Light on a Candlestick, City on a Hill: How and Why The Metaphor is Misinterpreted

One of the most distressing behaviors of my church and others is to misinterpret the phrase "Ye are the light of the world."

In fairness, many non-religious institutions do the same. 

In context--and context does matter--the phrase "ye are the light of the world" in Matthew 5 occurs within the Sermon on the Mount and follows the Beatitudes. That is, Jesus has just praised the meek and poor in spirit; the merciful and pure in heart; those eager for righteousness; those who are worried or mournful or unsure; those who are persecuted; those who are peace-longing. He goes on to use deliberate hyperbole to commend the same listeners to not settle for legalistic arguments in their beliefs but rather to live by beliefs wholeheartedly: to treat partners with respect; to not run around boasting about one's religious adherence; to forgive enemies; to love enemies; to give away goods. 

The following lines come between the above described passages:

13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Note that the first analogy is not "light" but salt, a substance that is nearly indistinguishable from sugar despite the immense difference in result (if you have ever made that mistake, you know what I mean). Very little salt is needed to change the constitution of a dish. 

Note, also, that "ye are the light of the world" is not a command. Listeners are not being told to show themselves off on a hill (candlestick). Within the chapter and alongside many of Jesus's other parables and sayings, such a command would be patently ridiculous. In fact, grandstanding is specifically condemned within the gospels and Paul's letters. (The analogy of salt also doesn't contain a command, only a warning.)

Jesus is discussing a result. Just as candles aren't placed under beds, then the outcome of belief--how a person behaves or tries to behave--will be noticed. Just as salt can make a difference, so can acceptance of Christ's words in one's life make a difference, including accepting what the Beatitudes imply about what truly matters: what behavior should be honored, emulated, and given respect. 

Again and again, the New Testament makes the following arguments (see more extensive list below):

1. Jesus is the light.

2. Blessings come from God through Jesus Christ and Christ's example.

3. Behaving in the name of Christ is an action among people.

4. Saying, "This is in Christ's name" is not the same as an act being something Christ would sanction. 

Now, people have disagreed, in good faith, about the nuts and bolts of the above list, including the connection between works and grace. They disagree about priesthoods and rituals. They disagree about hierarchies and church managements. They disagree about the nature of God and the afterlife. 

My point here is that taken in context (rather than removed out of context as a kind of ha-ha texting "slam"), the light Christians shine/hold up/hold onto and Christ's example/teachings are expected to correspond, as much as ordinary, fallible, constantly trying and trying again humans can get them to correspond.

Arguing a "religious right" to do whatever one wishes because one claims the name of Christ and making that argument without humility (for standing laws) or empathy (for honest disagreement) or pureness of heart (by using sneaky methods) or good taste (okay, that one is subjective but I personally stand by it) is not a Christian act. 

It's prideful. 

This behavior is unfortunately quite common in our culture and not just in religions and on social media: that is, people see an outcome (being a light, getting a good job, getting the candidate they want, achieving a particular life goal), an end that may be defensibly good. So they move the result/outcome to the beginning of the process. Instead of "I will try to live better, work hard, get an education, vote, sacrifice to achieve what I hope will happen..."), the process becomes "I will make this happen today, right now, instantly and if it doesn't, the system has to change until I get what I want."

Again--there may be valid reasons to change a system. But "I didn't take the time--I don't have to--because what I want is already justified by my label" is not one of those reasons. 

Who is employing a label doesn't matter either. Right. Left. Religious. Non-religious. Whatever group. Doesn't matter. A label does not ensure anything by itself for anyone. 

The Calvinist-trained New Englanders who read The Book of Mormon would have recognized the difference between behavior as a reflection of grace/belief/actions/taking-the-time and behavior as a kind of instant gratification performance (they argued about the difference, which is how I know they would have recognized it). In sum, The Book of Mormon backs the position that beliefs and grace show themselves through character:

If it be called in my name, then it is my church if it so be that [they = the church as a group of people is] built upon my gospel. Verily, I say unto you that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore, ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call in my name; therefore, if ye call upon the Father [on behalf of] the church, if it be in my name, the Father will hear you. And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel, then will the Father show forth his own works in it.

But if it be not built upon my gospel and is built upon the works of men or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season and by and by, the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire from whence there is no return. For their works do follow them. (3 Nephi 27:8-12, my emphasis)

An earlier chapter and verse in 3 Nephi further clarifies what it means to shine a light. It isn't about buildings--buildings are tools to an end; not the end themselves:

Therefore, hold up your light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which ye have seen me do. (3 Nephi 18:24, my emphasis)

I was worried several years ago that the adoption of the name of Christ within my church's URL would be a problem. At the local micro level, it isn't. People try on a day-to-day basis to do what is right in their personal lives and with each other. I'm not entirely sure how much the theology (which I do believe in) has changed (from when I determined I believed in it). But the behavior is much the same. People are mostly trying to be good/better, including me.

And, to be entirely fair, many projects at the macro level, such as medical missions, continue to move forward as departments simply get on with things. 

But "using" Christ in some macro matters has become disturbing and unacceptable. 

It starts by mistaking ends for means. 

What the scriptures state about Jesus Christ and light:

1. Jesus Christ is the light. 

I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)

As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. (John 9:5)

[A] light for revelation to the Gentiles (Simeon's blessing, Luke 2:32) 

The Lamb is [the city's] light. (Revelation 21:23)

Behold, [Christ] is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. (Alma 38:9)

I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. (3 Nephi 9:18)

2. Blessings come from God through Christ and Christ's example. 

For it is God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6)

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. (James 1:17)

But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul. (2 Nephi 32:2)

[T]he light which did light up his mind, which was the light of the glory of God, which was a marvelous light of his goodness -- yea, this light had infused such joy into his soul, the cloud of darkness having been dispelled, and that the light of everlasting life was lit up in his soul, yea, he knew that this had overcome his natural frame, and he was carried away in God -- (Alma 19:6)

Behold I am the light; I have set an example for you. (3 Nephi 18:16)

3. Behaving in the name of Christ is an action by an individual amongst other individuals.

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. (Matthew 8:5)

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20, in which the context is forgiving others; again, a single scripture appears to justify dismissing people from that gathering; the context, however, maintains that unending forgiveness should be the norm.)

