“Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (Matt. 12:36; see Mosiah 4:30 and 1 Nephi 10:20)

Something happened yesterday that determined, once and for all, that this entry would come into being. I’d been debating about composing something of a, shall we say, lighter nature. In hindsight, I might regret it. :-)

1. Eastern exposure
I’d come back from church to this hotel room in Baltimore and was sort of between changing out of my Sunday apparel. I leaned over to check my e-mail on this laptop and—voila—heard somebody speaking from within my doorway. I peeped this little, “Oh, my!” and dove between the table and television stand. I could hardly believe it when the maid continued conversing with me, standing completely inside my room. (It had never occurred to me that well after 4:00 in the afternoon on Sunday, I needed to put out the “do not disturb” sign.) So there I was, down to my skivvies, feeling like I was in some kind of crisis negotiation, peeking my head around and calling out responses. Eventually she went away with the promise to return in 15 minutes. Needless to say, I cleared out of there.

That reminds me of a (totally clean) joke, which you will kindly access by clicking on this link.

2. Oops...let me see YOUR scriptures
On Thursday, I came across something that set my mind in motion for preparing a new blog entry. 1 Peter 3:15 is supposed to say:

Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

Imagine my surprise when I read the version printed (obviously in error) in Elder Neal A. Maxwell’s Meek and Lowly, p. 83 (emphasis added):

Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and rear.

That’s one irreverent way of presenting the gospel!!!! At least there’s some sort of basis for shaking off the dust of feet. ;-)

So in this shocking departure from my norm, I’ll share other fondly humorous memories. For instance, I once reviewed a manuscript which mentioned eternal covenants formulated in our “premoral” existence. I’ve witnessed an elders quorum instructor who said he'd hoped “to get away from the scriptures and just open it up for discussion.” And I've long believed that Abinadi was the world's worst "secret" agent (see Mosiah 12:1 and think about how he announces his presence), though certainly among the best public agents.

I’m reminded also of the 1631 Bible misprint which resulted in one of the Ten Commandments urging its readers, “Thou shalt commit adultery.” (My sister remarked that U.S. President Clinton must have taken his oath of office on that one. Ironically, his verse selection was Galatians 6:8: “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”)

Many years ago I sent out this thought for my daily quote:

bibliomancy.

This is the name given to the practice of opening the Bible and reading a passage at random. Some people do this when they are looking for guidance in life. It is a foolish way to use the Bible. (After all, a person considering suicide might open to the passage that says, “Judas went away and hanged himself.”) (J. Stephen Lang, 1,001 Things You Always Wanted to Know About the Bible but Never Thought to Ask [Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1999], 369)

Consider George Q. Cannon, CD, 2:205 if taken out of context like this: “The only cause for fear we have is of there being a lack of beets.”

3. Life, seriously
In the past month I’ve been chided gently, almost unconsciously, by three different people for seeming too somber. My initial response is to beg others to believe that this is a mistaken appearance, one that I will try to improve upon. Yet I must confess that I find life a serious thing, something to treat earnestly. Here is but one scriptural charge that doesn’t leave much room for careless “me” time:

Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore. (Moses 5:8)

Honest belief in this mandate will materially affect how, why, what, when, and where we are amused, not that it’ll preclude laughter altogether, by any means. I think of Hugh B. Brown’s sobering message:

A great deal of the Christian religion of the world touches the lives of men at distressingly few points. We believe, with [Elton] Trueblood, that that religion is most potent and most effective which touches the lives of men redemptively at most points, which affects the lives of men, how they live and love and work and die. Religion should be a vital part of everything we think and do. (“Search For God,” BYU Speeches of the Year, 13 Nov 1956, 6)

This gospel is an intimate thing. It is not some distant concept. It is applicable in our lives. It can change our very natures. (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 2003, 103)

One could spend much time in contemplation of the nature of sacrifice being discussed, but Lecture Six of the Lectures on Faith clearly points to an ongoing system of sacrifice, and not one gigantic acquiescent moment of a future day (though that too may come). The following excerpt is strung together from an online Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Didn’t I say I’m out of town, and unfortunately have no access to my books? I’m confined to what I can find on the Internet, remember, or happen to have already typed into my database.

It is essential for any person to have an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to the will of God to enable him to have that confidence in God without which no person can obtain eternal life. 4. Such was and always will be the situation of the Saints of God. Unless they have an actual knowledge that the course they are pursuing is according to the will of God, they will grow weary in their minds and faint. 7. Let us here observe that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation. For from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It is through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life. And it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. 12. But those who have not made this sacrifice to God do not know that the course which they pursue is well pleasing in his sight. For whatever may be their belief or their opinion, it is a matter of doubt and uncertainty in their mind; and where doubt and uncertainty are, there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time. So persons whose minds are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence, and where unshaken confidence is not, there faith is weak. And where faith is weak, the persons will not be able to contend against all the opposition, tribulations, and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order to be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ Jesus. But they will grow weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and destroy them.

