consent (one I really like), Times & Seasons (one I tend to like but don’t read nearly as often as BCC), Millennial Star (an extremely conservative one), Feminist Mormon Housewives (obviously not a conservative one, which drew some chuckles), Wheat & Tares (one that addresses a wide range of topics from multiple perspectives that I tend to like), Mormon Momma (less doctrinal with more of a “faithful” slant), etc. I told them to look for a forum that fits what they want to get out of online participation – to make it a positive experience of growth and learning and not just a place to share the Gospel.

[Anonymous]

Curt,

This is great! Somehow our 5th Sunday turned into a testimony of the importance of the ordinances so we didn’t get any of this. Would you mind if I passed this along to our Bishop? I will of course edit any references to you or this site and perhaps some of the commentary.

Want to make sure you would be ok with using outside of here.

[Anonymous]

SR, feel free to share anything I write in this thread with anyone. In most cases, you won’t have to edit anything, since I already to that to the extent necessary, but, in a case like this last one, please remove the reference to this site.

The same applies to anything I write here. If you want to use it, I’m fine with that. Generally, when I reference or share what someone here has said, I simply say something like:

Quote:

“A friend once said / wrote the following, and I really like it / it really made me think / I had never thought about it that way / etc.”

[Anonymous]

I just realized I didn’t write the summary of my lesson last Sunday. Here goes.

The topic this month is Ordinances and Covenants. I really like the first verse cited in the first lesson outline – the “theme verse” (D&C 84:19-20), which says:

Quote:

And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

I began by casting ordinances as symbolic actions within the administrative Priesthood (what is performed by others – currently only ordained men) and covenants as the responsibility of the “priesthood of believers” (things men and women both do through the authority and power of the priesthood we discussed last month when analyzing Elder Oaks” talk). I told the students we would be talking for at least a couple of weeks about specific ordinances, what they mean (the symbolism of each one), the covenants associated with them and what “power of godliness” they manifest. To set the stage, we talked about the relationship between ordinances and covenants – focusing on the idea that the ordinances symbolize, in a tangible, physical manner, the covenants we make with God and ourselves and that living covenants is how divine power (the power of godliness) is manifest. To illustrate that relationship, we covered baptism, the sacrament and confirmation after baptism.

In the spirit of a summary, the following is the result of our discussions. Keep in mind that what follows was not presented in a lecture format but rather through discussion, as I try to do nearly every week.

Baptism means, literally, immersion. (The original meaning of “to baptize” means “to immerse“.) The symbolism of baptism is the burial of one’s old life and a birth as a “new creature in Christ“. By being immersed in water, the person symbolically is immersed anew in Christ and emerges as a “Christian” – or, in Mormon terms, a god in embryo or a developing God, someone who is following Jesus in an evolutionary, progressive way. S/he is born into godhood, so to speak, and begins a journey toward perfection (completeness, wholeness, full development) in Christ.

The covenants we accept at baptism all deal with actualizing (making literal) the symbolic meaning of the ordinance. We promise to take Jesus’ name upon us, always remember him, stand as a witness of him, keep his commandments, etc. (I skipped the comfort, mourn and bear burdens covenants, since we are going to devote as much of the lesson tomorrow as possible on that concept.) The power of godliness that is manifest in baptism is NOT in the physical ordinance itself, and there is no magic / sudden / automatic power involved. Rather, the power is activated when a person acts on the covenants: becoming a real disciple of Christ, always remembering him (and acting on that remembrance), standing as a witness of him (not just in word but in deed, as well) by doing the things he did and asked us to do (loving, not judging, serving, teaching, supporting, embracing, etc.). The power is the metamorphosis that occurs when a “natural (wo)man” becomes unnatural or godly – literally becoming a new person, just like the ordinance symbolizes.

