God's Initial Discipline Plan

Discipline is a constant topic of discussion in our home.  We've tried everything from happy face charts, tickets, time-outs, to prize boxes.  This last week I was discussing with a friend the concept of the earn-back.  A child misbehaves so they lose a privilege, but if they don't have a chance to earn it back, what motive do they have to change their behavior?  But if they can always earn it back, then what motive is there for compliance in the first place?  It's sort of a vicious cycle.  I was pondering this concept and read about the garden of Eden when I saw a little more clearly the discipline system God set up for His first children.  The parts that most struck me was first, the double consequences, one immediate and one delayed.  This means that no matter what, they lose something.  The second, and most importantly, the idea that the earn-back is incredibly more challenging than the initial expectations.  So the incentive to comply initially is because the earn-back is even harder, but even if they make a mistake, there is still hope.  That was precisely the answer I was looking for.  Here are a few things I discovered in God's discipline plan: 

The Set Up: 

• Heavenly Father created a place that is fun and beautiful for his children.  
• He allowed Adam to be a part of the process, (naming the animals), perhaps to help him feel a sense of responsibility.
• He gave them responsibilities to care for the garden and animals (chores).
• He laid out the expectations for living there.
• He clearly explained the rules and the consequences.
• He left access to something forbidden.  (It's ok to have things out kids can't touch or need to ask for first...learn boundaries?)
• He let them make their own choices (demonstrated trust in them) then followed through with the consequences (so they could trust Him).  

Discipline System:

• Double consequences.  One immediate and one delayed.  (immediate time out and then lose out on something in the future)
Pretty drastic consequences (not just losing one toy, but losing rights to all the toys)
Questioned them, not accused them.  Allowed them to make their own confession so they felt sorrow for their actions instead of anger for the punishment.
Enacted the consequence with love and sorrow, no anger. 
Prepared them (explained what they would need to do, helped them make clothes)
No easy earn-back (blocked the tree of life, had to work hard to return to His presence by proving expected behavior and making and keeping promises)
All consequences came to pass, they just weren't permanent, so He was true to His word, yet there was still always hope.

Becoming a Friend to the Mammon of Unrighteousness

The following is the parable of the unjust steward as related in Luke 16:1-8 (KJV)

1. And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
2. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
3. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
4. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
5. So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
6. And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
7. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
8. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

I've always been puzzled by this parable and never really gave it much thought.  I memorized verse 13 ("No man can serve two masters...") in Luke 16 and always knew it had something to do with the parable, but never quite drew the connection.  I'd like to take a couple minutes to describe how insight can come by taking time to ponder on the scriptures.

I recently read through the New Testament and when I got to this parable I decided that I was going to figure out what it meant.  Why would the Lord praise an unjust steward?  So this is my interpretation of the parable:

A certain man has not been a good worker.  His boss was sick of him wasting his time and money and essentially gave him his two-weeks' notice.  The worker got really worried because he didn't have any other jobs that he could quickly pick up, and he had enough pride to not want to have to beg for subsistence from anyone else.  So he set out a plan to get on the 'A' list of some of his clients so that they would help him out when he was discharged.  He then proceeded to call up all those indebted to his boss and gave each a heavy discount.  Jesus then says that the guy's boss praises him for doing wisely.

That's basically verses 1-8.  Now this is where I really raise an eyebrow.  Is the Lord telling us it's good to be dishonest?  Of course not.  But he's praising a guy who seems like he's cheating his boss one last time, and yet his boss is happy about it?  Verses 9-13 really help clarify what just happened.

9. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
10. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
12. And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?
13. No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one,and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

We are counseled to "make ... friends of the mammon of unrighteousness", which is essentially money, or worldly wealth, or those who hold in high regard wealth, so that when we are in need (not necessarily financially) we will have friends to help us.

A simple example came to me.  I'm frequently put in a position to put this idea into practice.  When I go out to eat, get a haircut, get a babysitter, or pay for any type of service that ultimately has a cost that's partially determined by me, I try to not give the minimal amount (unless I think the service merits the minimal), but I rarely am "generous."  Why is that?  I believe that it's because I hold money ("the mammon of unrighteousness") in high regard and am very possessive of it, not wanting to "impart it freely", essentially coveting it (D&C 19:26).  I would like to consider myself a charitable person.  I set aside money for those in need, lend my time for service, etc., but reading this scripture I realize that I'm still not where I need to be.