Still another passage with direct bearing on sanctification:

. . . cast away your idle thoughts and your excess of laughter far from you. (D&C 88:69)

Thankfully, the even stricter verse 121 has been elaborated upon by Joseph Fielding Smith: “We should not get the idea from this scripture that the Lord is displeased with us when we laugh, when we have merriment, if it is on the right occasions. He has said, however, that in our solemn assemblies such things as light-mindedness, laughter and merriment are out of order.” However, such conditions don’t seem to obtain for that warning in verse 69.

None of this discounts all the counsel for glad hearts and joyful countenances, and so forth. In fact, if anyone were to utilize these thoughts to teach a gospel of bad news, I’d try to knock them down a peg for misquoting me!!! Enjoyment and obedience, far from being mutually exclusive, are prime partners. What I’m speaking against are the frequent abuses whereby the wrong sorts of practices are held up as “joy.” I have witnessed and experienced plenty of lesser activities that really don’t contribute much to the “big picture.” There is a happiness and humor in life unique to attentive gospel living. Excess of laughter may well mean that the joy of the Saints sometimes fills to the brim and runs over, and it just needs some skimming off at the level to curb it. Some of the Brethren have commented that bridling our passions is indicative that we ought to have passions. With the appropriate scripture search on the Church website, I find that James 5:16-17, Acts 14:15, and Alma 38:12 are in line with this discussion.

It’s my general observation, on the other hand, that an excess of irreverence (or, really, any at all) seems to run at cross purposes with other doctrine. I’ll quote from the same Elder Maxwell book, since I have it on hand: “Some [disobedience] stems from casualness when seriousness is warranted” (59). These offenders you will sometimes find hiding behind the cover that “we must be able to laugh at ourselves”; if only they would mock themselves and not the Church! Ours is becoming a society wherein nothing is sacred and little is even normal. We are growing accustomed to telestial standards. (Take, for example, the television series Dexter—and prepare to be astounded by its warm reception.)

4. “Work out your own salvation with . . .” laughter???? (No, that’s not it.)
I have every intention of returning to some comic relief—and perhaps “relief” is most appropriate when referring to a change in my writing—but I have to warm up to it first. One prominent member (never an ordained general authority) tried to say that the more we understand the vastness of the next life, the less we can take seriously in this one. I would contend almost the exact opposite, since this world is merely the preparation ground for what is to come. Almost everything of passing value can be downplayed in favor of mature perspective. To snag something else I once wrote, almost quoting myself out of context:

A lack of full understanding about the Atonement, even among members of the Church, has allowed the intrusion of numerous misunderstandings, on both extremes of a works/grace spectrum. I might add that the official Church posture comes across to other faiths as leaning toward the works end. We cannot ignore the bulk of scriptural evidence that men will be judged according to their works. If our goal were only the telestial kingdom, our anxieties concerning works could cease. Rather than engaging in controversy over every point, many of our leaders find ready reference in a simply stated article of our faith: “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” While we have occasionally misrepresented ourselves to the outside world through an astonishing absence of grateful expressions to our dearest Lord and Savior, truly indispensable to our salvation, we cannot fall into a traditional Christian trap that talking about Christ will more or less substitute for following Him. Brigham Young understood this when he quipped that if the Saints “sing and pray about doing right without doing it, . . . they will sing and pray themselves into hell, shouting hallelujah.”

Just recently I found where someone has done the tremendous service of summarizing that “works” statistic for us, not that this would stand on its own had it not been fully elaborated in the corpus of doctrine:

The New Testament records 541 New Testament scriptural statements by over sixteen different biblical personalities that pertain directly or indirectly to the way salvation is achieved. The preponderance of evidence is clearly in favor of statements that indicate that man will be held accountable and judged on the basis of his works, deeds, acts, fruits, obedience, and so forth. Of the 541 New Testament scriptural statements 418 (or 77%) are supportive of works as a criterion in final judgment. (Michael D. Adair, full citation and a couple of supporting sources provided in Matthew B. Brown, All Things Restored: Evidences and Witnesses of the Restoration [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2006], 120)

Now that’s a decidedly unPollyanna-like statistic! (On a side note, I’ve run across another church’s antagonistically compiled list of differences between our church and historical Christianity. Little do they realize that each summary statement of their own stance doesn’t resemble the practicing creed of anyone I’ve ever met, nor is it half so “historical” as they think, if they’d just dig deeper than the sixteenth century. Argue as you may about what’s become encrusted onto Christianity over the years, its historicity sort of depends upon what Christ originally instituted.)

To quote Maxwell yet again (64), “the truly meek individual combines realism and love.” Evidently, from other parts of the book, he shares my love for the concept “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), my basis for “optimistic realism.” Since I’m so lazy, I’ll spare myself the trouble of rewording some thoughts and simply copy in part of an Easter message it was my privilege to prepare and deliver in 2006. It would be a little too distracting to reproduce the footnotes at this time.

