I’ve goofed off a bit overmuch this evening, but I think I’ve earned it. (After all, I did report to two jobs.)
I’ll claim some inspiration from William Allred’s account about the Prophet Joseph Smith, in They Knew the Prophet, 140:
“I have played ball with him many times. But it was quite a stumbling block to some. After some had found fault about it, he was preaching one day and told a story about a certain prophet who was sitting under the shade of a tree amusing himself in some way. A hunter came along and reproved him. The prophet asked the hunter if he always kept his bow strung up. ‘Oh, no,’ said he.
“‘Why not?’
“‘Because it would lose its elasticity.’
“Said the prophet: ‘It is just so with my mind. I do not want it strung up all the time.’”
This naturally reminds me of an ancient tale with similarities—whether the Prophet was utilizing it or not, telling a factual story or presenting a sort of parable, seems largely irrelevant in terms of the point he made. (Nibley explains most persuasively about the nuggets of truth we find scattered throughout the ancient world, anyway, but this is a conversation piece for another time.) At any rate, the preface to Herodotus’ account does not contain purely harmless amusements or a prophet beneath a tree:
“‘Archers,’ Amasis replied, ‘string their bows when they wish to shoot, and unstring them after use. A bow kept always strung would break, and so be useless when it was needed. It is the same with a man; anyone who was always serious, and never allowed himself a fair share of relaxation and amusement, would suddenly go off his head, or get a stroke. It is because I know this that I divide my time between duty and pleasure’” (The Histories, trans. Aubrey de Selincourt [London: Penguin Books, 1996], 150).
It is that division between duty and pleasure that befuddles so easily. I ever recall President Joseph F. Smith’s warning: “There are limits in our recreations beyond which we cannot safely go. They should be guarded in character and curtailed in frequency to avoid excess. They should not occupy all, nor even the greater part of our time; indeed, they should be made incidental to the duties and obligations of life, and never be made a controlling motive or factor in our hopes and ambitions” (GD, 320). I’m presently at something like 95/5 on that duty/pleasure scale, though I’m prepared to recreate more freely if worthy pursuits and companions presented themselves. I’m ever mindful of Elder Hales’ description: “As Latter-day Saints, we need not look like the world. We need not entertain like the world. Our personal habits should be different. Our recreation should be different. Our concern for family will be different. As we establish this distinctiveness firmly in our life's pattern, the blessings of heaven await to assist us” (Ensign, Feb. 2002, 17).
One of my greatest heroes, another president of the Church, expressed by letter to his father, the aforementioned Joseph F. Smith, “I want to be right on all things, and nothing gives me more pleasure than to learn something about the gospel,” to which his father replied, “I like your spirit” (Joseph Fielding Smith: Gospel Scholar, Prophet of God, 79). This is why I—and maybe this is just me—find it singularly romantic that his first wife wrote, “I know that you love duty far more than you do pleasure and so I have so much love and trust that I feel as though you are about as near being a perfect young man as could be” (Ibid., 95). Again, pray think only that I WANT to be like him, not that I claim to be so. I am further amused by pondering another of his experiences: “He once told of a gospel conversation he had with another elder who, exasperated by Joseph’s insistence that he was right on a point of doctrine, blurted out, ‘Joseph Fielding Smith, if you don’t repent, you’re going straight to hell.’ . . . Joseph Fielding always expressed his views calmly and precisely without heat or rancor, but with a certitude that was sometimes unsettling or annoying to those who disagreed with him, as it was in the case of this missionary companion” (Ibid., 91).
Unoriginal as it may sound, I’d like to quote Abraham Lincoln for the second time in two days, but this time from a different source:
“Young Bob Lincoln and Elmer Ellsworth, who was reading law in Lincoln's office in Springfield, were cutting up in the office, and Lincoln reproved them. Bob replied by quoting the well-known couplet:
“A little nonsense now and then
“Is relished by the wisest men.