More fully understanding this scripture I realize that by not coveting money (clinging to it, being too frugal, etc.) I will be able to make more wicked mammon friends.  Seriously, though, back to the tip example - if I stop trying to give the minimum and just try to be generous (not taking into account how much I'm out if I give 'x' percent) and give what I think would actually make the person happy, I'm freeing myself of this worldly bond and learning better to serve the Master that will be able to reward me with eternal happiness.  Money begins to become a tool to enrich lives other than my own.

The Law of Tithing

As a brief introduction to this, I came across an article that really disturbed me.  The author presented many historical examples and provided many lengthy explanations trying to explain the nuts and bolts of tithing, with an air of haughtiness and pride that was rather uncomfortable.  I found myself balking time and again at what he was referring to as changes and perversions that he had witnessed to the law of tithing across the Church. Precious little of what he said could be supported by leaders of the Church, and I thought I'd share some of what I'd encountered along with my simple testimony of this law.

The Law of Tithing has been instituted among the members of the Lord's Church from the beginning of time.  There are verses in the Bible mentioning that Abraham and Jacob paid tithes and even specifically mention the amount of one-tenth.

In latter-day revelation the Lord restored the Law of Tithing, but only because the Saint's were unable live the higher Law of Consecration.  It's short enough to include it all here:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion, 

2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church. 

3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. 

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord. 

5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you. 

6 And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you. 

7 And this shall be an ensample unto all the stakes of Zion. Even so. Amen.

What does "interest" mean?  What is a full tithe?

It is interesting that the Lord says he requires all surplus property, and after that, one-tenth of all interest annually.  He then restates this law in verse 5.  Interest is separated as a distinct offering from property.  In a 1970 letter from the First Presidency, they clarify that "one-tenth of all their interest annually...is understood to mean income....  No one is justified in making any other statement than this.”

Some contend that the word "interest" means just that, a surplus or extra funds remaining after one has taken care of his basic needs.  This would make sense if we had not had more recent clarifications by some of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency.

• President Eyring, "The law is that we give to the Lord one-tenth of all our income." (Liahona, June 2011)
• Elder Hales, "Members who freely give a full 10 percent of their annual income receive all of the promised blessings of tithing." (General Conference, October 2002)

There are numerous other examples.  No where are we told precisely what we have to pay tithing on.  Some say it should be paid on our gross income given that even though we don't see some of it, we benefit from all of it.  We pay taxes to the government for benefits (even if they aren't tangible).  Money gets paid for healthcare, set aside into a retirement fund, etc.  Others come to the conclusion that it should only be paid on what is left over after we take care of our necessities - similar to a business that has to take care of operating expenses before counting any profit.  

There are obviously amounts between these two extremes that could be interpreted as a full tithe too.  As we study the words of the prophets and make this a matter of prayer, we will understand for ourselves what it is that we need to do.  The Lord will never punish us, nor will we feel our sacrifice has been in vain if we "freely give a full 10 percent"; however, we will fall short of blessings if we begin to put other expenses before what the Lord has asked of us.

Why can't I choose where my interest goes?

Some wonder why we have to give to the Church at all.  Why not be free to choose which charities to give to?  It's all going to help someone right instead of just going towards some administrative expenses that get covered anyways by the majority of Church members, right?

"We pay tithing, as the Savior taught, by bringing the tithes “into the storehouse” (Mal. 3:10; 3 Ne. 24:10). We do this by paying our tithing to our bishop or branch president. We do not pay tithing by contributing to our favorite charities. The contributions we should make to charities come from our own funds, not from the tithes we are commanded to pay to the storehouse of the Lord." (Oaks, General Conference April 1994)

Does the Lord really want us to pay tithing before we take care of our family?  If we're in the most dire of circumstances, shouldn't we feed our children first?  Isn't tithing supposed to be easy and not a sacrifice?

