Friday, October 1, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
To be or not to be? Public/Private Priesthood Session
So I know I'm not the first to ask this question, but desiring further knowledge, I'm asking anyway:
Why isn't the Priesthood session of General Conference broadcast over television (e.g. BYUTV) similar to the Relief Society general meeting and the other general sessions?
(Especially since they're all later published together publicly anyway....)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Inspiration to More Fully Live Charity
Spotlighting Papa D's post: "Charity Seeketh Not [Only] Her Own [People]: Those Who Hate You"
While the phrase "Be in the world but not of the world" is sometimes used as justification to avoid interacting with others who are different, Papa D reminds us that applying the Sermon on the Mount means we "must interact with others to do good to them."
While the phrase "Be in the world but not of the world" is sometimes used as justification to avoid interacting with others who are different, Papa D reminds us that applying the Sermon on the Mount means we "must interact with others to do good to them."
Simply put, the "do good" clause knows no boundaries, even among those we might prefer to avoid:
Also, an insight on "abstain from all appearance of evil":
"Perhaps one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the entire Bible. In its original usage, it does not mean to avoid anything that even looks like evil - that appears to be evil. Rather, it means something like the following: "Abstain from evil no matter its appearance - no matter how it looks."
"...The focus is not on avoiding anything that someone else might perceive to be bad, but rather to avoid that which truly is evil."
"We can't become truly charitable in isolation, and we can't become truly charitable through only an intellectual understanding of it. At some point, we simply must LIVE it."
Also, an insight on "abstain from all appearance of evil":
"Perhaps one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the entire Bible. In its original usage, it does not mean to avoid anything that even looks like evil - that appears to be evil. Rather, it means something like the following: "Abstain from evil no matter its appearance - no matter how it looks."
"...The focus is not on avoiding anything that someone else might perceive to be bad, but rather to avoid that which truly is evil."
Thursday, September 23, 2010
"Gospel Principles"--An Instant Classic
A conversion story that inspires the soul: Gospel Principles, by Tracy M.
Friday, September 17, 2010
In Honor of Constitution Day
For many weeks now I've been following (with great fascination) the journey of Ray Brown, a much beloved but recently retired U.S. history teacher. He's literally walking across the United States of America--in part to fulfill a personal dream, but also to raise public awareness of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and support for American history. So today, America's second "birthday" (September 17th, 1787), please allow me to introduce you to his blog--A Son of Liberty's Walk Across Ameria.
He updates the blog everytime he gets to a town and stays in a hotel. In between towns he camps in the tent he carries in his custom made "handcart" trailer. He began in June 2010 on the Oregon Coast (Florence, Oregon) and this morning he left the town of Ogallala, Nebraska. He'll end up by walking through Philadelphia (birthplace of the Declaration of Independence as well as our Constitution) before reaching the Atlantic Ocean near Atlantic City. He's now walked over 1600 miles, crossing the continental divide in Yellowstone National Park, and has distributed countless copies of the Bill of Rights along the way. I'm completely enthralled. I'm just surprised some major news network hasn't already picked up on his story.
Youtube interview:
Friday, September 10, 2010
My thoughts for now
I've had an extremely busy and wonderful summer. Before you know it, over a month goes by before a new blog post goes up. I have some thoughts on the back-burner. But I have much less time to write out those thoughts. I've also had much less time to read other peoples' thoughts. But I keep a Google Reader feature on my iGoogle homepage, and this post caught my eye today: Follow the Brethren and Never Fall.
For better or for worse, it sparked my first comment in weeks:
"Personally, I'm more comfortable with this scripture as a metaphor to follow Christ with exactness--'our prophet, priest and king'--marching onward as Christian soldiers.
"I'm generally less comfortable with an intense mantra of "follow the prophet" only because I don't believe that a fallible prophet is necessarily synonymous with following Christ. While there are obvious virtues for both, such a militant intensity of focus/zealousness to any mortal might actually lead to looking past the mark--or The Mark."
And those are my thoughts for now.