“‘So it is,’ said Lincoln; ‘that's the difference between the wise man and a fool, who relishes it all the time’” (Emanuel Hertz, Lincoln Talks: A Biography in Anecdote [New York: Halcyon House, 1941], 113).
Which, happily enough, leads me straight back to the Prophet Joseph Smith! “For a man to be great, he must not dwell on small things, though he may enjoy them.”
Yes, mine is the mind that seeks companionship which will help me stay grounded in the important things and also relax into the enjoyable ones. And I do not trust easily enough on this point, it may well be, though it may well also be that I have a few good reasons. I’m more jovial than I imagine my outpouring of “letter of the law” suggests. Somehow for a while in high school I managed to hold the roles of class clown (not the degrading kind) and teacher’s pet at the same time. Would that I could live up to my aspirations instead of tangling things so.
But I return one more time to the challenge, again issued by the Prophet Joseph:
“How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world! We are called to hold the keys of the mysteries of those things that have been kept hid from the foundation of the world until now. . . . Let honesty, and sobriety, and candor, and solemnity, and virtue, and pureness, and meekness, and simplicity crown our heads in every place; and in fine, become as little children, without malice, guile or hypocrisy” (TJS, 399).
I double-checked its source to verify that this was addressed to the Saints at large, and not merely the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or some such august group. Indeed, it’s a portion of the famous letter from Liberty Jail—and I highly recommend the experience of reading how the revelation fits within the text.
Why do my musings always lead from one thing to another to another to another? If I can’t at least somewhat share my heart, then I’m by all accounts a lousy writer!
Adieu for now.
P.S. This is NOT the daily quote. That’s singular and shorter. To the critique on my first post, you’re not required to load up my blog and read the musings...you’ll receive the daily quotes in due time.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
A position piece on balance, leaning heavily toward the lengthy side
Okay, so someone asked for musings.
These thoughts are prompted by an article about balance in this month’s Ensign. It is not intended to be self-aggrandizing or promote myself as anything other than someone who cares a great deal about what the Lord has to say. Nor is it by any means a final draft or something I’d care to have someone quote me on without first obtaining permission. :-)
I have been thinking considerably of late about an assault from someone who knew next to nothing about me (or, I might add, the issue under discussion). I was charged with being zealous and fanatical, and of course it hurt. Little did they know that I demonstrated balance by scarcely reacting to the allegations, rather than figuratively taking them across my knees and thoroughly spanking them with doctrines from all the scriptures and prophets. Which is not to say that I know very much at all, but this was certainly a matter upon which I’ve done my homework. More important by far, I had the witness of the Spirit. Attacks in the face of calmly, simply stated gospel truths display a curiously self-accusatory charge of "judgmental" (see JST Gen. 19:9-10; Mosiah 12:13).
If temperance and moderation are gospel virtues, might we ask temperance and moderation in what way? Personally, I urge sanity of mind and nobility of heart, leading to wisdom and uprightness in behavior. Such qualities are unlikely to temper how hard we labor in the cause of the kingdom of God, which should rightly command our every possible resource—upon the Savior’s bidding, at least. Proper prioritization of competing interests and limited resources in this world which does require our residence and attention is addressed in Elder Orton’s article.
Perhaps balance of soul is demonstrated by a controlled release (or entire maintenance) of emotion when confronted with troubling circumstances. We are masters of ourselves, because the Savior is our accepted Master.
But I think Elder Oaks can explain it better than I:
"The idea that our strengths can become our weaknesses could be understood to imply that we should have ‘moderation in all things.’ But the Savior said that if we are lukewarm, He will spew us out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16). Moderation in all things is not a virtue because it would seem to justify moderation in commitment. That is not moderation but indifference. That kind of moderation runs counter to the divine commands to serve with all of our ‘heart, might, mind and strength’ (D&C 4:2), to ‘seek . . . earnestly the riches of eternity’ (D&C 68:31), and to be ‘valiant in the testimony of Jesus’ (D&C 76:79). Moderation is not the answer" (Dallin H. Oaks, With Full Purpose of Heart, 177).