“My mother was a widow, with a large family to provide for. One spring when we opened our potato pits she had her boys get a load of the best potatoes, and she took them to the tithing office; potatoes were scarce that season. I was a little boy at the time, and drove the team. When we drove up to the steps of the tithing office, ready to unload the potatoes,one of the clerks came out and said to my mother, ‘Widow Smith, it’s a shame that you should have to pay tithing.’ … He chided my mother for paying her tithing, called her anything but wise or prudent; and said there were others who were strong and able to work that were supported from the tithing office. My mother turned upon him and said: ‘William, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Would you deny me a blessing? If I did not pay my tithing, I should expect the Lord to withhold His blessings from me. I pay my tithing, not only because it is a law of God, but because I expect a blessing by doing it. By keeping this and other laws, I expect to prosper and to be able to provide for my family’” (in Conference Report,Apr. 1900, p. 48). 

Some people say, “I can’t afford to pay tithing.” Those who place their faith in the Lord’s promises say, “I can’t afford not to pay tithing.” (Oaks, General Conference April 1994)

Elder Hales explains that,

"Tithing also teaches us to control our desires and passions for the things of this world. Payment of tithing encourages us to be honest in our dealings with our fellowmen.... The law of tithing prepares us to live the higher law of consecration—to dedicate and give all our time, talents, and resources to the work of the Lord." 

Without putting the Lord first, even before our family, we can't expect to receive the fullness of the blessings that he promises us in two sacred books of scripture.

Does Malachi's warning and promise in Malachi 3:10-12 really apply to us individually?  Or is it only meant for leaders of the Church with financial responsibilities?

Tithing is a commandment with a promise. The words of Malachi,reaffirmed by the Savior, promise those who bring their tithes into the storehouse that the Lord will open “the windows of heaven, and pour[them] out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”The promised blessings are temporal and spiritual. The Lord promises to“rebuke the devourer,” and he also promises tithe payers that “all nations shall call you blessed, for ye shall be a delightsome land” (3 Ne. 24:10–12;see Mal. 3:10–12). 

I believe these are promises to the nations in which we reside. When the people of God withheld their tithes and offerings, Malachi condemned“this whole nation” (Mal. 3:9). Similarly, I believe that when many citizens of a nation are faithful in the payment of tithes, they summon the blessings of heaven upon their entire nation. The Bible teaches that“righteousness exalteth a nation” (Prov. 14:34) and “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9; see Matt. 13:33). 

The payment of tithing also brings the individual tithe payer unique spiritual blessings. Tithe paying is evidence that we accept the law of sacrifice. It also prepares us for the law of consecration and the other higher laws of the celestial kingdom. The Lectures on Faith, prepared by the early leaders of the restored Church, part the curtain on that subject when they say: 

“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" (Lectures on Faith, 6:7).
(Oaks, General Conference April 1994)

The Lord found it crucial to share Malachi's promise with the Nephites and personally made sure that it was properly recorded along with the fulfilled prophecies of the resurrection.

I realize that there's a lot of details in the history of the Church that could be brought up to show the mistakes of men with regards to the handling of the tithes of the members, but that doesn't change the fact that the Lord continues to trust the leaders of the Church and has promised us that we will not be led astray. 

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. God bless you” (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13; see also Official Declaration 1).

Read the scriptures, listen to the latter-day leaders of the Church, pay your tithing and you will receive a witness of the truthfulness and blessings that come with obeying the law of tithing.

To circumcise or not to circumcize?

This weeks Sunday School lesson is on Acts 16-18 and both epistles to the Thessalonians. Reading/listening to it first off was very difficult, I didn't get much out of it. I decided to watch the episode on the BYU Broadcasting site where professors of religion ("the professors" from here on out) discuss these chapters for about 25 minutes to help broaden my perspective on these chapters. I was reminded how little I know and how much more effort I need to give to understanding the scriptures and applying them to my life.

As a preface to this reading, I also listened to the discussion that included Acts 15 that discusses the question the members of the Church had with regards to circumcision, and if the newly baptized Gentiles needed to be circumcised. The professors deemed this as one of the most important chapters of the New Testament, paritally because it had to do with a major change in the tradition of the Jews that was a part of the Law of Moses, and was a move toward shedding that "burden." The outcome was that the leaders of the Church didn't feel like it was necessary to burden the newly baptized Gentiles with any aspect of the Law of Moses, that it was sufficient to admonish them to "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."  Oddly enough, and pointed out by the professors, the Gentiles received this message, but it wasn't taught to the Jews - which was something Paul probably was hoping for.