To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours. (1 Corinthians 1:2, my emphasis)

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light. (Ephesians 5:8)

But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul. (2 Nephi 32:9)

Too many scriptures in Acts to list here.

Basically, Ammon and Alma/Amulek in The Book of Mormon.

4. Saying, "This is in Christ's name" is not the same as an act being something Christ would sanction. (I'm not a huge fan of "watch out--wrath is coming" verses, and I think the loving, positive verses within scriptures far outweigh the warnings, but such scriptures do need to be taken into consideration since they are part of the context.) 

For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. (Matthew 24:5)

Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His” (2 Timothy 2:19)

You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:16, 20)

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! (3 Nephi 13:23)

For their works do follow them. (3 Nephi 27:12--the similar verse in Revelations is about good deeds following the righteous. Here, the verse is used to paint a darker image, rather like a rabid dog following the worldly-minded. Current-day New Englanders may picture Cujo.) 

Thoughts on The Book of Mormon from a Nineteenth Century Perspective: The Atonement Complicated and Uncomplicated

Jesus Christ descends to the Americas in 3 Nephi. The New World is tied to the Old. 

Linking Europe and the Americas to Jerusalem and the Mediterranean world was part of Millennialism, which movement I will address when I reach the Book of Ether. 

For now, 3 Nephi is notable not only for a restatement of the Sermon of the Mount but for what it doesn't include.

In the early nineteenth century, Reverend Alexander Campbell stated about Joseph Smith:

"He decides all the great controversies--infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonry, republican government, and the rights of man." (in Harrison 184)

The passage is correct (though it lacks the caustic bite that surely must have entered the reverend's voice when discussing Joseph Smith; the passage's context is a complaint). However, what I find most impressive is when Joseph Smith goes "off-script." 

For instance, Joseph Smith lays out a logical, step-by-step argument against infant baptism which argument is not out of sync with other theologies of the time.

Regarding the Atonement, however, his writings and The Book of Mormon evince a remarkable (and blessed) lack of worry about how exactly it occurs (there is little obsession with counting drops of blood). 

I haven't finished--but Page's

points about Gnosticism are spot-on.

A great many of the theologies running through America's beginnings (and earlier) come down to the nature of God, how exactly God operates. When people started blaming the Enlightenment for things, they usually focused on the movement's secular attitudes. But utterly unnecessary and daft religious ideas like Creationism also arose from the Enlightenment. The need to bring God down to a human level and explain His works/deeds as if they belong in some type of self-help book have resulted in astonishing levels of cognitive dissonance. 

The impulse goes back further than the Enlightenment, of course. Check out Gnosticism, which was not as feminist, edgy, or "enlightened" as some modern theologians want to claim. Once the premise "God couldn't possibly like physical matter!" is accepted, the conclusions to that premise get stranger and stranger and stranger. 

 

But I am straying into the issue of who or what God is, an issue I will address in a different post. 

 

The Atonement specifically focuses on the problem of why God would create sin or encourage sin or make sin possible.

 

If sin is a given, then once He forgives, why would any propitiation (even being sorry) be necessary, especially if He already knows who is saved? And, anyway, why would the elect even be able to sin? They might have tendencies towards sin (though some Calvinists debated this possibility), but they do not have the nature to sin because God would never do that to one of his elect. 

 

Congregationalists spent an unreal amount of time trying to figure out the problem of the above bolded statement (and arguing with each other about it)--that is, was sin something a person did or something a person thought or something a person might do but didn't or something that a person didn't do because that person was one of the elect? And if the person was one of the elect, was that person's behavior not sin because that person was already granted grace? Or because that person was created not to be that way? Was sin the product of choice or the product of inclination/nature and if the latter, where did that inclination come from?

 

It seems to be a nature-nurture debate, which I get. From a religious angle, however, I don't get it. I have tried (I'm still trying to parse Jonathan Edwards). But I don't understand how decent people can get up in the morning and think, "The problem isn't me correcting my faults or trying not to be a jerk today. The problem is what other people are going around thinking about their fault-ridden selves." 

 

In sum, I don't understand the compulsion to "fix" other people. I don't mean "other" people who are doing actively destructive things--like holding up banks--but "other" people whom a story about God or Utopia or Good has identified as failing. 

 

I understand the desire to spread "good news." I understand the desire to state what is going on in the world. And I understand the desire to comment on what is going on in the world. And I'm writing as someone who is literally paid to tell other people how to write better. But I still don't understand the (social media) desire to move from belief or concepts to slamming people's characters, from "here's my position/here's the craft/here's possible ways to transform yourself or your work(s)" to determining that the existence of a trait or idea in another must be eradicated. I understand the desire to help people be better; I don't understand the desire to "help" a person by turning that person into someone else or making them out to be someone else.

 

Back to the Congregationalists (who greatly impacted American theologies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including the impact of arguing against Congregationalism) and their desire to "fix" sinful others: 

 

In fact, some Congregationalists argued against that desire. Accepting the providence of God meant full acceptance, including the inability to change anyone for the better. However, as the First Great Awakening approached and missionary work increased among Protestants generally, the attitudes of more proactive (extroverted) leaders took hold. Some of them softened Calvinist doctrines and adopted more Methodist ideas (Congregationalism was conflicted from the beginning by American versus Old World ideals). Some of them honestly saw missionary work as an extension of service--to educate and heal and support abolition because they were called by God. 