The types of bad behavior that often give "conservatives" a bad name are outright hypocrites—who don’t live up to profession—or truly unbalanced individuals, who ABANDON something in the pursuit of other things. (Hebrews 6:1, JST, and 2 Peter 1:5-8 emphasize a gospel of unwavering and unmitigated progression.) The goal is not to fabricate or repudiate a single commandment of God. President Faust spoke well to the desires of imperfect but willing disciples of Christ: "What are the limits on commitment of the heart of those who pursue holiness? Fortunately, this is a matter for each to decide. We achieve perfection, however, in the doing of many things, and can be perfect in our intent to do all things" (James E. Faust, Reach Up For the Light, 5-6).
For similar reasons, I long ago shed the notion of being an ultraconservative, the superlative seeming altogether unnecessary inasmuch as it almost implies looking beyond the mark—though my original intent was to express my desires, and not my methods or accomplishments. (It is also damaging that the term conservative is applied by some with no differentiation whatsoever between its image in both religion and politics.) Generally speaking, quietly and meekly holding the line offers sufficient challenge. How can one go beyond Christ’s program? Furthermore, too tight a grip on such a mortal label affects the ability to be liberal in one’s feelings, though I hurriedly add that the world is filled with apostate versions of such sentiments. I would strictly adhere to the definition and description as offered by God. We may find traces of a "conservative credo" throughout scripture (e.g., Mosiah 5:15; D&C 87:8; 1 Thess. 5; 2 Thess. 2:15, referring to allowing only God Himself to repeal what He has sent forth). One feature of charity is rejoicing in the truth (see Moro. 7:45; 2 Ne. 9:40-41; Eph. 4:11-15).
I once heard a man pose a very good question that represented some of his personal philosophy for interacting with his fellowman: "What is most likely to help this person reach exaltation?" The easiest way is not always the best (see D&C 121:43). While our ways of assisting others may at times be situational, ethics themselves are not. My observation has never been that surrendering one’s own values actually assists another person in rising. On pages 254-255 of last year’s Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball manual, we find a fantastic exposition:
"Simple truths are often rejected in favor of the much less-demanding philosophies of men, and this is another cause for the rejection of the prophets. . . .
"The holy prophets have not only refused to follow erroneous human trends, but have pointed out these errors. No wonder the response to the prophets has not always been one of indifference. So often the prophets have been rejected because they first rejected the wrong ways of their own society. . . .
"Prophets have a way of jarring the carnal mind. Too often the holy prophets are wrongly perceived as harsh and as anxious to make a record in order to say, ‘I told you so.’ Those prophets I have known are the most loving of men. It is because of their love and integrity that they cannot modify the Lord’s message merely to make people feel comfortable. They are too kind to be so cruel. I am so grateful that prophets do not crave popularity."
In striving to follow the prophets, sometimes we find a word-battle dilemma from which opponents will not permit escape. If we refuse, as indicated above, to follow false human trends, it may be alleged that Jesus dined with publicans and sinners. If we say that Jesus never stopped loving or reaching or associating, but also never compromised Himself by joining in the commission of their ugly deeds, we may be branded as thinking we are smugly superior. If you are truly striving to emulate the Savior, take comfort from President Heber J. Grant’s dictum: "The reward of a man's conscience is far better than the praise of those who cannot read his heart."
With Pres. George Q. Cannon, "No man ever accomplished anything on this earth, without exposing himself by his actions, his earnestness and enthusiasm and zeal, to the charge of fanaticism. I am willing we should be called fanatics" (JD 20:196). Not one single gospel principle advanced with legitimate fervor can be divorced from Christ's Atonement and every living soul's desperate need therefor. The balanced Latter-day Saint never forgets that. Mark it well, polemical foes! It may just be that your perspective of the totality of our doctrine is lacking, and not our internal common sense mechanism.