This brings us to chapter 16 where Paul and Silas meet Timothy, who is the son of a Greek father and believes and is converted to the faith. Verse 3 states, "Him [Timothy] would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek." So even though the entire previous chapter told of the step forward of the Church to not require the newly baptized to follow the Law of Moses, why does Paul take a step back and have Timothy circumcised? The scripture says "because of the Jews...for they knew all that his father was a Greek." The professors point out that the because it was widely known among the Jews that Timothy was a Greek he was circumcised to make it easier on them to accept him as a member of the Church.

So sometimes, even though times have changed and the Church progresses forward, shedding old traditions, it's important to not expect everyone or force everyone to expect those changes to be immediate. Had he not been circumcised, the Jews would have known, and it could have hampered any success Paul and Silas tried to achieve. I understand the concept, but it still is odd to me. Did the Church not encourage Blacks to hold certain priesthood positions for a while after they were first given the priesthood, to make it easier for the Saints to accept? Or was it an issue that most Saints were ready to accept? I can't think of any other major changes. Does anybody have any comments on this process and maybe more current instances that illustrate the wisdom in this practice of not implementing new practices/doctrine from one day to the other?

The Blessings of Agency

I was asked to give a talk at church on the topic of agency about 5 months ago.  It kept getting pushed back, and yesterday I was finally able to give it.  Some of what I shared actually came from previous posts, but there are some newer thoughts here and I've tied it all together.  It was a bit of a challenge narrowing down 5 months of study into 25 min, but I felt the most prepared that I've ever been for any talk (largely thanks to suggestions from my wife.)
------------

I’d like to start off with one of the earliest places in the scriptures that discusses agency.


God’s plan vs. Satan’s “plan”


Listen carefully to what Satan proposes:

Moses 4:1  AND I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. 2  But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

There weren’t two plans presented in the pre-mortal Council in Heaven, there was one: Heavenly Father’s plan.  He didn’t force us all to follow it, but it’s never good to go against His will.  Let’s say when Pres. Monson was being sustained as the new prophet that another person decided he wanted the job too and lobbied for it at their council?  This would definitely be inappropriate.  God’s will was known and anything else would not work and was wrong.  President John Taylor said:

"From these remarks made by the well beloved Son [referring to the passage in Moses], we should naturally infer that in the discussion of this subject the Father had made known His will and developed His plan and design pertaining to these matters, and all that His well beloved Son wanted to do was to carry out the will of His Father, as it would appear had been before expressed."

If we read further we find out quite a bit about Satan:

Satan seeks to destroy man’s agency

Listen for the 3 reasons that Satan was cast out.

Moses 4:3  Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;  

4  And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

How to destroy Agency

In order to better understand what agency is, it helps to think on how Satan could have destroyed it.  How can agency be destroyed?
President Monson stated in the last general conference,

“We know that we had our agency before this world was and that Lucifer attempted to take it from us.  He had no confidence in the principle of agency or in us and argued for imposed salvation.  He insisted that with his plan none would be lost, but he seemed not to recognize--or perhaps not to care--that in addition, none would be any wiser, any stronger, any more compassionate, or any more grateful if his plan were followed.”

It’s commonly believed that one of the ways Satan would have imposed salvation on us (and destroyed our agency) would be through forcing us to do good.  How this was actually planned to be carried out is unclear, but we could suppose that one way would be to impose immediate consequences for any wrong-doing.  I don’t believe we would have been actually controlled, except by fear of consequences.  This sounds very characteristic of what we know about Satan.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie presented another very interesting possibility in his book The Premortal Messiah.  Listen carefully for another way that Satan could take away or destroy our agency:

"When the Eternal Father announced his plan of salvation...there was a war in heaven. Lucifer sought to dethrone God, ...and to save all men without reference to their works.  He sought to deny men their agency so they could not sin.  He offered a mortal life of carnality and sensuality, of evil and crime and murder following which all men would be saved.  His offer was a philosophical impossibility.  There must needs be an opposition in all things.  Unless there are opposites, there is nothing. 

"Lucifer and his lieutenants preached...a gospel of fear and hate and lasciviousness and compulsion.  They sought salvation without keeping the commandments, without overcoming the world, without choosing between opposites."

This argument makes sense when we read about the importance of opposition, with regards to our agency.