Joseph Smith remarked, “The doctrines of the resurrection of the dead and the eternal judgment are necessary to preach among the first principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Thus the urgent need for what Elder Holland called a “sobering” impact of the doctrine of restoration, as taught in the Book of Mormon. Restoration, which “more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all,” demonstrates, as Elder Holland continued, “that no one should fallaciously assume that the restorative powers of the Resurrection could restore one ‘from sin to happiness.’” We are taught almost relentlessly that in the last day that which was filthy shall still be filthy, and this is not an exception to the cleansing role of the Atonement, which is intended for use before our Redeemer acts as our Judge.

It is an antichrist leap in judgment to assume that because all men (sons of perdition included) are redeemed unto immortality, therefore “all men should have eternal life.” But it is a similar antichrist sentiment to wish contrary to that expressed by Samuel the Lamanite, who did not discriminate against his listeners: “And may God grant, in his great fulness, that men might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored unto grace for grace, according to their works. And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord.” Remember, we do not make the Lord’s decisions for Him; our task is merely to set forth the requirements contained in His teachings and permit agency to do its sifting work. However, there is nothing against strong encouragement that our fellowmen should do and declare what is right. We believe sufficiently in agency, or free will, if you will, that we never lapse into predestination paralysis. That is why we are reviewing concept and consequence. It goes almost without saying that what Latter-day Saints know about the different kingdoms of glory informs all of our actions. The call to repentance is by way of command unto those of us who ought to know better, and invitation unto others.

President Wilford Woodruff stated, “I marvel very much at the little interest manifested by the inhabitants of the earth generally in their future state. There is not a person here today but what is going to live on the other side of the veil as long as his Creator—to the endless ages of eternity, and the eternal destiny of every individual depends upon the manner in which the few short years of life in the flesh are spent.” Afterward, men “must be judged of their works, yea, even the works which were done by the temporal body in their days of probation.” We have to render an account of our stewardship over these bodies. The notion that “if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God” has been thoroughly discredited in scripture.

President McKay counseled, “There is no salvation without work. I do not mean, now, redemption from death—Christ has done that; He has given us all that we need to get by way of salvation. The doctrine of work does not rob Him of any of His glory. ‘By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God.’ But aside from that, the individual growth and advancement, the individual knowledge, the advancement in God’s truth, depends upon the doing of God's will.” Don’t quarrel about “merits.” So far as that term is concerned, they belong only to the Savior, but we are nonetheless going to answer to Him for our talents and our labor during “this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity.” We rob God (and ourselves) by holding back, not by pressing forward!

But to return to the funnies about all this....

5. Now I’m stepping in it!
Just one of many clever Christian quotations that one will find in many forms: “A lot of church members who are singing ‘Standing on the Promises’ are just sitting on the premises.”

Only a couple of months ago I was listening to yet another rendition, in a talk, of the “Footprints in the Sand” poem, which is theoretically meant to convey a sense of reliance upon the Savior. It was appropriately put in its place on one website, which also alluded (via Elder Holland) to a John Taylor expression. I know it occurs in Gospel Kingdom, but since I don’t have it with me, I’ll just quote the original (JD, 1:27; see also 20:119), which does a fine job of highlighting the philosophies of man which still regularly creep into church members’ repertoire:

Speaking of philosophy, I must tell another little story, for I was almost buried up in it while I was in Paris. I was walking about one day in the Jardin des Plantes—a splendid garden. There they had a sort of exceedingly light cake; it was so thin and light that you could blow it away, and you could eat all day of it, and never be satisfied. Somebody asked me what the name of that was. I said, I don't know the proper name, but in the absence of one, I can give it a name—I will call it philosophy, or fried froth, which you like. It is so light you can blow it away, eat it all day, and at night be as far from being satisfied as when you began.

At any rate, in order to endure listening to the poem again, I mentally reviewed a comical opposing piece that is almost as extreme in the other direction. Soon I was struggling to suppress a smile or outright laughter at my thoughts! (This in spite of the fact that, for some unknowable reason, my scripted role in that singles ward—even when I presented evidence to the contrary—was that of impassive solitaire. The key may be to recognize that I’m good-natured and good-humored, even if I don’t see things like the rest of them.) I appreciated this rollicking contradiction when I first read it on “Dave’s Daily Chuckle” for June 4, 2001:

Butt Prints In The Sand
One night I had a wondrous dream,
One set of footprints there was seen,
The footprints of my precious Lord,
But mine were not along the shore.
But then some stranger prints appeared,
And I asked the Lord, “What have we here?”
Those prints are large and round and neat,
“But Lord, they are too big for feet.”
“My child,” He said in somber tones,
“For miles I carried you alone.
I challenged you to walk in faith,
But you refused and made me wait.”
“You disobeyed, you would not grow,
The walk of faith, you would not know.
So, I got tired, I got fed up,
And there I dropped you on your butt.”
“Because in life, there comes a time,
When one must fight, and one must climb,
When one must rise and take a stand,
Or leave their butt prints in the sand.”