The word “sacrament” means “a visible sign of an inward grace; something regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance.” The “inward grace” symbolized by the sacrament is being cleansed by Jesus’ blood and body – and we normally talk about it in terms of remembering Gethsemane and Golgotha and what occurred there. However, it’s more than just remembering Jesus during the ordinance; it is supposed to be remembering his sacrifice for us and being cleansed anew (renewing our baptismal covenants). Thus, the power of the sacrament is the exact same as being baptized – the continuation of the metamorphosis to which we commit initially, contingent on us actually living the covenants on a continual basis. The exact composition of the sacramental elements can change (wine to water, for example, or military rations, when bread and water are unavailable), as long as the meaning and power remain unchanged.

“Confirm” means “establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify“. Confirmation, at its most basic level, simply validates publicly what is performed privately (or in front of a limited number of observers). Part of that is for the person who was baptized, so s/he can claim a cleansed state without disputation from others, but the primary focus is on the rest of the community – an official stamp of approval by the leadership certifying acceptance into the group. The added Mormon element is the second part of the ordinance – the charge to receive the Holy Ghost. That symbolizes the beginning of divine assistance in the new journey of discipleship – and the power of the ordinance occurs, just like with baptism and the sacrament, when we act in such a way that we really do “receive the Holy Ghost” (or, more generically, listen for and follow what we believe to be God’s will in our lives).

I made a point to talk about why it is wrong to say that we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost when we are confirmed. That wording makes the primary “actor” (the one who is active as the primary subject) the person who performs the ordinance, while the wording (“receive the Holy Ghost”) clearly puts the responsibility for the actualization of the power squarely on the person who has been baptized.

We also talked about how baptism does NOT bring anyone into the Church, since a person who died immediately following being baptized would never have been, officially, a member of the Church.

Finally, we talked about how the blessing that commonly is pronounced along with the confirmation is NOT part of the ordinance itself but rather a cultural practice to provide guidance and revelation to the person. If the person performing the ordinance ended it right after the admonition to receive the Holy Ghost, it would be considered a full and proper confirmation.

To wrap up the lesson, I simply pointed out that the power of each of these ordinances is manifest ONLY if the person on the receiving end takes the covenants seriously and uses the ordinances as a symbolic launching pad toward developing the characteristics of godliness that allow God to make us what we would not become on our own – that the power of godliness is a transformative process of continually lived and internalized action, not symbolic actions performed once or even periodically.

[Anonymous]

Last Sunday, we talked about only one aspect of ordinances and covenants: the baptismal covenant to bear one another’s burdens, mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need to comfort.

We spent the entire lesson talking about: 1) the fact that the Gospels detail a LOT more time spent serving people than time spent preaching; 2) exactly whom Jesus served during his mortal ministry (lepers, the sick and afflicted, the unclean, the despised, the poor, the powerless, etc. – his “kingdom of nobodies”, as a friend of mine once wrote) and whom he did NOT serve (the religious leadership, the rich and famous and influential, etc.); 3) whom he might serve if he was born and ministered now; 4) how all of that relates to our own baptismal commitment to bear, mourn and comfort and, overall, to take Jesus’ name upon us and become more Christ-like.

The list of whom he might serve now was created by the students and included: the sick, the poor, unwed teenage mothers, alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, the homeless (especially those who are mentally disabled). I pressed them to keep adding to the list, asking them to consider those who are marginalized specifically by our current Mormon culture and not already on the list, and they added homosexuals and the divorced. I personally added church members who see things differently than a locally dominant culture, struggle with aspects of faith and remain silent in order not to feel rejected in their congregations.

We talked about how natural it is to try to avoid becoming unclean or hurt (and how, in some cases, that is an unfortunate necessity) and how that translates inter-personally and socially into avoiding people who we see as unclean and/or dangerous – either physically or spiritually. We talked about how doing so is diametrically opposed to becoming Christ-like (except in the extreme cases when it is necessary), since he spent his entire ministry interacting with, serving and physically touching the people whom everyone else labeled as unclean and avoided in order to remain clean.

To end the lesson, I quoted my oldest daughter after she went through the temple for the first time. She said:

Quote:

Dad, we spend so much time trying to build up the kingdom of God on earth that we forget to establish Zion.