Necessity of Opposition

2 Nephi 2:11  For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.  If not so...righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad.  Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. 

v.13  And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin.  If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness.  And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness.  And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery.  And if these things are not there is no God.  

Let’s pause here and reflect on Satan’s initial demands in the pre-mortal council, “here am I, send me, I will be thy son, … wherefore give me thine honor.”  If we remember the parable of the prodigal son, the youngest son went to his father and asked for his inheritance.  This act, given that the father was not dead or dying, was akin to wishing death upon his father so that he could receive his inheritance early, the father was literally dead to the son.  This is very similar to what Satan wanted.  He wanted more than his inheritance and essentially wanted God to cease to exist.  Let’s finish the verse:

“And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.”

So if Satan’s plan were to have no law or any consequences, I imagine it would have sounded rather appealing that there would be no punishment.  That seems to be what he tries to do now, to “lull [us] away into carnal security”, to “tell [us] there is no hell” and no devil and no consequences to our actions, no law. (2 Nephi 28:20-23)  

Right and Responsibility of Choice

Satan was cast out of Heaven, and Heavenly Father’s plan was carried out.  Because of agency, we were allowed to come to earth.  Pres. Monson said in the last General Conference,

“With the right of choice comes the responsibility to choose.  We cannot be neutral; there is no middle ground.  ...  As long as we live upon this earth, Lucifer and his hosts will never abandon the hope of claiming our souls.”

Even in the garden of Eden, Lucifer knew that by giving the fruit to Eve that he was furthering God’s plan (whereas commonly it is believed that he was not aware that he was assisting God), but giving Eve the fruit was the only way that he could get to God’s other children, for “Adam fell that men might be.”  The only way Satan could inflict misery and lead astray mankind would be if they were to come to earth in a fallen state.

“Satan cannot seduce us unless we consent”

Now, let’s move on to something that has a little more hope in it, something a bit less dreary.  With this knowledge of Satan’s power, it helps to know that we have complete power over the devil.

“Satan cannot seduce us by his enticements unless we in our hearts consent and yield. Our organization is such that we can resist the devil; if we were not organized so, we would not be free agents. 

“The devil has no power over us only as we permit him; the moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power.” Teachings of the Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith (TPC-JS), p.213

The moment we decide to stop attending church, the day we don’t read our scriptures or say our prayers, or stop striving to keep the Holy Spirit in our lives, temptation has a stronger hold on us, we are weaker, and Satan can have power over us.
Pres. Monson explained, 

“No temptation, no pressure, no enticing can overcome us unless we allow such.  If we make the wrong choice, we have no one to blame but ourselves.  President Brigham Young once expressed this truth by relating it to himself.  Said he: ‘If Brother Brigham shall take a wrong track, and be shut out of the Kingdom of heaven, no person will be to blame but Brother Brigham. I am the only being in heaven, earth, or hell, that can be blamed.’  He continued: ‘This will equally apply to every Latter-day Saint.  Salvation is an individual operation.”

Paul taught the Corinthians,

“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” 1 Cor. 10:13

C.S. Lewis gives a very nice explanation in his book Mere Christianity of what it means to withstand temptation.

“A silly idea is current that good people do not know what  temptation means. This is an  obvious lie. Only those  who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. ... You find out the  strength of a wind by trying to walk against it,  not by lying down. A man  who  gives in to temptation after five minutes simply  does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people,  in one sense, know very little about badness. They have  lived a sheltered life by  always  giving in.  We never find out the strength of  the evil  impulse inside us until we  try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the  full what temptation means-the only complete realist.”

…The only one who can fully help us withstand temptation.


Eliza R. Snow recorded: 

“[Joseph Smith] said he did not care how fast we run in the path of virtue. Resist evil, and there is no danger; God, men, and angels will not condemn those that resist everything that is evil, and devils cannot; as well might the devil seek to dethrone Jehovah, as overthrow an innocent soul that resists everything which is evil.” TPC-JS, p.214 

Obedience is highest expression of Freedom

Before I go on, I’d like to pose a question, what is the opposite of bondage?
The article on Agency in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that “Obedience expands agency, and the alternative to obedience is bondage” not fun or freedom, BONDAGE.  
The article continues, 

“Thus, in the LDS concept of agency, obedience and agency are not antithetical. On the one hand, Church leaders consistently stand against all coercion of conscience ("We are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive anyone of exercising…free independence of mind" [TPJS, p. 49]) and counsel Church members to depend first of all on themselves for decisions about the application of gospel principles. On the other hand, obedience-willing and energetic submission to the will of God even at personal sacrifice-is a central gospel tenet. Far from contradicting freedom, obedience is its highest expression.” (Emphasis added.)