Anyone looking for great literature—reverential doctrine and comeback, rolled into one—should read Elder Orson F. Whitney’s reply to Invictus (found here or here). It would also serve to right the boat-rocking I’ve undoubtedly created here.

6. How dare I say all is well in Zion, when the Lord pronounces an emphatic wo against those who state it? (Besides, all isn’t well.... See, for instance, Amos 6:1, Jeremiah 6:10-26 and 23:13-40, Helaman 13:26-30, Zephaniah 1:12, 2 Nephi 28:19-31, even Moroni 9:21-22, etc., etc., etc.)
There is a humongous body of humor in Church literature not lost on those who value preaching “without fear or favor.” The lesson is simple: service with a smile, but first things first.

I’ll start with an “apocryphal” account about President Joseph Fielding Smith. One website reports the following from page 285 of Truman G. Madsen’s Presidents of the Church:

President Smith’s temperament was sometimes misunderstood. People thought of him as austere and severe. According to one story he went to a stake conference in Wyoming where he bore down hard on their need to repent. He ended by saying, “Brothers and sisters, if you do not repent, few of you will be saved in the life to come.” He had barely reached home when letters began coming from that stake saying, “This man didn’t inspire us at all. He condemned us. He was harsh. We would like something to be done about this.”

So he was assigned to go back to the stake and speak again. He went back—and repeated his words from before. He then said, “Brothers and sisters, the last time I was here, I said unless you repented there would be few of you saved. I have changed my mind—none of you will be.”

This reminds me of the same problem rephrased by one not of our faith:

When the new preacher moved into town, one of the first people he met said, “I certainly hope that you're not one of these narrow-minded ministers who think that only the members of their congregation are going to heaven.”

“I’m even more narrow-minded than that,” replied the preacher. “I'm pretty sure that some of the members of my congregation aren’t going to make it.” (Msgr. Arthur Tonne, quoted in Cal and Rose Samra, More Holy Humor [Carmel, New York: Guideposts, 1997], 15) (see 2 Nephi 33:12 for a more upbeat take on the theme)

An interrelated theme that I don’t have time to develop is summed up by President Lorenzo Snow:

There is this privilege that every Latter-day Saint should seek to enjoy, to know positively that his work is accepted of God. I am afraid Latter-day Saints are not much better and perhaps they are worse than other people if they do not have this knowledge and seek to do right. (CR, Apr. 1898, 13)

President Joseph Fielding Smith told on himself with another such tale, but all I can quote at present is another’s account:

After one sermon, a man came up to him and said, “That is the first discourse on the Word of Wisdom that I ever liked.” President Smith modestly inquired, “Haven’t you heard other talks on the Word of Wisdom?” “Yes,” came the reply, “but this is the first one I ever enjoyed . . . you see, I am keeping the Word of Wisdom now.” (Joseph F. McConkie, True and Faithful: The Life Story of Joseph Fielding Smith [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971], 78-79)

Here’s a parting laugh about the difficulties of our day, with an implied thought about leaders who don’t have to ask what the public think of God’s word!!!

A zealous, newly ordained minister was assigned to a small, rural parish. In his first sermon he condemned horse racing, and the sermon went over poorly. A deacon cautioned: “You should never preach against horse racing because this whole area is known for its fine horses. Many members of this congregation make their living off horses.”

The next week the new pastor came down hard on the evils of smoking. Again his sermon fell flat. Many of his members grew tobacco.

On the third Sunday the preacher condemned whiskey drinking, only to discover that there was a big distillery less than five miles from the church.

The perplexed preacher called a board meeting and cried out: “What can I preach about?”

The answer came immediately from a woman in back: “Preach against them evil cannibals. There ain’t one of them within two thousand miles of here.” (Dennis R. Fakes, quoted in Cal and Rose Samra, Holy Humor: A Book of Inspirational Wit and Cartoons [Carmel, New York: Guideposts, 1996], 97-98)

A healthy dose of “Sunday will come” thoughts (exploring Mosiah 3:19 "the hard way")

Hurrah for finishing my month-long “systematic analysis of operations” at work!

I’m also rejoicing over more good news. I’d have scanned two images side by side if I could find the first... In late 2005 I obtained a signed note off a prescription pad that I was diagnosed with celiac sprue. Now I have a letter in July 2008 stating that biopsy results came back normal (after flooding my system with the “allergen”). Going about three years without pizza, cereal, or even normal sacrament bread would make you somewhat uptight, too. ;-) Anyway, I’m more than willing to give God the credit, especially since He’s had free access to my innards, and no one in the medical profession has touched them.