 

But some of the die-hards on the topic of election clung to the idea that people needed to be told stuff even if what they were being told was that some of them were doomed. They argued over ideas presented earlier in this post: how exactly God could ever let his elect be exposed to sin or the desire to sin or the possible damnation of personal sin or the expectation that anyone could get over sin. If Grace is working, then why is this happening to us?...seems to be the mantra.

 

Either these Congregationalists had a mind-blowingly extreme view of what constitutes sin or they believed they were damned anyway. Or they compartmentalized their lives, so theology existed separately from day-to-day actions. Or (since some of them were paid to deliver sermons) they were discussing the problem of evil in a way that other people found comprehensible/comforting, despite how odd/discomforting we moderns find it. 

Joseph Smith skips all of it. He was fundamentally an active, physical guy. Any theory that somehow dismisses sin *or* regulates it to a metaphysical discourse wouldn't have made much sense to him. He seems to have spent little time worrying about the Ransom theory of the Atonement versus the Governmental theory versus the Christus Victor theory (which last I tend towards myself and Joseph Smith seems to have utilized: the primary purpose of the Atonement is that Christ conquered--was victorious--over death, which implies a need to be victorious over sin). For Joseph Smith, the Atonement happened in order to allow us to do stuff, to move towards something, to be saved (as George MacDonald would state) not in our sins but from our sins, FOR something. (See Helaman 5:11.)

 

But, as referenced in earlier posts, to maintain this perspective, it helps to reject original sin while also proposing that the purpose of life IS for us to mess up.

 

That is, God wants us to experience risk. Knowing that us + risk would result in us doing very dumb things, he provided an Atonement, which makes it possible for us to keep exploring and risking and trying and experimenting rather than turning into, say, Gollum, going round and round and round without stop (hollowness). Grace while we do stuff, not grace + what we do.

 

Joseph Smith was not, ultimately, a man to shy from risk. He was also not a man who thought that constantly calculating the cost of sin was terribly useful. His primary response to messing up/sin was harrowing but it was the harrowing of a man who feels that he has disappointed/let-down a loving God, not that of a man who believes he is too low or "other" to be contemplated. 

 

He and Saint Paul (and George MacDonald) would agree. 

Notes on The Book of Mormon from a Nineteenth Century Perspective: Manichaeism in America, III

 The Book of Mormon and Satan

A Nephi solves a murder mystery!

Satan/devil is referred to throughout The Book of Mormon but usually as a lone element rather than a being with a court. Demons/devils are referred to approximately 10 times; Satan/devil approximately 100. 

A consistent thread runs through the references. Satan/devil has the ability to tempt, to “lead away,” “to captivate,” “to grasp.”

Agency, however, is continually placed back on the table; the individual may “yield” to Satan and “forget” God. Likewise, in Joseph Smith’s translation of the Old Testament, Pharaoh, not God, hardens his own heart.

The Book of Mormon is tackling an issue that showed up in the Salem Witch Trials. As I mention elsewhere, one reason that the Salem Witch Trials became such a seminal event is precisely because it was a kind of crossroads. Both older courts and more modern ones would have handled the matter better. But the times created a kind of vacuum. Are demons real? If they are real, how do we know? Who are actually the afflicted? The girls? Or the people they accuse? How do we know the accused aren’t suffering because of their righteousness?

An older court may have wondered who was actually possessed and spent more time listening to neighbors’ testimony. A more modern court would have ignored the spectral evidence entirely. Unfortunately, a confluence of events—some political, some personal—came together to create a storm of irrationality by anyone’s standards, including the standards of people of the day.

The nineteenth century was still grappling with many of the above questions. Joseph Smith, for one, accepts the idea of demons without giving up on human agency. That approach dovetails with the solution to grace and works that pervades The Book of Mormon, coming into focus in Helaman. We are the creators of our destinies—we bring our stories upon ourselves:

“[People] may be restored grace for grace, according to their works. I would that all...might be saved” (12: 24-25).

Supernatural forces are not dismissed. But in the tension between “bad stuff is due to outside forces” and “bad stuff is due to inside forces,” the inside forces are given more weight. So Samuel the Lamanite’s prophecying combines:

 “Behold, we are surrounded by demons, yea, we are encircled about by the angels of him who hath sought to destroy our souls” (13:37)

-with-

“And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free” (14:30)

In the end, Joseph Smith appears to have found the world of supernatural evil rather dull--the opposite of founding cities and building temples and restoring/creating ceremonies and binding together families and imagining/revealing eternal glorious futures. 

He wouldn't have been offended by the teen leader who wanted to tell stories about possession and exorcism. 

He would have wanted to talk about something bigger and more interesting instead.
 

Notes on The Book of Mormon from a Nineteenth Century Perspective: Conspiracies I

The Book of Alma is filled with secret combinations associated with kingmakers and related plots. 

Secret societies or, rather, a belief in secret societies is a constant throughout history. Speaking quite personally, they utterly bore me. They are also often quite fabulous, disconnected from actual human behavior. I side with Elementary's Sherlock here that large groups of people cannot keep secrets. (They can be incompetent, which may look like a conspiracy.)

 

However, the sheer vacuity of secret societies doesn't stop people being enthralled by them, either wanting to be part of them or wanting to believe in them. Just about anything, including recent events in 2024, can be transformed into a conspiracy. 

 

Nineteenth-century readers were quite familiar with the so-called Burr conspiracy which occurred in the century's first decade. It was reported in multiple newspapers. It was likely the most famous national event of that time.