According to this quote, obedience and captivity are opposites; this seems odd, since both are basically the submission of our will to another being (one Christ and the other Satan).  However, Lehi supports this idea by confirming that captivity or bondage is the opposite of obedience.  In 2 Nephi 2:27, it's rather clear that we have two choices:

1. "Liberty and eternal life, through [Jesus Christ]" - in other words, obedience to the laws and ordinances of Christ's gospel-, or
2. "captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil"

My wife made the connection of this concept (the dichotomy of obedience and bondage) and the numerous times in the scriptures that various people(s) are exhorted to remember the captivity of their fathers. For instance, I was reading in Mosiah 27 a little while back and there an angel stops the sons of Mosiah and Alma the Younger from pursuing their destruction of the Church. He tells them in v.16,

“Go, and remember the captivity of thy fathers in the land of Helam, and in the land of Nephi; and remember how great things he has done for them; for they were in bondage, and he has delivered them. And now I say unto thee, Alma, go thy way, and seek to destroy the church no more…”

The charge to “remember the captivity of [their] fathers” was a reminder to Alma that freedom comes to those who choose to be delivered through Jesus Christ.


Remembering both the physical and spiritual captivity of our fathers should allow us to better comprehend our agency.  We should be aware of the incapacity (lack of freedom) that existed while our fathers were in bondage, and that only through obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ are we free to become like our Redeemer is.  There is no such thing as "free to do whatever I want to do, with no restrictions or consequences"; even though today that is what is given as the most common definition of freedom.  Obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ is the highest expression of our personal freedom.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:26-28

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. 

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; 

28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

Ignorance is not bliss

I’ve wondered what would happen if I chose not to know more.  What if I was happy complying with the commandments and covenants I’m currently keeping, but don’t really want to study or learn more so that I don’t have to be expected to do more.  What if I choose to be ignorant so that life can be easier?  Is that possible?  I found my answer in Alma 12:10-11,

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. 

11 And they that will harden their hearts [or choose ignorance], to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

We see again here, that there is no way to remain complacent with where we are.  If we are not actively studying and learning and obeying the principles and commandments we are trusted with and gain knowledge to, what we have will be taken away and we will be captives of the devil.  Agency consists of either obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ or being captives of the devil.

Studying the Bible

I received a new study bible for my birthday, and while this may seem weird to some, I am loving it. My scripture study has been rejuvenated and I'm discovering lots of connections that I otherwise wouldn't. Here's a few of the interesting tidbits, so far.

Moses is a type [1] for Christ:

• Matthew 1:1 - "generation". The Greek word here is "genesis," translated elsewhere as "origin."
  
• Matthew 2:15 - "Out of Egypt I have called my son." is a quote from Hosea 11:1. In Hosea, "son" refers to Israel. This quotation recalls Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt.
• Matthew 2: 16-18 footnote - "The massacre echoes Pharaoh's ruling at the birth of Moses."
• Matthew 4:2 - Moses also fasted for 40 days/nights, when he communed with the Lord and wrote the 10 commandments (Exodus 34:28).
  

Elijah is a type for Christ:

• Matthew 3:1 - "wilderness of Judea" is associated with Elijah stories
• Matthew 4:2 - Elijah did not eat for 40 days after being fed by an angel (1 Kings 19:8)
• Matthew 4:11 - what the KJV renders as "ministered to" is translated in the NRSV as "waited on," reminiscent of Elijah's being fed by an angel

Allusions to Jacob

• John 1:47 - Jesus says of Nathanael "Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!" Now, I have to admit, I've read this a dozen times without ever thinking about why Jesus said this, or why John felt to record it. To the best of my knowledge, there is no anecdote of Nathanael elsewhere in the New Testament where his lack of guile becomes significant. One could argue that it is simply to prompt Nathanael's next question, but I also like this thought: "Israel was the name given to Jacob, who had been deceitful (Gen. 27:34-36)." Or as the Scripture Scouts sing "Jacob, Jacob do come quick. We will play a little trick." However, this allusion would be glancing without the next one.
  