The doctor can no more twit the bearer of the priesthood that the sick one would have recovered without the administration than the one administering can twit the doctor on the same point. They stand on equal ground, so far as human knowledge goes. The priesthood does not always heal—God in his wisdom does not permit the healing to be done—neither does the doctor always heal. An overruling Providence governs both. (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “Man--God's Greatest Miracle” [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1968], 29)

1. Food for thought
In summarizing the past month, I return to a little bit more of the sobering, though I’ve actually categorized myself as an “optimistic realist.” Somehow these troubled times for our world provoke such commentary from me, particularly in open social discourse. I suppose I hope that defending values “at all times and in all things, and in all places” (“even unto death”) can make a difference. One can accentuate the positive among their immediate circle, but openly assault the negative for mankind’s sake. I’ve occasionally thought that continually reiterating one’s own mortality and everyone else’s goodness when giving talks, lessons, and the like can be a waste of valuable time that could be spent driving to the very means of reforming humanity, not that those aren’t things that could be reasonably stated. If others didn’t seem to be emphasizing that part, then I imagine I’d want to stand up and say it.

Elder Oaks shared a daunting insight: “A call for repentance that is clear enough and loud enough to encourage reformation for the lax can produce paralyzing discouragement for the conscientious. This is a common problem. We address a diverse audience each time we speak, and we are never free from the reality that a doctrinal underdose for some is an overdose for others.”

Much as I might enjoy feasting on the word, and be in total agreement with Alma and the Prophet Joseph Smith about delicious doctrine, it’s critical to be sensitive to the dietary needs of others until “the perfect day,” when the perfect remedy has been fully applied to all of our delicate systems. Nevertheless, those who obsessively cite passages in favor of milk before meat seemingly fail to set essential goals. To quote myself, actually somewhat reluctantly:

Ah, yes, when Paul realized the people of Corinth could not yet handle meat, he attributed it to their carnality: “envying, and strife, and divisions” (1 Cor. 3:3), as if to say had they been mature he would be teaching meat. “Awake...” (1 Cor. 15:34). He may well have said to them, “Grow up!” (1 Cor. 13:11; 14:20; Heb. 5:13-14).

And to quote a vastly superior source:

I have little patience with persons who say, “Oh, nobody is perfect,” the implication being: “so why try?” Of course no one is wholly perfect, but we find some who are a long way up the ladder. (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 165)

Have you ever encountered individuals who exercise little quality control over the worldly sources they listen to, yet bristle when one comes bearing spiritual truths, and suddenly insist upon perfection—generally as defined by themselves—in the speaker before they will heed one word? Not until Christ reigns in person will we enjoy such a privilege. Might they not be uncomfortable under such government? (See Mormon 9:1-6, along with the strong, oft-repeated scriptural counsel that one must receive Christ’s servants—pointing most specifically to the Brethren—in order to receive Him.) I’m reminded of Elder Melvin J. Ballard’s comical(?) remarks:

Some folks get the notion that the problems of life will at once clear up and they will know that this is the Gospel of Christ when they die. I have heard people say they believe when they die they will see Peter and that he will clear it all up. I said, “You never will see Peter until you accept the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, at the hands of the elders of the Church, living or dead.” . . . Living or dead, they shall not hear it from anyone else. (Melvin J. Ballard, “Three Degrees of Glory,” 22 Sep 1922, 17; see his comments in CR, Jun. 1919, 71-72; D&C 138:29-32)

I’ll follow this with two “secular” sources, not troubling myself to dig out myriads of Church quotations. Due to incidental events in my life, my main means of verifying them fully verbatim from my library and providing precise references (something I insist upon doing in print) is unavailable for a few weeks. I have a natural aversion to paraphrasing, except very carefully, where pure doctrine is concerned—and this too is sustained by some more quotes. ;-) For brush strokes to the picture that the Gospel requires progressive movement along the strait and narrow (see, for instance, 2 Nephi 31:19-21):

It may be very attractive to preach to men, and say, “You men are very good and very self-sacrificing, and we take pleasure in revealing your goodness to you. Now, since you are so good, you will probably be interested in Christianity, especially in the life of Jesus, which we believe is good enough even for you.” But that preaching is useless; it is useless to call the righteous to repentance. (J. Gresham Machen, in Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir [Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1977], 302)

Or what medical man, anxious to heal a sick person, would prescribe in accordance with the patient’s whims, and not according to the requisite medicine? But that the Lord came as the physician of the sick, He does Himself declare, saying, “They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” [Luke 5:31-32]. How then shall the sick be strengthened, or how shall sinners come to repentance? Is it by persevering in the very same courses? or, on the contrary, is it by undergoing a great change and reversal of their former mode of living, by which they have brought upon themselves no slight amount of sickness, and many sins? (Irenaeus, quoted in L. Russ Bush, Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books, 1983], 79)

2. Current events are scary
This week I experienced the coincidence of a current event that lends unfortunate color to my dream—previously shared on this blog—about the pledge of allegiance, not that I’m elevating the dream above “fried liver and onions” status (see THBL, 417; Charles W. Penrose, CR, Oct. 1922, 26; TSWK, 455; Gerald N. Lund, Hearing the Voice of the Lord, 39f.n.), insofar as dreams are best understood as a strong expression of my own emotions.