 

In sum, Aaron Burr, after he killed Alexander Hamilton, started gathering supporters to create a country out of the Mississippi Valley. Within fifty years, the United States would be divided North versus South. But at the time, the divide was between the Atlantic states and the states/territories to the West. The perception was that the Eastern states were run by elite politicians and moneymakers who wanted to rob farmers and ordinary people of their goods and money and land, a perception that was fueled, in part, by the Whiskey Rebellion (and yes, that perception lingers).

 

Burr's rhetoric and behavior (which may have been part of a kind of Ponzi scheme) were reported--in part by people who claimed to have joined the conspiracy (see Sherlock's point above). And he was ultimately found not guilty since his behavior seems to have fallen into blustering bombastic populist egotistic self-flattery that didn't result in any actual violent military action. He did leave the United States after his trial, however.

 

It is entirely speculative whether the average citizen, for whom Burr claimed to be acting, would have favored Burr in the long run any more than any other high-handed self-appointed autocrat. The Book of Mormon, for one, pairs elitism with local kingmakers. Captain Moroni heads to the country's capital to restore the government there, an act that many nineteenth-century readers would have endorsed. (In 1814, the Burning of Washington resulted in the president being temporarily ousted from the capital.) 

 

In other words, the Federal government was perceived by many groups, including what became the Mormons, as a necessary check to what James Madison called "the spirit of locality," that is, the bullying that can occur in a pure democracy (the inevitable bullying here is why the electoral college is still a decent form of democracy). The attitude of the Federal government at that time, however, was to restrict Federal involvement, as demonstrated in Barron v. Baltimore, in which a property owner's loss of income was not (fully) redressed despite the state violating the owner's rights; the Supreme Court determined that the problem was between the owner and the state. The issue wasn't a Federal one. 

The problem of rights and the individual is a complex one and indicates that libertarianism is not automatically a state v. Federal issue, at least not historically. Utah Mormons would later have a fraught relationship with the Feds. Some of the seeds of distrust were sown in the Nauvoo years when petitions for Federal protection against state harassment were, from the view of Joseph Smith and his followers, ignored. 

 

That disillusionment was to come. Early readers of The Book of Mormon would have encountered a more optimistic solution in The Book of Mormon's Captain Moroni. And it is notable that despite the time period's Millennial fever, many low to middleclass Americans were not interested in revolutions of the messy kind (however proud they were of their own revolution) but, rather, in balanced and rational governments so they could get on with life. 

Notes on The Book of Mormon from a Nineteenth Century Perspective: Joseph of Old

The story of Joseph in Genesis is one of the most complete. It stands out since it extols Jews of the Diaspora. 

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Old Testament is how contending texts sit side by side, as if different writers were having arguments with each other. So Ezra's exhortations to not marry outside the faith are set next to stories about Rahab and Ruth.

Likewise, Jews of the Diaspora--Jews outside Israel--were fans of the story of Joseph. Joseph of Egypt, who is forced to leave his home, saves his people. 

And the story was almost immediately used for literary purposes. As Bernhard Lang notes, the story of Joseph is the Bible's Odyssey or Iliad and consequently can be interpreted in any number of ways. The desire to expand on the story has never faded. The practice was certainly popular in the nineteenth century. Joseph of Old was used as...

Instruction for children. Lessons on chastity. Political discourse, including, in America, one of the earliest pamphlets against slavery by Samuel Sewall. 

And entertainment! Even before Andrew Lloyd Webber, the story was presented through plays and poetry.

In The Book of Mormon, Joseph of Old is directly linked in 2 Nephi 3 to Joseph Smith the translator. In Alma 46, somewhat more poetically, Joseph of Old's coat is used to symbolize the remnant of Jacob's house that will survive in the New World. 

The Gathering of Israel is an ongoing theme in The Book of Mormon. It is and isn't connected to Millennialism. 

The Nature of God: Church Talk on May 21, 2023

This talk arose from a worry--that applies to any organization: namely, I fear sometimes that basic doctrines are getting lost in the pursuit of jargon. That is, people within an organization know what to say or what to object to or what to tell other people to think or do, not necessarily what they actually believe, their organization/church's belief system/theology. 

I didn't start my talk with the above passage. Rather, my talk was an attempt to address basic doctrines regarding beliefs about God. The more I worked on the talk, the more I appreciated why any theology basically starts here. The nature of God determines to a degree--though not absolutely--the nature of worship and belief. 

The statements in the talk are ones that I converted to in my early twenties--and my beliefs on that score haven't changed much, though, in truth, I slightly toned them down. And I didn't quote from C.S. Lewis this time around though I included the quote below. 

Talks in my church are typically 10-20 minutes. I was the final speaker, what my father calls the "accordion" speaker: the speaker who has to expand or contract to meet the time. In this role, I often have to either slow way down when I talk or desperately add in remarks. This time, I cut a great deal, including extra examples and the "Practical How" section (it is after all another talk). 

* * *

Introduction

The first Article of Faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”

This talk will address God, the Eternal Father.

Human beings have thought and spoken and written about God for millennia. Two common approaches are to turn God into an abstract theory or to turn God into a series of rules. Neither approach is correct.

LDS doctrine teaches 4 truths about God.

Nature of God

1. God is a person.

Moses and Abraham both spoke to the Lord face-to-face. In Doctrine & Covenants 130, Joseph Smith states emphatically that both the Father and the Son can make personal appearances. In addition, “The Father has a [tangible] body of flesh and bone” (22), which the vision of Joseph Smith confirms. Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son as two separate entities.

2. God loves us.

 Moses 1:39 states that God’s “work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of [humans].”

 God’s work and glory is accomplished through the Plan of Salvation.