For better or for worse, it sparked my first comment in weeks:
"Personally, I'm more comfortable with this scripture as a metaphor to follow Christ with exactness--'our prophet, priest and king'--marching onward as Christian soldiers.
"I'm generally less comfortable with an intense mantra of "follow the prophet" only because I don't believe that a fallible prophet is necessarily synonymous with following Christ. While there are obvious virtues for both, such a militant intensity of focus/zealousness to any mortal might actually lead to looking past the mark--or The Mark."
And those are my thoughts for now.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Christ is a great Savior
Sometimes I struggle to figure out what it is "I know" and what it is "I believe". But to paraphrase one of my favorite movies, Amazing Grace, there are two things I know for certain: I am a great sinner, and Christ is a great Savior.
I have hope in Christ. I have hope he can even help me overcome myself. And that's a sincere testimony. There's a lot of truth to the saying that Christ's Church is not a museum of Saints, but rather a hospital for sinners.
I have hope in Christ. I have hope he can even help me overcome myself. And that's a sincere testimony. There's a lot of truth to the saying that Christ's Church is not a museum of Saints, but rather a hospital for sinners.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
What affect has blogging had on you?
After talking matters of faith with an elderly man and explaining (by his request) what a blog is and why I blog, he asked me an excellent question: "What affect has blogging had on you?" I had only a split second to think of a satisfactory answer.
Off the cuff I answered: "It has deepened my commitment to believe things that are true, and it has weakened my commitment to believe things that [I now feel] aren't true."
All in all, I actually feel pretty satisfied with that answer. While at the time I kind of felt like I was on trial, I still appreciate the question and I'm interested in hearing from others. In a non-interrogative way, what affect has blogging had on you?
Off the cuff I answered: "It has deepened my commitment to believe things that are true, and it has weakened my commitment to believe things that [I now feel] aren't true."
All in all, I actually feel pretty satisfied with that answer. While at the time I kind of felt like I was on trial, I still appreciate the question and I'm interested in hearing from others. In a non-interrogative way, what affect has blogging had on you?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
An Amen
Every once in a while I read a comment with which I so completely and heartily agree that I feel like shouting "amen". Here's my latest "amen":
"Like a few others here, I am troubled when other Latter-day Saints try to explain their speculative beliefs as “normative” LDS thought. I’m LDS by every definition but I do not endorse any idea of spirit womb gestation or any idea that Jesus ever was something less than God. I acknowledge that some Latter-day Saints hold these views, but I do not see them as normative. And I am grateful that we do not have an all-encompassing “normative” theology."
--ji, comment #35, on "Oh brother, where art thou?"
"Like a few others here, I am troubled when other Latter-day Saints try to explain their speculative beliefs as “normative” LDS thought. I’m LDS by every definition but I do not endorse any idea of spirit womb gestation or any idea that Jesus ever was something less than God. I acknowledge that some Latter-day Saints hold these views, but I do not see them as normative. And I am grateful that we do not have an all-encompassing “normative” theology."
--ji, comment #35, on "Oh brother, where art thou?"
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
"Perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages"
![]() |
| The Prayer at Valley Forge |
From the recent editorial, "Arnold Friberg — An enduring gift to the nation":
"President John Adams was famous for writing to his wife about Independence Day: 'It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.'
"Americans are fairly good about the second part. Across the nation this weekend, there will be parades, baseball games, outdoor concerts and fireworks displays. People will hang flags in front of their homes and get together with family and friends for barbecues.
"But the first part — the 'day of deliverance' for which Adams and other founders, not to mention a nation of people who had fought and suffered deprivations and loss, felt such deep appreciation — has been diluted through the years. Relative peace and a prosperity unimaginable 234 years ago have led to an attitude that things in this country are as they ought to be and that the current condition is as natural as the grass and trees.
"Friberg's 'The Prayer at Valley Forge' will stand forever as a poignant reminder that this is not so. Freedom and liberty came at a huge cost that must be renewed from time to time. Washington faced odds so enormous that faith became the biggest arrow in his quiver."