A concept that may be rather too stark for the political realm and not always practicable religiously is nonetheless insightful. Abbe Sieyes wrote, "Everywhere I go, I meet those persons who in their moderation would like to break up the truth or proclaim it only bit by bit. . . . Truth requires every particle of its light to produce those vivid impressions that grave it for ever on the soul and evoke a passionate interest for everything recognised as beautiful, useful and true." A Protestant observed, "For these are bad days for the Church when we avoid the deepest questions, when we content ourselves with saying that there is truth everywhere, on one side perhaps as much as on the other. As Frederick Denison Maurice long ago reminded his age: ‘It was not the real mother of the child who said, "Let us divide it and give her a portion and me a portion."’" A disciple's quest is not to seek conflict or self-justification, but to be continually sharing Abraham Lincoln’s concern, and making every needful adjustment rather than boasting that the Lord is on OUR side: "It is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and the nation should be on the Lord's side."
I keep a statement from President Howard W. Hunter on my refrigerator as a constant reminder:
"Give your students gospel truth powerfully taught; that is the way to give them a spiritual experience. Let it come naturally and as it will. . . . If what you say is the truth, and you say it purely and with honest conviction, those students will feel the spirit of the truth being taught them and will recognize that inspiration and revelation has come into their hearts. . . .
"Listen for the truth, hearken to the doctrine, and let the manifestation of the Spirit come as it may in all of its many and varied forms. Stay with the solid principles; teach from a pure heart. Then the Spirit will penetrate your mind and heart and every mind and heart of your students."
I close with a portion of a speech made by a character in one of my stories that may never be fully written (let alone suitable for publication):
"I resent that the complexities of human beings, with differing strengths and weaknesses, are oversimplified to a spectrum. One cannot measure all of human behavior in such a way, as if to say that one has love without understanding on the left, and understanding without love on the right. Both are somewhat inaccurate in their assessment, and leave out the ascending virtue of obedience, which leads to the presence of God. Obedience cannot be rendered rightly without both love and all due diligence. ‘The grand summation of the whole duty of man . . . can not be too closely taken to heart—that we strive to keep the commandments of the Lord.’ [James E. Talmage]
"It is unfair to say that because one takes his relationship with Heavenly Father seriously, his love must be diminishing. . . . Disobedience with a concern for the human family is still disobedience. Obedience to one commandment at the cost of others, particularly the grand and royal law [of love], is nonetheless disobedience."
See Ecc. 12:13; D&C 64:34 (w/3:7); Micah 6:8.
These thoughts are prompted by an article about balance in this month’s Ensign. It is not intended to be self-aggrandizing or promote myself as anything other than someone who cares a great deal about what the Lord has to say. Nor is it by any means a final draft or something I’d care to have someone quote me on without first obtaining permission. :-)
I have been thinking considerably of late about an assault from someone who knew next to nothing about me (or, I might add, the issue under discussion). I was charged with being zealous and fanatical, and of course it hurt. Little did they know that I demonstrated balance by scarcely reacting to the allegations, rather than figuratively taking them across my knees and thoroughly spanking them with doctrines from all the scriptures and prophets. Which is not to say that I know very much at all, but this was certainly a matter upon which I’ve done my homework. More important by far, I had the witness of the Spirit. Attacks in the face of calmly, simply stated gospel truths display a curiously self-accusatory charge of "judgmental" (see JST Gen. 19:9-10; Mosiah 12:13).
If temperance and moderation are gospel virtues, might we ask temperance and moderation in what way? Personally, I urge sanity of mind and nobility of heart, leading to wisdom and uprightness in behavior. Such qualities are unlikely to temper how hard we labor in the cause of the kingdom of God, which should rightly command our every possible resource—upon the Savior’s bidding, at least. Proper prioritization of competing interests and limited resources in this world which does require our residence and attention is addressed in Elder Orton’s article.
Perhaps balance of soul is demonstrated by a controlled release (or entire maintenance) of emotion when confronted with troubling circumstances. We are masters of ourselves, because the Savior is our accepted Master.