I told them that we aren’t really fulfilling our baptismal covenants if we aren’t serving people who live outside our comfort zone – if we aren’t helping people in a deeply personal, individual way who are rejected by other people, even people within our own church circles. I mentioned how much we construct our service projects around helping “our own” and too often ignore the people around us who are carrying the heaviest burdens, mourning alone and need comfort the most desperately. I asked them to think about the people on the list we created and look for ways to reach out to SOMEONE – actively and directly – who would be on that list. I told them that such an effort was vital to being a true disciple (“follower”) of Christ – since, to do so, we have to be willing to go where he went and serve whom he served.

[Anonymous]

Yesterday, we focused on the lesson outline: “How can I make the sacrament more meaningful to me?” We had talked the first week about the sacrament and the covenants associated with it, but I really like the way the opening paragraph of the outline is worded, so I used that paragraph as the foundation of a deeper look at how to maximize the concept of the sacrament in practical terms in our lives.

The lesson outline starts with the following:

Quote:

During the sacrament each week, we should examine our lives, ponder the Savior’s Atonement, and consider what we need to do to repent of our sins. We do not need to be perfect in order to partake of the sacrament, but we should have a spirit of humility and repentance in our hearts. The sacrament can become a source of strength and an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to living the gospel.

I started by reminding everyone of a lesson we had last year about repentance – particularly how we only understand half of the concept of repentance when we focus solely on remembering our sins / mistakes and vowing not to repeat them. (If anyone wants a fuller look at that concept before continuing with this lesson summary, read the following post from my personal blog, since our discussion was based on that post: “A Fresh View of Repentance” – http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/01/rethinking-repentance.html)

I asked everyone what “repent” means, and they remembered that it simply means “change”. I explained that we were going to talk about two ways to try to repent: 1) the traditional focus on recognizing past sins and committing to not repeat them; 2) changing our very nature by developing characteristics that will help us not feel and act in the same way we naturally would.

I mentioned that the first approach (the traditional steps of repentance method) is necessary for “hardcore” sinners (similar to what addicts might have to do because they might struggle with a temptation all their lives but simply have to commit to a sheer force of will no matter how long it takes, along with other strategies), but that, for most people, just suppressing an inclination generally results in that inclination eventually erupting through built-up pressure – which, as one student said, leads to a vicious cycle of failed attempts and self-criticism. I call this reactive repentance, and I stressed that the ONLY focus of this sort of repentance is to remain as good as we are at any given point – to not let our “badness” overcome our goodness, so to speak. There is no real “growth” in that approach; rather, it is much more of a fight to remain stationary.

The second approach is to recognize a weakness and work to develop a characteristic that will eliminate the inclination / weakness / undesired action. This also is focused on “change”, so it is “repentance” every bit as much as the other approach.

I asked the students if any of them had ever lost their temper and acted toward someone in a way that they regretted. (I picked a fairly generic issue in order to make it personal for all of them but avoid embarrassing anyone.) They all grinned and raised their hands. I asked them how they could change that – how they could go about trying to not do it anymore – other than simply committing not to do it. I asked them to think about exactly what they could do to tackle that particular issue. Eventually, we came up with the following:

1) Develop more patience;

2) Learn to understand the other person better – both their view/perspective and what things in their life might lead them to say and/or do something that bothered the students enough to get upset and lose their temper.

We talked about patience being the “lower” standard and understanding being the “higher” goal. One of the students in the class has Asperger’s Syndrome and occasionally says something inappropriate or off the wall. He said it was okay to use him as an example, so we talked about why everyone else didn’t get mad at him and lose their tempers when he said or did something that might make them mad if someone else said or did it. They all said they understand and love him – and, beside being a wonderfully tender moment, it helped them see what I meant about repentance being more than just not doing things. It also can mean doing something to improve one’s self and change actions as a result.