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Not So Clean Cut

Something has been bothering me for a number of weeks now. A good friend of mine was recently called into a bishopric after a ward split. (No controversy there; I'd sustain him in a heartbeat. I'm just a little perturbed by what followed.) After successfully being interviewed and sustained in sacrament meeting, the stake president's counselor pulled him aside and said that the stake president had requested that he shave his mustache. And that's it. That's what bothers me. Now some might make this a matter of obedience to authority. To that I say "horsefeathers". Of course, feel free to agree or disagree.
Now for some background. My friend had only shaved his mustache once since he started growing it as a teenager--and that was on accident. He's now a [very youthful] grandfather. I sympathize with him; it meant a lot for him to keep his mustache. Adding to the irony was the fact that his well-trimmed mustache was never an issue when he’d previously served in a bishopric, and it was never an issue with his employer--the LDS Church. Yet somehow it's a big enough deal in the eyes of LDS ecclesiastical leaders who’ve now called him to serve in the bishopric.
Deep down he was actually afraid that somebody, someday would ask him to shave it off. Apparently when [then] Elder Uchtdorf came around a few years ago, a local ecclesiastical leader asked him what he could do to improve and was given counsel to shave and remain clean shaven--I guess you could even say "clean cut". I see no problem with giving such counsel to an individual who asked for it. The problem I see is when such "counsel" is then interpreted as a requirement or a commandment, and requested perpetually of others, rather than let each individual choose how (or if) this will personally be applied.
I realize that some familiar with my blog name might find a small irony in the fact that I'm the one who is bringing this up. But while I personally choose to keep a clean-shaven face and a clean-cut haircut, I’d be the last person to suggest this has anything to do with personal worthiness. Quite simply, my wife suggested “Clean Cut with a Coke” and I liked the play on words and the alliteration. For the sake of simplicity I shortened the name, while also enjoying the irony of my apparently "orthodox" appearance belying my sometimes less than orthodox views. In reality, I despise rigid rules and legalistic, dogmatic approaches to the gospel.
To come clean on this issue that is anything but clean cut, I confess that in a previous life I may have judged more by appearances. (And to my brother-in-law, when I gave him a hard time for growing a goatee immediately after his mission, I say sorry. I'm a changed man. And to complete my repentance, I admit now that I was wrong to even make it a big deal.) I've long since become more liberal--and charitable--in my religious views.
While I don’t fully know or understand the rationale behind this specific request, I’d still prefer personal application of gospel principles and free agency. “In essentials let there be unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity”. Suffice it to say I believe this is a “non-essential”, and probably leans more towards “keeping up appearances”.
I'm quite a fan of Hugh Nibley's position. Nibley, who was simultaneously loyal and critical, has been described as being “bothered by what he saw as the unthinking, sometimes almost dogmatic application of some portions of BYU's honor code. Nibley had no objection to requirements of chastity or obeying the Word of Wisdom, but he thought the often intense scrutiny directed at grooming (hairstyles and clothing) was misguided.” In 1973, he said:
"The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism... the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances."
Without reservation I add a “clean cut” amen to Brother Nibley. I'm not sure how ubiquitous these kinds of requests are in the Church, but the whole situation seems all too pharisaical for my liking. The gospel is not a gospel of guilt, or rigid obedience to authority for that matter. After all, Jesus himself was quite the iconoclast. But I'm curious how others' see this. What would you have done (or said) in both the “counselor” and “counseled” roles? What other thoughts or insight might you have?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
On Compassion And Potential For Mutual Understanding
From today's op-ed piece in the New York Times: "Many Faiths, One Truth", Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and most recently author of: “Toward a True Kinship of Faiths: How the World’s Religions Can Come Together":
"Granted, every religion has a sense of exclusivity as part of its core identity. Even so, I believe there is genuine potential for mutual understanding. While preserving faith toward one’s own tradition, one can respect, admire and appreciate other traditions...
I’m a firm believer in the power of personal contact to bridge differences, so I’ve long been drawn to dialogues with people of other religious outlooks. The focus on compassion...strikes me as a strong unifying thread among all the major faiths. And these days we need to highlight what unifies us...
