WHAT DO YOU THINK OF DONALD TRUMP NOW?

 Well, Kevin McCarthy, Lindsey Graham, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Mike Lee, and scores more of blind followers of the blind, what do you think of your boy now?

Donald Trump on Truth Social: “Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

Holy smoke!

More than two years ago I told my wife, Donald Trump is a despot, a wannbe dictator, and I believe they will have to throw him out of the White House when he loses the election. It came mighty close to that and the more we learn it may have been even closer than we first thought.

He still believes he is the president. He goes by that title and has the presidential seal both on Truth Social.  

Today, he revealed exactly what I felt about him even before his election, during the end of his term, and even more since January 6. I’m crowing just a tad, because today vindicates every negative thought and feeling I have ever had about the man, though largely unspoken to anyone but my wife. 

However, today I’m happy! The leopard has at last shown his true spots–and one can only imagine how the above list, many other die-hard supporters, and my fellow Republicans are scrambling–some for the exits and others who will try to put a spin on it. What spin can they possibly put on it?  Only, that the man is a lunatic, completely out of touch with reality. He has sealed his fate as the Republican nominee as President in 2024, and to that I shout Hallelujah!!!  He is the true RINO!

Lets think together again, soon.

“Watch Ye and Pray, Lest Ye Enter Into Temptation”: A Neglected Form of Prayer©

In trying to improve my personal prayer life, I’ve been studying the teachings of Jesus about prayer in the New Testament. It has been very rewarding, enlightening, edifying, motivating, and at times troubling. This morning’s session was one of the latter. I’ve been working on the passage in Mark 14:36-39 about the Savior’s prayer in Gethsemane. Parallel versions are in Matthew 26:36-46 and Luke 22:39-46.  

Jesus has the disciples who are with him sit while he goes to pray. In Mark 13:34 he tells them to “tarry ye here, and watch.” In his prayer, he asks the Father if this “hour” might pass from him.  Inverse 39 of Matthew 26 he prays that “this cup may pass from me.” It seems evident that he is asking if he may be relieved from the suffering he is experiencing in Gethsemane. Yet, he tells his Father, “Nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.”(Mk. 14:36) He returned to find the disciples sleeping and gives this instruction in verse 38:“Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” A similar injunction is in Mt. 26:41, but it is not in the Luke account. However, in Luke 21:36 there is something similar: “Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.” It is the “watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation” that upon closer examination has come to trouble me a bit.

The same Greek word is translated watch in Mark and Matthew, and it basically means to “keep guard,” or be “vigilant” or to “watch,” according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. There are other Greek words translated watch in the New Testament and it is used 29 times there.  Interestingly, another Greek word that is translated watch is accompanied by the injunction to be sober. (See 2 Tim. 4:5; and especially1 Peter 4:7.) This is because the Greek word means to abstain from wine or avoid intoxication.

A watch can refer to a sentry or a group of guards, who are on guard or watch at a military instillation, or in a community at night. In both Jewish and Roman culture the nights were divided up into watches, when a watch was on guard for a certain period of time during the night. So the question arises what are we to understand by the phrase be on guard, vigilant, and watchful and prayerful so that you will not enter into temptation? 

Some commentaries are helpful here, but I was particularly struck by several who note that the idea of the watch is often associated with the military and it is worthwhile to consider the implications of this “military figure.”  W. H. Aitken said no soldier likes watch duty. They prefer the excitement and danger of the battlefield to the “long weeks of patient vigilance” required of watch duty.  Another point he makes is that the military analogy is about war, and “it is just so in the spiritual war” we are engaged in. He goes on to say that the guards have to be vigilant against the double dangers of the night and of intoxication.

But intoxication is not my worry or the point of this blog. The point is that to watch implies that we are to expect the approach of an enemy. That includes an examination of possible points of attack. That is what you prepare for, and where you prepare. Aitken continues: 

We need to remember that we are in an enemy's land, and that unless we are constantly breathing the atmosphere of heaven, the atmosphere of earth, which is all that we have left, soon becomes poisonous, and must produce a sort of moral intoxication.(1) 

The famous early American preacher, Henry Ward Beecher agrees with Aitken:

It is here taken for granted that we are making a [military] campaign through life. The assumption all the way through is, that we are upon an enemy's ground, and that we are surrounded, or liable to be surrounded, with adversaries who will rush in upon us, and take us captive at unawares. We are commanded, therefore, to do as soldiers do, whether in fort or in camp — to be always vigilant, always prepared.”(2)