But I think Elder Oaks can explain it better than I:
"The idea that our strengths can become our weaknesses could be understood to imply that we should have ‘moderation in all things.’ But the Savior said that if we are lukewarm, He will spew us out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16). Moderation in all things is not a virtue because it would seem to justify moderation in commitment. That is not moderation but indifference. That kind of moderation runs counter to the divine commands to serve with all of our ‘heart, might, mind and strength’ (D&C 4:2), to ‘seek . . . earnestly the riches of eternity’ (D&C 68:31), and to be ‘valiant in the testimony of Jesus’ (D&C 76:79). Moderation is not the answer" (Dallin H. Oaks, With Full Purpose of Heart, 177).
The types of bad behavior that often give "conservatives" a bad name are outright hypocrites—who don’t live up to profession—or truly unbalanced individuals, who ABANDON something in the pursuit of other things. (Hebrews 6:1, JST, and 2 Peter 1:5-8 emphasize a gospel of unwavering and unmitigated progression.) The goal is not to fabricate or repudiate a single commandment of God. President Faust spoke well to the desires of imperfect but willing disciples of Christ: "What are the limits on commitment of the heart of those who pursue holiness? Fortunately, this is a matter for each to decide. We achieve perfection, however, in the doing of many things, and can be perfect in our intent to do all things" (James E. Faust, Reach Up For the Light, 5-6).
For similar reasons, I long ago shed the notion of being an ultraconservative, the superlative seeming altogether unnecessary inasmuch as it almost implies looking beyond the mark—though my original intent was to express my desires, and not my methods or accomplishments. (It is also damaging that the term conservative is applied by some with no differentiation whatsoever between its image in both religion and politics.) Generally speaking, quietly and meekly holding the line offers sufficient challenge. How can one go beyond Christ’s program? Furthermore, too tight a grip on such a mortal label affects the ability to be liberal in one’s feelings, though I hurriedly add that the world is filled with apostate versions of such sentiments. I would strictly adhere to the definition and description as offered by God. We may find traces of a "conservative credo" throughout scripture (e.g., Mosiah 5:15; D&C 87:8; 1 Thess. 5; 2 Thess. 2:15, referring to allowing only God Himself to repeal what He has sent forth). One feature of charity is rejoicing in the truth (see Moro. 7:45; 2 Ne. 9:40-41; Eph. 4:11-15).
I once heard a man pose a very good question that represented some of his personal philosophy for interacting with his fellowman: "What is most likely to help this person reach exaltation?" The easiest way is not always the best (see D&C 121:43). While our ways of assisting others may at times be situational, ethics themselves are not. My observation has never been that surrendering one’s own values actually assists another person in rising. On pages 254-255 of last year’s Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball manual, we find a fantastic exposition:
"Simple truths are often rejected in favor of the much less-demanding philosophies of men, and this is another cause for the rejection of the prophets. . . .
"The holy prophets have not only refused to follow erroneous human trends, but have pointed out these errors. No wonder the response to the prophets has not always been one of indifference. So often the prophets have been rejected because they first rejected the wrong ways of their own society. . . .
"Prophets have a way of jarring the carnal mind. Too often the holy prophets are wrongly perceived as harsh and as anxious to make a record in order to say, ‘I told you so.’ Those prophets I have known are the most loving of men. It is because of their love and integrity that they cannot modify the Lord’s message merely to make people feel comfortable. They are too kind to be so cruel. I am so grateful that prophets do not crave popularity."
In striving to follow the prophets, sometimes we find a word-battle dilemma from which opponents will not permit escape. If we refuse, as indicated above, to follow false human trends, it may be alleged that Jesus dined with publicans and sinners. If we say that Jesus never stopped loving or reaching or associating, but also never compromised Himself by joining in the commission of their ugly deeds, we may be branded as thinking we are smugly superior. If you are truly striving to emulate the Savior, take comfort from President Heber J. Grant’s dictum: "The reward of a man's conscience is far better than the praise of those who cannot read his heart."