Harmony among the major faiths has become an essential ingredient of peaceful coexistence in our world. From this perspective, mutual understanding among these traditions is not merely the business of religious believers — it matters for the welfare of humanity as a whole."
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Whose Spirit Are You Feeling?
Have you ever stopped to think about whose spirit you're feeling when you "feel the Spirit"? The question is if you're feeling the influence of our Heavenly Father's spirit, Christ's spirit, or the spirit of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit. Since we maintain that they are physically separate we also maintain that they have separate spirits. Can we, or should we, even figure out whether we're feeling the unique influence of either of the three?
After posing this question and thinking about it for some time, I've decided that perhaps it's not wise to try and subdivide the influence of the Godhead. Perhaps us Mormons are already too guilty of trying to separate the Godhead too much whenever we emphasize their "threeness" more than their "oneness". They are infinitely more one than they are separate.
I'm content with the idea that I can feel the united and interconnected energy/influence/spirit of the one God/Godhead we worship. With that in mind, I now perceive the phrase "the Spirit of God" differently. I like thinking of it more as the Spirit of the one God/Godhead. By any means, it would be foolish to try and limit either of their influence on us.
During the sacrament prayer, in exchange for our promises to follow and remember Christ, we're “promised that his Spirit, meaning the Spirit of Christ, will always be with [us]. This is no small matter, because the Spirit of Christ is the Light that radiates from God to fill the immensity of space and uphold all of creation. It is the light that enlightens the eye and the light that enlightens the understanding. ‘The Glory of God is intelligence, another scripture says, and this great light—intelligence can flow into humble communicants through the covenant of the sacrament prayer (D&C 93:36)". (Richard Bushman, "A Very Short Introduction to Mormonism").
I also like how Blake Ostler described a loving interpenetration of freely cooperating wills. He once wrote: "I assert that both the Father and the Son are eternally divine. However, there is a priority of the Father in the sense that the Father offers his love to the Son, and in each moment of eternity the Son has freely chosen to fully return that love. They both offer their love to the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost has freely chosen in each moment of eternity to return that love. "It is in virtue of this loving interpenetration of freely cooperating wills that these three are one God and also have been eternally one God. Now they are inviting us into this same relationship."
So in short, the question of "whose spirit are your feeling?", while interesting, perhaps isn't as important as some might think. Instead of trying to understand which spirit we're feeling (whether that of the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost), we ought to recognize what our scriptures assert--that they're "one God". And perhaps we're never more "at one" with them than when we're filled their love.
After posing this question and thinking about it for some time, I've decided that perhaps it's not wise to try and subdivide the influence of the Godhead. Perhaps us Mormons are already too guilty of trying to separate the Godhead too much whenever we emphasize their "threeness" more than their "oneness". They are infinitely more one than they are separate.
I'm content with the idea that I can feel the united and interconnected energy/influence/spirit of the one God/Godhead we worship. With that in mind, I now perceive the phrase "the Spirit of God" differently. I like thinking of it more as the Spirit of the one God/Godhead. By any means, it would be foolish to try and limit either of their influence on us.
During the sacrament prayer, in exchange for our promises to follow and remember Christ, we're “promised that his Spirit, meaning the Spirit of Christ, will always be with [us]. This is no small matter, because the Spirit of Christ is the Light that radiates from God to fill the immensity of space and uphold all of creation. It is the light that enlightens the eye and the light that enlightens the understanding. ‘The Glory of God is intelligence, another scripture says, and this great light—intelligence can flow into humble communicants through the covenant of the sacrament prayer (D&C 93:36)". (Richard Bushman, "A Very Short Introduction to Mormonism").
I also like how Blake Ostler described a loving interpenetration of freely cooperating wills. He once wrote: "I assert that both the Father and the Son are eternally divine. However, there is a priority of the Father in the sense that the Father offers his love to the Son, and in each moment of eternity the Son has freely chosen to fully return that love. They both offer their love to the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost has freely chosen in each moment of eternity to return that love. "It is in virtue of this loving interpenetration of freely cooperating wills that these three are one God and also have been eternally one God. Now they are inviting us into this same relationship."