One student said he would like to read the scriptures more, so we talked about how repentance also can apply to things that aren’t seen as sin but are strictly things we want to do better. For this discussion, I focused on the idea of needing to examine one’s life and make “repentance” a very practical exercise. We talked about needing to think about themselves and when they are most alert – to look at their real-life schedule and choose a time that will work to read the scriptures – to actually calendar the time so it becomes habitual – to perhaps let others know so they can remind us of the commitment – etc. There were seven people in the room, and we came up with at least four approaches that would be best for someone.

This highlighted that repentance is an individual thing – that there is no one-size-fits-all, universally right approach – that nobody ought to try to force someone else to repent in the same way that person does.

Finally, I returned to the sacrament and pointed out that the ideal is not just to “think about Jesus” but rather to have faith in the Atonement enough to examine our lives and use the sacrament as a way to recommit to a practical examination and plan to change – to move from a warm fuzzy spiritual contemplation to a difficult, reflective, practical exercise founded on a spiritual hope.

I left them with the request to pick something that they want to improve about themselves and start focusing on doing so, if only one thing at a time for a limited time and if only to make some limited improvement during that time (rather than trying to overcome it completely and be “perfect” at it in the short-term).

[Anonymous]

Last Sunday was the final week to discuss “Ordinances and Covenants“, so I borrowed a copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2 – intending to highlight some of the ordinances we hadn’t discussed previously and the general policies surrounding performing ordinances. (Section 20) It didn’t go fully according to my plan; it turned out to be a much better discussion than I could have imagined.

I started by revisiting the foundational concepts we had discussed in the first lesson this month:

1) Ordinances are actions we perform to convey a specific meaning or message. They are symbolic and have NO power whatsoever except what we give to them. For example, if baptism was about immersion in water only, we could have people jump into a pool and call it baptism – or we could eat some cake and drink some fruit punch in the cultural hall and call it the sacrament.

2) Covenants are the actual meaning of the ordinances – meaning the power and purpose of ordinances is wrapped up in what they motivate us to promise to do and then actually do. Again, without covenants, there is no power whatsoever in ordinances – since it’s not performing them that is the key but rather what we choose to become as a result of participating in them.

I then explained what I had in mind, held up the handbook and asked how many of them knew that the handbook was available to all of them online. I shouldn’t have been surprised due to their ages, but most of them (whose parents almost all have prominent callings in the ward) didn’t know there was a handbook that contained the official church policies and general counsel. Due to that, I took a few minutes to read through the section titles and go through how to access the handbooks online – step-by-step, so they could do so anytime the wanted.

From 20.1 (General Instructions), I showed them the part about saving ordinances needing authorization from the person who holds the keys to the performance of that ordinance (the person who is authorized to control, direct and oversee it), then we read the general format of all ordinances:

Quote:

1. It should be performed in the name of Jesus Christ.

2. It should be performed by the authority of the priesthood.

3. It should be performed with any necessary procedures, such as using specified words or using consecrated oil.

4. It should be authorized by the presiding authority who holds the proper keys (normally the bishop or stake president), if necessary according to the instructions in this chapter.

I modeled what something like a baby blessing would sound like if only the minimum requirements were included (“Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the priesthood, I give his child the name of Jane Doe” – perhaps with an additional, “and bless her with everything you desire to give her. Amen.”) – and stressed that such a blessing would be every bit as meaningful as one that lasted for 15 minutes. We discussed the danger of allowing blessings to become about us and our oratory skills. I told them about my varying experiences with blessings – how I have participated in hundreds of blessings throughout my life, with only a handful where I can say, without doubt, that I spoke revelation directly from God. I explained that even though I couldn’t say that about the other hundreds, I was glad I had participated in them in order to experience the overpowering ones.

We talked about what kind of ordinances require exact wording (e.g., baptism, the sacrament, temple ordinances, etc.) and which ones don’t (e.g., all blessings, confirmation after baptism, etc.). We talked about what is necessary for someone in one ward or branch to perform an ordinance in a different location (approval from the leader in that other location) and how that decision might be made (a letter from the other Bishop, a phone call, an active temple recommend – although that last one might not be accurate, if someone had sinned egregiously after receiving it, etc.). We then read 20.1.3 about that situation, and I pointed out the use of “should” – as opposed to “must”. I told them we would revisit that issue at the end of the lesson.