Overview—

1. In the pre-mortal existence, we were intelligences whom God organized to be spirits.
2. We wanted to be like God—that goal required a physical body.
3. God created the world through Jesus Christ, so we could become mortal and gain a physical form.
4. God also made possible an Atonement through Jesus Christ. The Atonement provides grace, and it provides for a universal resurrection. Grace gives us the ability to start over when we make mistakes. Resurrection reunites our spirits with our bodies. Everyone will be resurrected.
5. At death, we separate temporarily from our bodies and enter the spirit world.
6. Many will be resurrected, reunited with their bodies, at the first resurrection, which occurs before the Millennium at the time of Christ’s Second Coming.
7. The final resurrection takes place before the Final Judgment, which is God’s Judgment.
8. We then enter one of three kingdoms of glory.

We are not told anything beyond this point because it is not necessary for us to know. Mortal life is a time of preparation, specifically preparation for the Second Coming. But we should remember—

3. God is eternal.

In Doctrine & Covenants 19, Joseph Smith reveals that God’s justice is endless and eternal because Endless and Eternal are God’s names. 

Truth #3 leads to Truth #4—

4. God is more intelligent than us.

Isaiah 55:8-9 states, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (also Abraham 3:19).

The passage refers to intelligence. Intelligence in the scriptures is not learning or IQ—it is the “light of truth.” In Doctrine & Covenants 88, we are told this light “quickens our understanding.” It comes to us through God’s presence (88:11,12).

Doctrine & Covenants 88 also tells us that “God comprehendeth all things and…is above all things and in all things and is through all things” (41).

In mortality, we can only comprehend God in part. Moses saw the Lord face to face but stated, “[None] can behold all [His] glory [in mortality]” (Moses 4:5, my emphasis).

The hymn “If You Could Hie to Kolob” includes the following lines in verses 4 and 5 regarding the home of God: “There is no end to virtue/there is no end to might/there is no end to light/there is no end to union/there is no end to youth/there is no end to priesthood/there is no end to truth/there is no end to love/there is no end to being/there is no end to glory.”

God, Heavenly Father, is more than us. My favorite example of God’s majesty comes from the Book of Job. Job is irritated at the unfairness of his life and calls to the Lord for aid. In the end, the Lord arrives. He says to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4). After a few more verses in which the Lord speaks of “things too wonderful…to know,” Job says, in sum, “Okay, okay. Sorry. I am unworthy. I beg pardon. Please listen to me” (Job 42:1-6). And the Lord listens and blesses him.

So how do we reach God, who is so far beyond us?

Reaching God through Love

Reaching God is a lifelong journey that can only be accomplished through the exercise of faith. In 1 Corinthians chapters 11-14, Paul warns against imagining that the gap between us and God can be bridged by a checklist. (As C.S. Lewis would say, “God is not a tamed lion.”)

Paul writes, “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail. Whether there be tongues, they shall cease. Whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away…and now abideth faith, hope, charity but the greatest of these is charity” (13:8,13).

The word “charity” is a translation of the word agape, which is the highest love, specifically God’s love for us and our reciprocal love for Him.

Jesus stated, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment” (Mark 12:29-30).

In the Book of Mormon, this love flows outwards from God through parents to their offspring: “Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that [humans] do not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend…if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love…if ye do this, ye shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God…And ye will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably, and to render to [all people] according to that which is their due” (Mosiah 4: 9-13).

So the best way to grow closer to God is to love God!

We can learn HOW to love God through Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, the Bridge

In the New Testament, the letters of Paul continually remind us that God loves us so much, he sent his Son, who is our bridge to God. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians, “For now, we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then, shall I know even as I also am known” (13:12).

I am known is the powerful message of the gospel. It is possible for God to know us and for us to grow closer to God—to love God more—because of Jesus Christ.

Understanding God Better Through the Example of Jesus Christ

First, Jesus Christ instructs us to pray. The template for prayer that he provides starts, “Our Father who art in Heaven.” The prayer expresses respect for God and forgiveness of others. It also includes petitions.

Remember Job. He continued to petition despite his awe of the Lord. Likewise, there are several parables that refer to people never giving up on their desires, such as the woman who searches for a coin and the widow who pleads with a judge. They cared so much, they didn’t give up. Likewise, we can demonstrate to God how much we care through continual prayer.

Jesus also models for us God’s character—after all, we came to Earth to learn to be like Him.

What Jesus models most is the value God gives each person.  

The New Testament is full of examples of Jesus Christ caring for an individual. One great example is Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus was a tax collector, not everyone’s favorite person. He was a short guy—I can relate!—who climbed into a tree to watch Jesus Christ pass. Jesus looked up into the tree and called, “Come down. I’m eating at your house today.”

Zacchaeus was thrilled. He climbed down and took Jesus and his apostles to his home. After feeding them, he promised to pay back any money he had collected improperly.

Jesus didn’t listen to what we moderns would refer to as Twittering. There were people at the time who muttered about Jesus eating with Zacchaeus because of who Zacchaeus was (his role or identity). They were very critical. He paid no heed. He reached out to Zacchaeus for Zacchaeus’s sake.

Other examples of Jesus focusing on the individual: The woman with health problems who touched Jesus’s robe in a crowded street. He immediately turned, spoke to her, and healed her. He also spoke to the woman at the well about her life circumstances and her beliefs. Many parables told by Jesus emphasize the rescue of an individual: individual sheep, the individual prodigal son, the individual saved by the Good Samaritan.

Practical “How”

At the day to day level, we can grow closer to God through prayer and valuing others. Both practices are more basic and more complex than they sound. Finding time to pray involves deliberately setting aside time and pondering what one needs to communicate. Valuing others involves patience and tolerance and many qualities that take time to master.