So in short, the question of "whose spirit are your feeling?", while interesting, perhaps isn't as important as some might think. Instead of trying to understand which spirit we're feeling (whether that of the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost), we ought to recognize what our scriptures assert--that they're "one God". And perhaps we're never more "at one" with them than when we're filled their love.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Triumphalism is For the Birds
My grandma always used to say that "growing old is for the birds". Obviously she didn't think much of all her growing health issues. In that same spirit, I say that triumphalism is for the birds. Unfortunately, it came out strong at times with our early church leaders. Exhibit A:
"And this is the gospel which God has commanded us to preach to all people, once more, for the last time. And no other system of religion which is now organized among men is of any use; everything different from this, is a perverted gospel bringing a curse upon them that preach it, and upon them that hear it."
—Parley P. Pratt ("A Voice of Warning" 1838)
Find me someone who still believes that and I'll find you a fool. And this deeply offensive rhetoric certainly doesn't help our cause. Small consolation is the fact that it's out of step with the majority of modern-day Mormonism, not to mention our thirteenth Article of Faith.
The smugness of superiority, however, still comes out from time to time. Yesterday in our priesthood lesson it was implied that having a prophet clears up doctrinal confusion and chaos, as if the rest of Christianity finds itself in a doctrinal maze and yet Mormonism is crystal clear. Of course anyone who believes that is not only ignorant of traditional Christianity but oblivious to the concerns of Mormons and non-Mormons who find plenty of doctrinal uncertainties that the living prophet hasn't seemed to clear up much.
Just because "the morning breaks" isn't a guarantee that the rest of the the day contains a perfect forecast. Pinning down Mormon "doctrine" with any degree of certitude is still quite a challenge.
Richard Bushman has written: "Our covenant with God is to bless the people of the earth. That should be our motto. Establishing Zion does not mean sweeping vast masses of people onto our membership records but creating a people of God dedicated to blessing others. Joseph and his early followers came forth with lots of triumphalist rhetoric, but I think we need a new voice, one of humility, friendship, and service. We should teach people to believe in God because it will soften their hearts and make them more willing to serve."
That "new voice" is already strong and growing in today's Church. But it would certainly help if we can remember to not keep shooting ourselves in the foot.
"And this is the gospel which God has commanded us to preach to all people, once more, for the last time. And no other system of religion which is now organized among men is of any use; everything different from this, is a perverted gospel bringing a curse upon them that preach it, and upon them that hear it."
—Parley P. Pratt ("A Voice of Warning" 1838)
Find me someone who still believes that and I'll find you a fool. And this deeply offensive rhetoric certainly doesn't help our cause. Small consolation is the fact that it's out of step with the majority of modern-day Mormonism, not to mention our thirteenth Article of Faith.
The smugness of superiority, however, still comes out from time to time. Yesterday in our priesthood lesson it was implied that having a prophet clears up doctrinal confusion and chaos, as if the rest of Christianity finds itself in a doctrinal maze and yet Mormonism is crystal clear. Of course anyone who believes that is not only ignorant of traditional Christianity but oblivious to the concerns of Mormons and non-Mormons who find plenty of doctrinal uncertainties that the living prophet hasn't seemed to clear up much.
Just because "the morning breaks" isn't a guarantee that the rest of the the day contains a perfect forecast. Pinning down Mormon "doctrine" with any degree of certitude is still quite a challenge.
Richard Bushman has written: "Our covenant with God is to bless the people of the earth. That should be our motto. Establishing Zion does not mean sweeping vast masses of people onto our membership records but creating a people of God dedicated to blessing others. Joseph and his early followers came forth with lots of triumphalist rhetoric, but I think we need a new voice, one of humility, friendship, and service. We should teach people to believe in God because it will soften their hearts and make them more willing to serve."
That "new voice" is already strong and growing in today's Church. But it would certainly help if we can remember to not keep shooting ourselves in the foot.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