From 20.1.1 (Participation in Ordinances and Blessings) and 20.1.2 (Worthiness to Participate in an Ordinance or Blessing), we talked about ordinances that require a current temple recommend and the Melchizedek Priesthood (primarily the “saving ordinances”) and the difference between being the voice in an ordinance (representing the church leadership) and simply participating (less strict standards, with more discretion given to the local leader). We also discussed how baptism does NOT require either the Melchizedek Priesthood or a current temple recommend, even though it is considered a saving ordinance – which means there are a LOT of fathers who may perform that ordinance for their children who might assume they can’t. I told them that I hope when they are leaders of any kind that they are mindful of such situations and allow fathers to do so as much as possible.

I mentioned that, as I read the handbook, I am struck by how many policies and how much counsel HAD to have been the result of members doing really stupid things. I mentioned how much smaller the current version is than in the past, but, even now, I envision the leadership sitting down to discuss the handbook and saying:

Quote:

You’re kidding me! They did WHAT?! Ah, crap, now we’re going to have to write a policy and give counsel about that. 🙄

At this point, the lesson took a different turn than I had expected. We read the following:

Quote:

Those who participate are usually limited to a few, including priesthood leaders, close family members, and close associates such as home teachers. Inviting large numbers of family, friends, and leaders to assist in an ordinance or blessing is discouraged. When too many participate, it can become cumbersome and detract from the spirit of the ordinance. Those who perform an ordinance and those who preside are the only ones required. Others provide support and sustain the spokesman.

I asked the students why the policy is usually to limit those who participate in ordinances to “a few” people. They were a bit stumped by that, so I asked them what would happen if a large family, with lots of adult relatives (like mine), wanted to have all of those people (say 35) help bless a baby. (I used an extreme to make the point obvious.) I gave them a visual illustration of how each person would have to stand in order for all of them to reach the baby – and we spent a few minutes laughing at the possibilities. When we had stopped laughing, I pointed out that what had just happened in our classroom (laughing at the visual image) is precisely why the policy is in place – along with the desire to not have ordinances become a contest to see who has “the most righteous” posterity / family or create concern about overlooking anyone and having people be upset that they weren’t asked to participate.

Somehow, that discussion led to a different discussion about what happens when an entire congregation becomes invested in an ordinance and it becomes more than an individual experience and more of a true community (group unity) event. I shared the gist of one of my favorite blog posts ever, “Ninety One Words” (http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/02/ninety-one-words/) – about a young man with a severe stutter being asked to say the sacrament prayer. I described how, by the end of the prayer, the entire congregation was mouthing the words silently – praying for the young man to have or receive the strength he needed to get through it. I explained how the sacrament had never meant more to that congregation, since they were united in support of someone else and were inspired to consider the words themselves more carefully and deeply than had happened previously in their lives. (Please read the post. It is stunning.)

The story really touched the students, and one of them shared an experience he had witnessed in his previous ward, prior to moving to our ward. He said the missionaries had been referred to and started teaching a man who was in the hospital being treated for the effects of being severely overweight – somewhere over 500 pounds. He accepted the message and asked to be baptized, but he couldn’t fit in the church’s font – so the Bishop arranged to perform the ordinance at a pool in the community. About a dozen or so people got into the pool, and someone said the baptismal prayer at the edge of the pool next to the man. After the prayer, people outside the pool used a fireman’s tarp (the kind that is used to catch people who jump from burning buildings) to lower the man into the pool, where the people in the pool took the tarp and allowed it to sink to the bottom so the man could be immersed – then lifted the man back out of the pool and set him and the tarp back on the edge of the pool.

We talked about how it is moments like those experiences when what too often becomes little more than rote, autopilot actions suddenly take on real, deep meaning – when necessary exceptions almost force us to see the ordinances as they are intended to be – when we become truly invested in them and realize how much they mean to those who see and feel the power of the symbolism and are determined to participate no matter the difficulty.