Apparently the matter of standing at attention for the pledge of allegiance is being seriously revisited. In this case, it’s not hard to guess the logical outcome given current developments carried into the next generation. I’m also not oblivious to controversy on BYU campus about this very issue.

Judicial ruling to force respect in this particular fashion would be of worse than dubious virtue, so we are simply left to bemoan the unraveling societal fabric, as fewer and fewer support the fundamentals. (My junior high and high school conveniently lapsed on conducting the pledge.) Incidentally, I more ardently DO favor legislation to oppose flag-burning and have written about it at length. Before you spar with me, just be aware that I can bring President Packer and others directly to bear on the debate. ;-)

3. Dark before the dawn
In the month of July I received the single worst news of my life. (Much, much worse than the one those who know me might be thinking of.) Since there’s nothing to be done for the news, I may as well count my blessings that it didn’t involve sin, so I still have family, health, and GOSPEL. (See D&C 98:11-15.) In fact, I’ve still got life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Truly, the Lord is the only one with the real power to give and to take away.

To foreshadow what I thought would be the latter part of this entry, but which is now deferred to another day, I employ humor:

The meteorologist on my television was giving the weekend forecast. “On Sunday there may be showers, but if the front pushes through early, we might awaken to a gorgeous sunrise,” he predicted.

A reporter called out from the news desk, “When will you know for sure what the weather will be like on Sunday?”

The weatherman replied, “Monday morning.” (Mary C. Ardis, Reader's Digest, Apr. 1997, 93)

We Christians await a yet future, glorious Sonrise “with healing in his wings.” In the meantime: stormy weather, for the end is not yet!!!

4. Moving on
So last month I had to make another difficult decision only partially related to the aforementioned bad news. Shall I just say that by now I ought to know a one-sided relationship when I’m in one? This one lasted almost exactly as long as the “other” one. (This belongs to my Dating Bill of Rights #7, although in this context I’m referring to a somewhat broader social contract...no, not even marriage!) I detest when my longsuffering eventually begins to peter out into uncharitable thoughts. By virtue of my deliberate redeployment, I nonetheless don’t intend to have taken the easy way out of strengthening that weakness of mine.

It was time to move on, all the same. The movie Regarding Henry captures that feeling: “Well, I had enough. So I said when.”

This much I know: I needed to proceed from the known to the unknown, for the known was only marginally acceptable for future planning. It seemed like a terrible—but necessary—risk. I not infrequently object to uses to which the doctrine of agency is put in arguing just such things, as though we should live haphazardly instead of viewing agency as the right to choose the right (which is clearly defined, at that)...but the truest grasp of this particular principle and practice has often been recounted by President Packer:

We once had a major decision to make. When our prayers left us uncertain, I went to see Elder Harold B. Lee. He counseled us to proceed. Sensing that I was still very unsettled, he said, “The problem with you is you want to see the end from the beginning.” Then he quoted this verse from the Book of Mormon, “Dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith” (Ether 12:6).

He added, “You must learn to walk a few steps ahead into the darkness, and then the light will turn on and go before you.”

When this principle was abused by someone with faulty doctrinal agendas, I responded in part, “He quotes the taking ‘a few steps . . . into the darkness’ theme, but it appears he ventured out in the wrong direction.”

5. Dreaming about feelings
While a geographical move was in order this month, it being “needful for me to obtain another place of residence,” much as I will miss some whom I leave behind, I also had to deliberately situate myself differently socially. In reflecting upon interpersonal relationships, I’m reminded of the adage, “The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference” (Elie Wiesel, A Jew Today [New York: Random House, 1978], 183).

Someone has said the opposite of love is not hate; the opposite of love is apathy. And I say to you brethren, the most dangerous thing that can happen between you and your wife or between me and my wife is apathy—not hate, but for them to feel that we are not interested in their affairs, that we are not expressing our love and showing our affection in countless ways. (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, 241)

Some of my feelings that were running high remind me of another dream, May 22, 1999:

They were all very much ignoring me; the part that saddened me most is that it didn’t seem outright intentional. It was more like I simply escaped their notice. . . . They seemed like little children. . . . They still had no idea of the calamities that would soon befall all of them. I was feeling even more out of place than ever before.

As I was sitting by the door a man stepped in briefly and told me I didn’t have much time left. I nodded and looked back at the crowd of blissfully happy students. No longer caring about social restrictions, I began whistling the tune to “Praise to the Man.” I ignored their stares and frowns. Mom came to the door and told me it was time to go. I stood up and, without so much as a backward glance, walked out of there.