In 2018, President Dallin H. Oaks taught:

Opposition is part of the plan, and Satan’s most strenuous opposition is directed at whatever is most important to God’s plan. He seeks to destroy God’s work. His prime methods are to discredit the Savior and His divine authority, to erase the effects of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to discourage repentance, to counterfeit revelation, and to contradict individual accountability. He also seeks to confuse gender, to distort marriage, and to discourage childbearing—especially by parents who will raise children in truth.(3)

Vigilance and watchfulness requires that we must make a thorough assessment of our present situation in life and of our weaknesses–the places we are vulnerable to attack from the Adversary. This is where the discomfort begins for me. I have tried to be vigilant about many things through my life, but I honestly have to admit there have been very few times when I have seriously sat down and conducted an introspective review of my weaknesses and then prayed for guidance to set in place a plan to deal with them and for the strength to follow the plan through to completion. Beecher said, 

Watchfulness requires that a man should be honest, and should know where he is, and where his danger is. Let others set their watch where they need it, and you set yours where you need it. Each man's watchfulness should be according to his temperament and constitution.”(4)

He added another helpful reminder:

Your excess of disposition, your strength of passion, and your temptableness are not the same as your neighbour's. Therefore it is quite foolish for you to watch as your neighbour watches. Every man must set his watch according to his own disposition, and know his own disposition better than anybody else knows it.(5)

My resolve is to be awake, alert, and vigilant, and to make such an assessment and consult God to give me the vision to see the dangers, to honestly see my most serious weaknesses, and in creating a strategy to deal with those that he wants me to bolster and fix now. Consider joining me in this endeavor to step to a higher and holier way.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Endnotes:

1.  W. H. Aitken, “Watchfulness,” in Biblical Illustrator, at Mark 14:38.  Biblical Illustrator is a multi-volume compilation of “illustrations” which are generally helpful quotations which  illuminate a particular Biblical passage. All citations from this source are available online at Biblehub.com, at Mark 14:38.  It is located in the list of commentaries under the acronym BI.

2.  Henry Ward Beecher, “Watching–A Military Figure,” in Biblical Illustrator, at Mark 14:38.

3.  Dallin H. Oaks, “Truth and the Plan,” Ensign (November 2018): 27.

4.  Beecher, “Advantage In Knowing One’s Weak Point,” in Biblical Illustrator, at Mark 14:38.

5.  Beecher, “Each to Guard Against His Temptations,” in Biblical Illustrator, at Mark 14:38.

Bigotry and Prejudice Against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint Is Alive and Well in American Society and Its Colleges and Universities©

This will be brief, but I must speak out. Twice in the last year the supporters of teams in the PAC- 12 have given over to chanting the bigoted obscenity “F _ _ _  the Mormons” during football games against BYU. The history of persecution of the Latter-day Saints goes clear back to the beginnings of the Church in the early Nineteenth Century.  We have had two centuries to decide how to respond–mostly non-response, or taking it like a joke as with the play “The Book of Mormon.” These days we are often praised for our restraint. But the few articles I’ve read about these incidents, most of which call for an apology and even stricter measures, have all missed hitting directly a couple of important points to which I wish to call attention.

First, lets call a spade a spade. This is religious bigotry pure and simple. The academy prides itself upon leading the way through instruction and example of inclusion, diversity, and tolerance–except apparently for the Latter-day Saints. We seem to be one of the few groups in the U.S. against whom it is acceptable to publicly express religious prejudice and bigotry. It is not racism because we are not a race; it is not sexism either, though for certain reasons it may involve a near relative,(1) but it is religious prejudice and bigotry pure and simple. Freedom of expression sure, even blatantly offensive free expression for sure–all protected by our Constitution. I’m not calling for restrictions on such free expression–I am asking that we be clear about the nature of that expression. It is not reasoned debate or difference of opinion only. It is one of the most virulent types of free expression–castigating a minority group for its religious beliefs. It is expressed by the religiously prejudiced and bigoted in chants at a public sports event–where it nearly takes on a mob mentality.