• John 1:51 - "you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." Again, as far as I know, Nathanael witnesses no such thing. But Jacob did (Gen. 28:12). [2]
  

Thus we see that Matthew and John framed their testimonies of Jesus in the context of the scriptures they had at the time.
_________________________

[1] Defined here as "a symbol of something in the future, as an Old Testament event serving as a prefiguration of a new testament event."
[2] I always regarded the dream of Jacob's ladder as of little significance. Hopefully, due to scripture scouts, my kids won't make the same mistake. They sing, "Jacob had a ladder, so high! Jacob had a ladder, oh my! Jacob had a ladder, that's true. But you and I have ladders, too."

Psalms? Really?!?

I've never been a big fan of psalms. The lyrics I've read there have never really spoken to me, so as a general rule I study our hymns--which I love--instead of the book of Psalms. However, this month, I found a psalm that touched me. And it did it in a major way. So while this is a little personal, I post it here because even now two weeks after I first wrote this, I feel immersed in peace when I read back over these words.

"Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee" (Ps. 55:22).

Cast. Defintions (from New Oxford American Dictionary):

1. "throw (something) forcefully in a specified direction." I like the term "forcefully." It's not enough to simply set my burden down. Nor is it something that should be placed gently on a shelf, easily within reach should I want it again.
   
2. "discard." I like this definition because it implies that which is being cast is worthless, or at least that its value less than the effort of hauling it with me constantly. Thus, when I discard it, I will be happier.
   
3. "shed (skin or horns) in the process of growth : the antlers are cast each year." While all of these definitions are accurate, this last one is the most revelatory. I am in a "process of growth." I repent to become, not to restore. Thus, by shedding my burden I am becoming a new man in Christ.
   

thy burden. I find it interesting that this is singular. To me, this is significant for either of two reasons. First, I can only focus on one issue at a time. While I am a complex, 4D character, my attention can only handle one item at a time. Hence, when I am tempted, I have to consciously redirect my focus to my Savior. Focusing on the temptation/burden, or even focusing on avoiding the temptation, is just that, a focus on the temptation. Rather, by focusing on my Savior, he occupies the whole of my thoughts. To be sure, Satan tries to distract me, even in midst of my scripture study, but if I refuse to be distracted, there is little that he can do. This also highlights why writing is an effective and necessary part of my scripture study: it automatically forces me to focus, to process my thoughts in a linear format.

Second, the Lord doesn't want to accept little bits of me, one at a time. He wants all of me. And He is willing to and capable of taking all of my negative qualities at once; that is, he can accept me and love me now, as seriously flawed as I am. Then, together, we can address and remove all of my rough edges.

upon the Lord. Not to the Lord. This burden is big. It makes me stoop to carry it. It deforms my walk and will cripple my body. My burden made "even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit" (D&C 19:18). But because He already suffered it, He can take it from me. He can heal me, and I don't have to worry about the hurt it will cause Him.

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28).

thy burden vs. ye that labour and are heavy laden. Burdened and heavy laden are roughly equivalent, but the Matthew scripture has the additional qualification of "ye that labour." And I don't think this verse just refers the work of carrying my burden. The Lord wants me to be accomplishing something. And it's in the process of achieving a separate goal that I become aware of my own limitations. The injunction to labor, then, is a catalyst to self-awareness.

he shall sustain thee vs. I will give you rest. These appear to be two separate promises. Does someone at rest need to be sustained? In the following Matthew verses, the Lord continues by saying "Take my yoke upon you...and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." The rest He promises me isn't a removal of all burdens, which is how I would define a rest, but a trading of my burden for His. He is concerned for the salvation of all people around me. I am concerned with a much smaller circle - mostly me, but also my family and to a lesser degree extended family and friends. And yet, in connection with taking His yoke, the Lord renews the promise of rest. But this rest is for my soul. My soul. My soul. When I become concerned for others, I won't worry about myself so much and I will be at peace.

So He's offering me a deal. I can take the time and energy and worry I devote to my burden and instead devote that same time and energy and worry to Him. And in this process, He promises me that the guilt I feel now will be replaced with peace.