A good starting point is gratitude. Remembering what we have, the benefits that enhance our lives, the beauties that surround us can help us appreciate God’s blessings, the wonder of God, and God’s perspective [Note: I considered but would likely not have included recent studies that indicate that when people’s mental health improves, they are less likely to look at others in terms of “identity” but rather as layered individuals--the insight straddles the line between doctrine and my personal libertarian politics].

A great hymn about gratitude is “How Great Thou Art” (Hymn 86 in the LDS Hymnal, [the linked version falls into the category of "Go big or go home!!"]).   

Final Thoughts

Jesus Christ represents his Father. Like Jesus Christ, God cares for each of us individually. We can become closer to God by praying to Him in Christ’s name and by following Christ’s example to value the individual.

As we make the effort to grow closer to God, our souls will cleave to the light that emanates from (through) God and blessings will follow.

Well-Worth Reading

No matter my personal politics, I fully agree with William Dereiewicz's essay about "the right side of history" and why it is such an unbearable phrase. I also utterly agree with his points about the disgusting use of apocalyptic language to try to motivate people and justify actions: "There is No Right Side of History."

And his book about Jane Austen is really good. 

* * *  

David French again! His five points in the following article are right on the mark: "Against the Extremism of the American Masculinity Debate".

I love when someone says succinctly and directly what I've been trying to say. 

My comment on "toxic masculinity"--

"Toxic masculinity" is such a vile phrase. Imagine if "toxic" was attached to any other generalized noun, such as "femininity" or "animal lovers" or "ballet dancers" or "crossing guards" or "classical music listeners."

* * *

What I love about Andrew Doyle is how generous he is with other people's motives--he is truly balanced and reasonable!

* * * 

 

I am not a fan of mixing my religion with politics. I don't make decisions about God based on politics--never have, never will. 

On occasion, this refusal has put me at odds with both sides of the political aisle. The message, "You're supposed to hate the world! You're supposed to embrace the appropriate political doomsdaying!" is intensely powerful from both sides. 

I read too much history--with all its mess and complications--to buy into the argument. Streamlined narratives continually miss the point.

So I don't make decisions about God based on what I suspect any deity worth worshiping perceives as so much dross. 

Consequently, I have been wary of reading David French, even though I very much enjoy his writing. 

This essay is well-worth passing on:

Commitment to Kindness

As Sharon says to Rusty, "Be kind and be safe." 

It's harder than it sounds. Honor may be an old-fashioned word. It still matters. 

Hugh Woodbury Talk August 28, 2022

Good morning, Brothers and Sisters. It is good to be here with you and share some thoughts on the “Constant Exercise of Our Faith.”

I hope I can bring some aged wisdom for you and not just the ramblings of a very old man.

First, I'll point out that I am the “Accordion Speaker.” As the last speaker, I have to compress or expand my talk so our meeting will end at the right time. I will do the best I can to accomplish this.

Now about faith. Faith is described in Hebrews, Chapter 11:1. Using a modern translation, it reads, Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

In thinking about this definition, I realized that faith has been with me all my life. In fact, I believe that faith is what got me to where I am now.

Furthermore, I believe that we all live daily by faith. We can plan, and we should plan, but we can’t perfectly predict and our plans can change very quickly. So, indeed, we show our faith constantly.

Unfortunately, there are people who have faith and hope in wrong and even bad things, but I won’t talk about that.

So, the real questions we should ask ourselves are, What do I have faith in? What do I hope for? What is the best track for me to be on now?

The short answer is that we should live the 10 commandments and have faith in ourselves, in the restored gospel, and as Christians, in our Lord, Savior, and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

But I will now give a longer answer and speak about the track that I took starting a “long” time ago in the 1930s, which, at my age now, I call “ancient history.”

Each one of us has an unique story to tell. As we share our stories, we can strengthen each other’s faith. So as I talk about my story, think about how you got from there to here and how your faith played an essential role in your life.

This is my story.

I grew up in Southern California in a Los Angeles County district called Altadena. This is between the City of Pasadena and the San Gabriel Mountains. A wonderful place 80 years ago--but I must say that Maine is just as good. I love Maine.

My mother was extremely active in the Church, particularly in Relief Society, serving at one time as the Stake Relief Society President.

My father was never a member of the Church, and we had zero religious activity in our home. However, my father did say, "You should go to Church to find a good wife."

I consider my father as one of the most ethical men that I've known, and he supported my mother and us three boys in our Church activities and lived as a good example for his sons.

There were few children in our Ward, so few that I was 11 years old in 1939 when Primary was first organized in the Pasadena, California Ward. I memorized the 13 Articles of Faith to graduate at age 12.

The first meetings that I remember were in the Pasadena Odd Fellows Hall. Just before WWII started, the Ward had received a permit to build its own chapel, so the permit was still valid in spite of the war.

So, the question was whether we should use that permit to start building immediately or wait until after the war. This was discussed in a special priesthood meeting. The result was that we supported our Bishopric in starting the building immediately but in a limited way.

On the property that the Ward had bought, we built a recreational hall which initially also served as our chapel. And the house on the property was turned into classrooms. After WWII, we added a real chapel on the front grounds.

When I and my two brothers each reached the age of 12, we went to Priesthood meetings. At that time, these were held early Sunday morning, followed by a break so that the brethren could go home to bring their families to Sunday School.

My brothers and I took the local trolley car from Altadena (our home) to Priesthood meetings, which were held early Sunday mornings. Our mother would then drive us all back home after we had all attended Sunday School.

At that time, the Sacrament was passed during Sunday School and also during Sacrament meetings, which were held in the evening.

Later, our Ward was divided, so there was a Pasadena Ward and an East Pasadena Ward. The two Wards met in the same building with an overlapping time schedule that was used throughout the Church when two Wards used one chapel.