We were almost out of time at that point, so I simply mentioned how important it is to read the handbook carefully and notice the choice of words, especially those like “should”, “must”, “can”, “might”, “encouraged”, “discouraged”, “forbidden”, etc. I told them that I personally read everything with an eye to the most charitable, inclusive application possible – that I would rather err on the side of inclusion and charity than on the side of exclusion and judgment. I shared the story told here (without sharing the name of the site, obviously) about someone being denied the opportunity to have his baby blessed during sacrament meeting because he wasn’t a member at the time – and I pointed out that there is nothing in the handbook that says a non-member can have a baby blessed, but there also is nothing in it that says it can’t be done. I told them that I believe it our Christian duty to make our decisions based on what we feel would be the best for the people involved – what we would want if it was us making the request, as long as such a request was not explicitly forbidden in the handbook. I told them that they all probably will be leaders of some sort in the Church at some point in their lives and that I hope they will read and apply the handbook policies and counsel as expansively as they can – to make as many ordinances as “communal” as possible.

There was a spirit during the last part of the lesson that I couldn’t have anticipated, and I am grateful it went differently than I had planned.

[Anonymous]

I took a unique approach today, after talking with my wife about what was going to happen in YW. (My wife is the Personal Progress Leader, and the entire presidency was gone today, so she arranged the lesson.) The topic for the month is “Marriage and Family”, and since our daughter just returned from her mission in Germany, my wife asked her to talk with the girls during the third hour about how marriage and family is different in Germany and what she learned about those topics from her mission. I thought that would be an excellent lesson for the boys, as well, so the girls in my class joined the next younger class and left just the boys in my class (since the girls were going to hear from her the next hour, anyway).

Sarah started by mentioning that she had thought a lot about how to address the topic, since she had been bored stiff when she was their age by lessons about marriage and family. She said she always thought:

Quote:

“I’m 14 (or 16). I don’t care about this topic right now, especially since I’ve heard about a thousand lessons in my life about it.”

That got a nod and laugh from everyone.

She then spent the time talking about how the German people, generally, and the German members view marriage and family – and she shared some specific examples of people and families with whom she had interacted on her mission. There is no way I can remember and record everything she said, so I am going to focus on four things that were striking to me.

1) She said that Germans value family, but they tend to cut off family members entirely who do anything that is against the family wishes – even some things we would view as trivial, but especially “bigger”things, including joining the LDS Church. (One example she used is a woman in one ward whose aunt refuses to acknowledge the woman’s presence when they are riding the same bus.) The fascinating result of that tendency is that members of the Church tend to go to the other extreme when they embrace the importance of family – meaning they try hard to not let ANYTHING separate them from their kids, even leaving the Church or not living standards the members view as extremely important.

She said it is very common in the wards where she served to have visiting family members who are not church members attend meetings on Sunday, even if those visitors have left the Church entirely and had their names removed from the records – that they aren’t there to support the Church but rather to be with family. She said, essentially, that it’s easy to see how strongly people REALLY believe in family by how they treat family members who disappoint them in some way – and there was an amazing spirit that was almost tangible when she was talking about that.

I wish everyone in the Church who badgers, hounds, judges, dismisses, rejects or in any other way mistreats family who struggle or leave could have been in the room to listen to that part, especially.

2) She said that Germans tend to be very loyal and are very committed to keeping their word – and that causes surprising issues with marriage. She said that the default in Germany is for boyfriends and girlfriends to live together, starting often as early as 16. She said they live together until they split up and simply move in with their new boy/girlfriend. Apparently, Germany has a VERY high divorce rate and a VERY low marriage rate – with the underlying assumption / belief that it’s no big deal to be with whomever you “love” at the moment and then move on to the next person – and the next person – and the next person . . . She isn’t sure which came first – the casual non-marriage attitude or cynicism caused by the high divorce rate, but she said the general attitude among the younger generations is:

Quote:

“Why get married? It never lasts, anyway, so why bother with a ceremony and promises I’m not going to keep?”