With Pres. George Q. Cannon, "No man ever accomplished anything on this earth, without exposing himself by his actions, his earnestness and enthusiasm and zeal, to the charge of fanaticism. I am willing we should be called fanatics" (JD 20:196). Not one single gospel principle advanced with legitimate fervor can be divorced from Christ's Atonement and every living soul's desperate need therefor. The balanced Latter-day Saint never forgets that. Mark it well, polemical foes! It may just be that your perspective of the totality of our doctrine is lacking, and not our internal common sense mechanism.
A concept that may be rather too stark for the political realm and not always practicable religiously is nonetheless insightful. Abbe Sieyes wrote, "Everywhere I go, I meet those persons who in their moderation would like to break up the truth or proclaim it only bit by bit. . . . Truth requires every particle of its light to produce those vivid impressions that grave it for ever on the soul and evoke a passionate interest for everything recognised as beautiful, useful and true." A Protestant observed, "For these are bad days for the Church when we avoid the deepest questions, when we content ourselves with saying that there is truth everywhere, on one side perhaps as much as on the other. As Frederick Denison Maurice long ago reminded his age: ‘It was not the real mother of the child who said, "Let us divide it and give her a portion and me a portion."’" A disciple's quest is not to seek conflict or self-justification, but to be continually sharing Abraham Lincoln’s concern, and making every needful adjustment rather than boasting that the Lord is on OUR side: "It is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and the nation should be on the Lord's side."
I keep a statement from President Howard W. Hunter on my refrigerator as a constant reminder:
"Give your students gospel truth powerfully taught; that is the way to give them a spiritual experience. Let it come naturally and as it will. . . . If what you say is the truth, and you say it purely and with honest conviction, those students will feel the spirit of the truth being taught them and will recognize that inspiration and revelation has come into their hearts. . . .
"Listen for the truth, hearken to the doctrine, and let the manifestation of the Spirit come as it may in all of its many and varied forms. Stay with the solid principles; teach from a pure heart. Then the Spirit will penetrate your mind and heart and every mind and heart of your students."
I close with a portion of a speech made by a character in one of my stories that may never be fully written (let alone suitable for publication):
"I resent that the complexities of human beings, with differing strengths and weaknesses, are oversimplified to a spectrum. One cannot measure all of human behavior in such a way, as if to say that one has love without understanding on the left, and understanding without love on the right. Both are somewhat inaccurate in their assessment, and leave out the ascending virtue of obedience, which leads to the presence of God. Obedience cannot be rendered rightly without both love and all due diligence. ‘The grand summation of the whole duty of man . . . can not be too closely taken to heart—that we strive to keep the commandments of the Lord.’ [James E. Talmage]
"It is unfair to say that because one takes his relationship with Heavenly Father seriously, his love must be diminishing. . . . Disobedience with a concern for the human family is still disobedience. Obedience to one commandment at the cost of others, particularly the grand and royal law [of love], is nonetheless disobedience."
See Ecc. 12:13; D&C 64:34 (w/3:7); Micah 6:8.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Testing...1, 2, 3
In a fit of accession to public whim (or at the very least trying to appear so in order to delay the purchase of a cell phone), I'm coming into the modern era, and what my peers call blogging. Curious thing this, and no substitute for PERSONAL contact or JOURNAL WRITING, but there may nevertheless be some use to it.
First order of business: some years ago I e-mailed a daily gospel quote to many individuals (and you'll already know who you are). With an unforeseen return of afterhours social time, I find that it may be possible to maintain such a thing again, perhaps additionally posting the quote here (or doing so in lieu of sending pesky e-mails). Naturally, this depends upon the wishes of others. So let me hear from you, whether yea or nay.
Second order of business: well, why don't I just wait and see what else comes to mind, or whether there's any point to all this?
First order of business: some years ago I e-mailed a daily gospel quote to many individuals (and you'll already know who you are). With an unforeseen return of afterhours social time, I find that it may be possible to maintain such a thing again, perhaps additionally posting the quote here (or doing so in lieu of sending pesky e-mails). Naturally, this depends upon the wishes of others. So let me hear from you, whether yea or nay.
Second order of business: well, why don't I just wait and see what else comes to mind, or whether there's any point to all this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