My family remained in the Pasadena Ward but nearly all the younger families that still had children at home were in the new East Pasadena Ward. Among other things, this resulted in there being only a few, very few like two or three, young single adults in my Ward. So, after I attended our Sacrament meetings in the late afternoon I stayed for the East Pasadena Ward Sacrament meetings in the early evening.

After those evening meetings, we, the young single adults, would have a “fireside” inviting someone in the Stake to speak in one of our homes and then socialize afterwards.

It was at one of these “firesides” that I first met Joyce Nicholes, my future wife. She had just graduated from BYU and was invited to come to California to stay with friends she met at BYU and who lived in the East Pasadena Ward.

I was immediately impressed with her, so much so that I called her that week and asked her for a date. This was actually my first one-on-one date!

I well-remember that when I went to pick her up, she invited me in and then excused herself and came back dressed differently. I thought that she was just changing her dress she had worn to work into something simpler.

But she told me much later that she thought I would be wearing something like I wore to Church, which was a really old suit handed down from my paternal grandfather. I guess it made me look very dignified.

Not so. I showed up wearing very common street clothes.

Joyce took an art class several evenings each week. To earn money, she ran a mimeograph for a company. In those days, the mimeographs were run completely by hand. She told me later that it was so boring that she would quietly sing hymns in the mimeograph corner, which amused the janitor.

After several more dates that summer, Joyce returned to her home in Provo, Utah to get a degree at BYU in teaching as her degree in art, by itself, did not provide a living. She later gained interesting stories about teaching art to high school football players on the one hand and young Primary School kids on the other.

Joyce and I then began sending newsy letters back and forth.

The following year, my mother, my younger brother’s girlfriend (and future wife), and I drove to the Colorado School of Mines for my brother’s graduation. I invited Joyce, and we picked her up in Provo.

On our return, we had supper with Joyce’s family. Both my mother and Joyce’s father were strong extroverts, and they carried on a delightful conversion. I felt this was a very good sign: My family was approved!

However, my mother was appalled at my “slow courting,” and I admit that it didn’t amount to much. But I didn’t know how. I grew up with two brothers, no sisters, and I always played with boys since there was only one girl my age in my neighborhood that was full of boys, and I did not read romance stories.

Another challenge for me was that I didn’t know how to dance, and I avoided all Church and school dances which we had in those days during the week. I and a male friend called dancing, “A waste of lost motions.” But we both eventually changed our minds.

So, very soon after I arrived in Schenectady, New York, I signed up for dancing lessons since I wanted to be able to take Joyce dancing if the occasion arose. I got pretty good and felt competent enough to take a girl to Church dances, which I did, but dancing for me was never a natural talent.

I finished my schooling, including college and post-graduate studies, all in Pasadena, and interviewed for jobs here in the East.

I chose the East as there were good jobs here in experimental physics which I enjoyed. I accepted one with the General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, New York, and it did turn out to be an excellent job.

I was the last of three boys to leave home and the only one in my family to end up in the East! But I resolved to visit my Western family at least ever other year, which I did. I would save one week of vacation so I would have 3 weeks the next year when I went West.

My mother was very concerned that I might lose the Church in--what shall I call it?--the “Church-less” East.

But it was not so. When I arrived in Schenectady, I called the Church District President. (They didn’t have Stakes and Wards yet but rather Districts and Branches under the direction of the current Mission President.)

I inquired if there was a Church family that had an extra bedroom for rent. The answer was much better then I expected. There were four Church young men and an older widower renting an upstairs flat and it was just around the corner from where I was renting a bedroom. I found that “second floor flats” were very common here in the East, the owners living on the first floor and renting out the second floor which had bedrooms, a kitchen and a small living room. This was the first time I had heard of second floor flats.

So I walked over and, yes, there would be an empty bedroom at the end of the week, and they would gladly have me. This was in 1953.

My goodness, didn’t we six bachelors live cheaply as we were sharing the cost of the rent!

And The Bachelors is what we were called by the Branch members.

We were amused that we were counted as a zero family by the women’s Relief Society, as one family by the men’s Elders group, and as five families for the small Branch budget which they had in those days.

The way we worked our suppers was that I would set up the menu and buy the food. The one who got off work the earliest, which was 4:30 PM, would do the cooking and the others would do the cleanup.

We each made our own breakfasts and lunches or bought them. For me, very good cheap lunches were served at the G.E. Research Laboratory where I worked.

So for one and a half years, I lived with four other young bachelors and an older widower, and we were all seeking the same thing: A young lady to marry in the temple!

Schenectady Branch had zero possible wives available since the Church women were only there because they were all married to men who worked for General Electric. But nevertheless, we all succeeded in our goal.

Of course I had already picked out my wife, Joyce, but she didn’t know it at that time, and she also lived 2500 miles to the west in Provo, Utah. And we did get married in the Salt Lake City, Utah Temple in 1955, but that is another story.

Schenectady Branch was wonderful. At that time, all the families, except for one or two, were from the West with the men working for General Electric. Because of World War II, many of them did not have the experience of the Mutual Improvement Association referred to as MIA. MIA was the Church’s program for social activities for single adults 12 to 27 years of age and held Tuesday evenings.

Most of us in the Branch, married and unmarried, were very anxious now to make up for that lost activity. Among them we had a number of very talented members who were especially trained in drama. We had dances, outings, a choir and plays. The scripts for the plays were created annually by the Church for the MIA program.

I love acting. Just give me a script, I would say, and I would be going strong. I was often cast as someone like Scrooge, who was a bad character in the beginning but turned good in the end. And once I was cast as a nice old man who is called to his “heavenly home,” dying in the first scene. I moved slowly off the stage, leaving my stage family in shock and near tears. We did that part so well that the director had tears in her smiling eyes when I came out to the rear of the audience after “dying”.