They are devoted deeply to honesty and loyalty, but they are so jaded by such a long history of failed marriages being the norm that they have given up trying in order not to break what they see as impossible promises. This is such an assumed given by now that the people she met generally were okay with the Word of Wisdom (at least, that Mormons would accept it, even if they couldn’t) and tithing (since all the churches collect money in some way from their members) – but the vast majority of people simply couldn’t understand the concepts of the Law of Chastity, lifelong monogamy and eternal marriage. Again, however, when it did “click” for someone who then embraced it, it became an incredibly important, powerful part of their life – to such an extent that they would NEVER accept disowning or hounding their family members into adversarial relationships.

3) She talked about how that same attitude leaks into how the members interact with each other and those who are investigating the Church – their “extended family”. Over half of the members in each unit where she served (often well over half) did not have the traditional family structure, so they saw the Church’s teachings about the family as an ideal toward which they could strive in their own unique situations and which they could try to initiate for their own children – to break the cultural cycle of their own lives. They never beat themselves up over not being in the “ideal” situation; rather, they focused on having as close to an ideal “church family” as possible by accepting everyone who entered the church building as “family” and doing anything possible to make them feel loved, no matter their personal life situation.

This is the daughter who told me after her first temple trip that we work so hard to build the kingdom of God on Earth that we often forget to establish Zion, so it was especially touching to hear her describe a church experience that, while obviously not perfect, shows how it is possible to establish Zion if people are really committed to it.

4) She said that the missionaries who were the most successful working with investigators and inactive/less-active members were the ones who accepted each person and worked with them individually in whatever way honored their individual agency and showed real respect.

As an example, two Elders had taught a nine-year-old boy whose mom was active (having left the Church officially but being rebaptized about ten years ago) but whose father had requested his name be removed from the records and never rejoined. His mother wanted the boy to be baptized, but his father wouldn’t give permission. The Elders taught the boy all of the lessons in about two weeks and then tried to convince the father to change his mind. To say it mildly, it didn’t work.

Sarah and her companion started teaching the boy the lessons when they replaced the Elders in the ward and quickly were told about his father’s opposition. Given the situation, they taught the boy about once a month and spent more time serving the family in whatever way they could – and praying every day that the father would change his mind and allow the baptism. After finishing all of the lessons, they told the father that they were done teaching the boy, that they believed he was ready to be baptized whenever the father decided it was the right time and thanked him for letting them teach his son. They continued to pray daily for the boy and his father, stopped teaching the boy and continued to serve the family as they had been.

Shortly after Sarah transferred from the area, the boy’s aunt called her and told her that the father had been so impressed by the simple respect the sister missionaries had shown him as the boy’s father that he had told his wife, completely out of the blue, that he would give his permission for the baptism. Less than two hours later, someone from the Area Presidency office called the mother to let her know that they wanted to schedule an interview to renew her temple covenants – not knowing her husband had just given his permission for their son to be baptized. Sarah said it was her favorite experience of her entire mission – that praying so intently for so long for the family had helped her love them (non-biological family) in a way she hadn’t realized was possible previously. She said it helped her understand better how the German members felt about “extended church family” being real family – how powerful the concept of “sealing” can be when it is seen as communal and not just about biological families.

Finally, she served about 2/3 of her mission (about a year) in what used to be East Germany. As a humorous but touching aside, she said that EVERY German member who had been in the Church for at least two generations knows Thomas Monson personally and absolutely adores him – personally but also for getting the temple built in Freiberg, which was a lifeline and indescribable strength during their decades of isolation. For example, there was a Bishop in one ward whose sister is the young girl President Monson has mentioned giving special candy to when he was visiting Berlin on one trip. They still call him “Elder Monson” instead of “President Monson” and say:

Quote:

“We know he is the Church President, but he is and always will be our Elder Monson.”

It was a wonderful lesson, and I really wish more people could have heard it – but I am quite certain it made an impact on the youth who were there.

[Author]

Posts