I was in a large city and saw three people pursuing a dangerous man. I waited at a corner to join the chase . . . . Just as they were approaching, the man pulled out what could best be described as a colorful grenade. Immediately everyone stopped following him and crowds gathered to the grenade. They had no idea that it would destroy them, and were ignoring my calls of warning.

So I ran after him alone. . . .

I think of this sobering reminder, fit for the affairs of this day: “To get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded. . . . The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what He tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 161).

One real-life application for the vivid dream is discovered in a pamphlet that Hugh B. Brown issued as part of his charge over servicemen during World War II:

There is a cunning, wily enemy whose whole business is to prepare booby traps and lure men into them. He not only teaches the fool to say in his heart, “There is no God,” but he beguiles him into thinking that evil is desirable and inevitable. Sin is the devil’s booby trap, and no amount of bravado will change the sinner’s status. . . .

Do not allow either desire for the bait, nor curiosity to know the mechanism, to lure you into any of his deadly traps, which often are cunningly camouflaged to deceive the unwary. And do not be deceived if what you have been taught to recognize as such a trap does not seem to spring at the first contact. Many of them are time bombs, but there are no duds in the armory of sin.

Some men are led to think that because the punishment is not immediate, the danger of sin has been exaggerated or avoided. We may be sure that all the devil’s booby traps will explode eventually with deadly and undiscriminating effect. (quoted in Paul H. Kelly, Lin H. Johnson, Courage in a Season of War: Latter-day Saints Experience World War II [n.p., 2002], 534-535)

6. Thinking about feelings
This time of life presents an unusual opportunity for me to reflect, coming to know myself and my many weaknesses (and certainly strengths, too, but nobody needs to hear about that). My mother, who has a degree in psychology, likes to study behaviors and ponder how some people got so strange. I imagine I’ve given her endless amusement! One day I came across a journal entry she’d made when I was very little. She referred to a psychological term: transference.

Evidently when I was wheeled into the operating room I asked my doctor why the light insisted on hurting me so much. It took him a moment or two to realize that I was quite seriously blaming every hurtful act on the surgical lamp. I knew that the doctor loved me, so there was no chance I’d let myself get upset with him—speak of the benevolent physician who paradoxically causes pain to cure us of our afflictions! That gentle man made sure that he cuffed the lamp about where I could see it, and then I was satisfied. He treated patients from all over the world, and one day, during a post-operative physical therapy checkup, he confided that of everyone, I was the one he knew he could always push to any limit and I wouldn’t cry.

Perhaps some crying is a manifestation of surprise, indignation, out-and-out rebellion, seeking compensation, or maybe just hoping for reassurances, and our relationship of trust simply didn’t admit such a possibility. When it comes to my relationship with God, like de Tocqueville, “I had rather mistrust my own capacity than his justice.” (The reader is referred to the popular C.S. Lewis quote about (spiritual) home improvement that “hurts abominably.”) For some ideas to bounce against your brain about justice and mercy performing their procedures on us:

An incident occurred during our son’s early childhood that illustrated for me this profound love of the heavenly Father. Ryan had a terrible ear infection when he was three years old that kept him (and us) awake most of the night. Shirley bundled up the toddler the next morning and took him to see the pediatrician. . . .

Shirley did the best she could. She put Ryan on the examining table and attempted to hold him down. But he would have none of it. When the doctor inserted the pick-like instrument in his ear, the child broke loose and screamed to high heaven. The pediatrician then became angry at Shirley and told her if she couldn't follow instructions she’d have to go get her husband. I was in the neighborhood and quickly came to the examining room. After hearing what was needed, I swallowed hard and wrapped my 200-pound, 6-foot-2-inch frame around the toddler. It was one of the toughest moments in my career as a parent.

What made it so emotional was the horizontal mirror that Ryan was facing on the back side of the examining table. This made it possible for him to look directly at me as he screamed for mercy. I really believe I was in greater agony in that moment than my terrified little boy. It was too much. I turned him loose—and got a beefed-up version of the same bawling-out that Shirley had received a few minutes earlier. Finally, however, the grouchy pediatrician and I finished the task.

I reflected later on what I was feeling when Ryan was going through so much suffering. What hurt me was the look on his face. Though he was screaming and couldn’t speak, he was “talking” to me with those big blue eyes. He was saying, “Daddy! Why are you doing this to me? I thought you loved me. I never thought you would do anything like this! How could you . . . ? Please, please! Stop hurting me!”