And we had dances, and parties, and outings, and a choir. It was a new social experience for me and I had a wonderful time.

So how does this relate to faith? I answer with the following:

By staying close to good Church members and being active in serving in the Church, we can keep ourselves on the right track, which, while challenging at times, will lead us to true happiness.

The phrase Faith, Hope, and Charity contains a great truth. Having faith in good hopes followed by charity is indeed the true path.

In the name of our Lord, Savior, and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Amen

1 Corinthians 13 in Context

Verses 4-8 often get read at weddings--in real life and on many, many television episodes: Love is kind...

Did Paul have any idea that he was preparing the wedding sermon to surpass all wedding sermons? What is Paul saying? In context?

In context, Paul is discussing spiritual gifts. I'm going to skip forward to Chapter 14 and then skip back. 

Paul begins Chapter 14 with his opinion about speaking in tongues. As nicely as he can, he allows that a person speaking in tongues in a church meeting might actually be speaking in tongues (not, ehem, showing off) but, well, it doesn't do much good, does it, if the spoken part of the equation isn't interpreted?

At one point, he states, "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not until men, but until God" (2). Two verses later, he gives himself away by stating, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself" (4).

Keep in mind, Paul is dictating his letter out loud--his next arguments could be used in a debate about deconstructionalism and art: 

Any sound can be pleasing but if it doesn't have some order, it's just sounds. And what's the point if there's no audience? There's no meeting of the minds here. 

Besides, I know more languages than you folks. (Seriously, he says this--the reason I love Paul.) 

But when I come to visit, I won't show off. I'll speak so you understand me. 

Don't act like kids! Okay, actually, when it comes to being jerks (like suing people), you should be ready to forgive the way kids do--but when it comes to instructing others, use your heads! 

And besides, this speaking in tongues business makes us look nuts to others. 

So...

Here is where the problem-solver in Paul comes out:

If you are going to speak in tongues, make sure there's an interpreter handy. Otherwise, be quiet. 

Then Paul starts talking about women being silent in church. 

Here is another reason I advocate context when reading the scriptures. Pull that scripture out of context and it looks downright strange since Paul had great relationships with women and commends them in other places/letters as church leaders.

It helps to realize (1) Paul is talking to a specific group of people about a specific problem; (2) Paul never indicates even remotely that he thinks he is speaking for some collective ideological power-base called "Christianity"; (3) Corinthians weren't Jews. 

Paul was dealing with a population that he understood but likely didn't entirely empathize with, namely a population that brought its Greek/Roman/Egyptian beliefs and practices into Christianity (a normal tendency when people switch religions/cultures!). 

The link between random people getting up and pronouncing complicated sounds (likely, magical spells--not in the "I'm going to curse you" sense but in the "repeat the spell for protection" sense) and women doing....something...indicates that while Paul could "translate" certain pagan rituals into Jewish/Christian terms, he had no idea what to do with Dionysian/Eleusinian rituals whereby women tore their clothes and danced wildly about and basically acted like teenagers at a dance club. 

Paul wasn't prepared for mosh pits. 

His answer: Just stop doing it. 

Offended people often miss that Paul then goes after the speaking men: You think you're hot stuff, guys. You're not. God is in charge, remember? 

So, "Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues" (30, my emphasis). 

It is quite amazing how often Paul comes down on the side of "let things alone." 

Skipping back to Chapter 12, in sum, Paul states, There are lots of spiritual gifts. They aren't all the same. But they all of manifestations of God's grace.

He then produces the remarkable analogy of members being one body made of distinct parts. Yeah, sure, some parts stand out more, but every part is useful and has purpose. 

Chapter 13 is sandwiched between these two chapters.

Chapter 13:4-8 is beautiful and deserves to be quoted in full. I use the King James Version. However, I replaced "charity" with "magnanimity."

Many translations use "love," but "love" is off the mark as well. The Greek is agape. It is bigger than charity (as charity has come to mean) and bigger than romantic love although in many ways, in fairness to the wedding sermon approach, romantic love comes closer. It is unconditional, directed at God and humans, unfettered by doubt, all-encompassing. 

Magnanimity suffers long and is kind; magnanimity does not envy; magnanimity does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Magnanimity never fails. 

It is no error that Paul goes on to discuss imperfection, or, as the New International Version correctly translates, incompleteness. Paul is well-aware that agape is a big, big, big demand. 

For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect [complete] has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 

If Paul wasn't wandering about a room, talking out loud, this chapter would end the argument. But he is thinking through the problem, so it comes in the middle. Yet it addresses all three chapters' underlying point:

But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

And now abide faith, hope, magnanimity, these three; but the greatest of these is magnanimity. 

In sum, in more than one place, Paul creates policies, only to wipe them out in a single gesture or phrase. Here's how to run the church, but you know what...

 I think in the end, that is so much dross. What really matters is that nothing is perfect now, so being cool with that imperfection through the application of magnanimity is a good idea. In other words, stop fussing so much about how other people messed up, making me write letters about all your fussing.

Hence the passage from 1 Corinthians 3:10-13 that I seldom encounter from any organization but deserves to be considered in full--keep in mind, Paul is cross because congregations are splitting into factions supposedly based on ideological arguments but truly based on high school cliquey behavior (I was baptized by so-and-so):

According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so [also] as by fire. (My emphasis.)

If Paul came right out and stated, Every church thinks it is the bee's knees. And maybe it is. Oh, well, God will find out 'cause that is God's job. But God also looks after the individual. So concentrate on your foundation and stop bugging other people about theirs. And, really, stop complaining to me about it--

 

He couldn't be more clear.