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)
3 comments:
LOL, why do those sorts of things always happen to you?!
Good to hear from your brain in Maryland.
Whether it had to do anything with my comments or not, I appreciated the numbered headings.
As for Dexter, a girl at work (very likable, funny, nice, not evil) who apparently loves that show told me I should watch it because I would surely love it as well. After I had her explain to me what it was about, I couldn't help but wonder why on earth she thought I would love it. I have never so much as attempted to watch it.
And, to continue this rambling comment... actually, I'm just going to email you.
Your maid and the underwear story made me smile, thanks!
Post a Comment