It was impossible to explain to Ryan that his suffering was necessary for his own good, that I was trying to help him, that it was love that required me to hold him on the table. How could I tell him of my compassion in that moment? I would gladly have taken his place on the table, if possible. But in his immature mind, I was a traitor who had callously abandoned him. (James Dobson, When God Doesn't Make Sense [Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1993], 60-62)

At any rate, I overcame my early childhood propensity for shifting the blame by becoming almost surgical in my examination of cause and effect in mortality. Sin is the cause of human suffering, and ignorance is its traveling companion. (Now, I’m not saying that another’s sin can’t cause you a great deal of pain.) Many an atheist or confused believer who gets tangled up in causality, laying false theological groundwork on the basis of what they have decided God should or should not allow, cannot see that the abundant life exists in sheer spite of what we normally term suffering. We spend too much time trying to fix the wrong things, denying, repressing, transferring. It helps so much more to simply set our sights on the proper course: “look to God and live.” Of a truth, “every world problem may be solved by obedience to the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, 5).

7. Anticlimactic thoughts/feelings for my dreams
In this winnowing internal process, I came to a start not long ago upon realizing my soft spot for certain childlike characteristics, to the point of seeking them in potential dates. Unfortunately, this has left me prone to winding up instead with childISH people. As for identifying their brand of incompatibility with me, I don’t know that “transference” would be the term for it so much as “rubber conscience,” but it’s unbelievable the characters I’ve willingly consorted with.

For starters, the first girl that I ever took a bold relationship step with, having sort of, you know, spent a lot of time with her, at her frequent invitation.... (And I still believe in taking a direct approach when you’re prepared to hear the answer.) Of course it’s difficult to know what to tell people, but is this not a curious response? “I feel bad that I like you as a friend and you don’t feel the same way.” Where do you find the guilty party therein, regardless of the fact that she mentioned experiencing negative emotions? I much prefer, “I don’t feel the same way,” or, “You’re a good friend. I doubt you’d be a good partner.”

Then there’s the last girl that I ever took a bold relationship step with, to my lasting regret. While throwing turmoil into nearly every corner of my life, she offered this: “No decision have I made more completely, than I want my future to be yours as well.” She was true to her word on this. Can you detect the early warning sign of one will being imposed upon another? Whose is it? Maybe in the future I should look for a little more discussion about my future, or a synergistic “our future.” For some inexplicable reason, I believed her when at the critical DTR juncture she solemnly took my hands and told me, “I’m yours.” There were at least six cases of unfaithfulness after that, but I was caught up in the fact that she’d pledged her troth. Difficult as it may be to believe of my personality, that was a time when forgiveness was pressed into the extreme of permissiveness.

Forgiving others . . . does not necessarily mean that we would endorse or approve of the behavior or transgression. In fact, there are many actions and attitudes that deserve clear condemnation. But even in these we must completely forgive the offender: “Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37). (Cecil O. Samuelson, Jr., Ensign, Feb. 2003, 50)

I liked the statement put out by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops—pertaining more specifically to spousal abuse—that said “forgiveness ‘is not permission to repeat the abuse’” (The Washington Post, cited in The Daily Herald, Saturday, November 30, 2002, C5).

I suppose these were remnants of my childhood unwillingness to admit that someone was hurting me, such that my mother has said loud and clear, “Kris, you were a doormat.” My father said, “Every time you gave her rope, she hung herself with it.” My brother-in-law said early on that if my sister had done just a few of those things in dating, he’d have been through. My sister—well, she knew the moment she first laid eyes on her that I wasn’t being treated well. In a rare lucid moment I basically begged her to either change her ways or let me go, when I told her that (as journal-written) "I'd known many types of pain in my life, and I was convinced that this past month has been filled with unnecessary pain."

This quote cuts kind of close to the heart of the matter:

This tendency to avoid problems and the emotional suffering inherent in them is the primary basis of all human mental illness. Since most of us have this tendency to a greater or lesser degree, most of us are mentally ill to a greater or lesser degree, lacking complete mental health. (M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth [New York: A Touchstone Book, 1978], 17)

I’m embarrassed about my avoidant behavior, determined to never again be so mentally unsound. (Though many relationship counselors, in one form or another, discuss the irony that we must make some of the most important decisions of our lives at a time when our brains may not be functioning normally.) “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7).

I don’t think I expressed myself very clearly in a recent discussion with a friend. I owe him two playful quotes that came to mind but went unuttered, about the cheer, color, and vibrance that women bring into men’s lives:

You know all women are good, or ought to be. They were made for angelic beings, and I would be glad to see them act more angelic in their behaviour. You were made more angelic, and a little weaker than man. Man is made of rougher material, to open the way, cut down bushes, and kill the snakes, that women may walk along through life, and not soil and tear their skirts. (Heber C. Kimball, JD, 2:154)

About seventy of these anchorites live together in this building, where everything around exhibits an aspect of gloom and misery, as might be expected where nature is interrupted by the exclusion of the cheering, enlivening and happy influence of women. (Lorenzo Snow, February 26, 1873 letter from Jerusalem, in Eliza R. Snow Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, 537-538)

There’s that indomitable spirit of mine, willing to put my future in the Lord’s hands and continue to trust in those things which He has ordained! (Hm, I’m thinking the definition of indomitable works very poorly in a sentence about submission to the Lord’s will.)