Second, again lets call a spade a spade. This is a clear double standard in the academy and in our larger society. Imagine the outcry if this was shouted at the Catholics of Notre Dame, the Methodists of SMU, or Baylor Baptists. Doubtless it would be branded in the strongest terms as anti-Semitic if it was aimed at  “the Jews,” of Yeshiva University in New York.  (Do they even have a football team?  Probably not.)  It is difficult to imagine the outcry that would result if a PAC-12 crowd chanted this epithet at blacks, or gays, lesbians, bisexuals, queers, and transvestites. Such talk would not only be soundly and repeatedly condemned,  but very likely there would be calls for resignations and sanctions, maybe even reparations, and surely reformations of all types. Certainly such religious prejudice and bigotry should also be roundly condemned when aimed at the Latter-day Saints. I denounce this double standard and the religious bigotry it condones.

A significant segment of American society, including some of its colleges and universities, quietly harbor deep prejudice, bigotry and double standards toward The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It is a minority that is often considered a societal pariah in private speech and discussions. So it shouldn’t surprise us when it sometimes surfaces publicly in the classrooms and at sports events. If tolerated and not resisted, it will only grow and eventually turn really ugly.  It always does.

Let’s think together again, soon. 

Notes:

1.  An approach in this direction was made by Elder Russell M. Nelson as quoted by Neil L. Andersen: "President Russell M. Nelson has said: “There are those who label us [as] bigots, but the bigots are those who don’t allow us to feel as we feel but want us to allow them to feel as they feel. Our stand ultimately boils down to the law of chastity. The Ten Commandments are still valid. They’ve never been revoked. … It is not our prerogative to change laws that God has decreed” (in Dew, Insights from a Prophet’s Life, 212)

Neil L. Andersen, “The Eye of Faith,” Ensign (May 2019): 37, n. 17.

Evidence Sixty-Eight: “Joseph Smith and One More Look at the Baptismal Covenant in Mosiah 18:8-10”©

 101 Reasons why I Believe Joseph Smith Was a Prophet of God

Evidence Sixty-eight

Joseph Smith and One More Look at the Baptismal Covenant in Mosiah 18:8-10©

It interests me how reading one thing on one subject often stimulates thinking about another aspect of the same subject according to one’s interests and projects. It happened to me again today.  The subject is the baptismal covenant as it is given to us from Alma in Mosiah 18.  The text reads:

8)  And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another's burdens, that they may be light;  9)  Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—10) Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

A covenant is typically defined as a mutual promise between two people. Indeed, Joseph Smith said, “it requires two parties to make a covenant, and those two parties must be agreed, or no covenant can be made.”(1) When Latter-day Saints speak of covenants with God, the traditional view is that it is a mutually agreed upon “two-way” promise between God and man.” Several brethren have taught that the stipulations of the covenant are determined by God and we exercise our agency to agree to those stipulations.

What interests me about this version of the baptismal covenant is that it goes beyond this traditional view of a covenant. Most covenants are “bilateral,” that is, they are between an individual and God.  However, my reading early this morning suggested that this iteration expands the covenant beyond the commitments between God and man, to impose obligations on those accepting God’s stipulations, to the wider covenant community. That is to say the individual member takes on the obligation to “bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light ... and ...mourn with those that mourn ... and comfort those that stand in need of comfort.”(2)

The distinction between a simple bilateral covenant and this more complex community compact is stunning when you think about it.(3) First of all, there is neither a clearly delineated bilateral or community compact version of the baptismal covenant in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is baptism designated as a covenant! It is considered so by some by inference only. This is interesting because in Nephi’s great visions early in the Book of Mormon he sees the Bible come forth in the Americas and it is missing some important “plain and precious things” which have been “taken away” from it. One specific he mentions is that “many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.”(4) But, back to my point. I suggest this community compact is not only more complex than the traditional bilateral covenant, but it is also more sophisticated, indeed more expansive and elevated in terms of the obligations it imposes on the recipient and the impact it is intended to have on the covenant community. God does not just want us to be a witness of him, serve him, and keep his commandments; he also obligates us to care for the community of Saints.

It is evident that Joseph Smith understood well the importance of the communal nature of this covenant.  Two years later he told the Church,

On the 27th [April 1832] ... It was my endeavor to so organize the Church, that the brethren might eventually be independent of every incumbrance beneath the celestial kingdom, by bond and covenants of mutual friendship, and mutual love.(5)

Seven years later he contrasted two types of principles which maintain human relations. First, he spoke of the gospel principle of love and contrasted it with the principles of government which maintain relationships by law and eventually coercion, when necessary:

There is a love from God that should be exercised toward those of our faith, who walk uprightly, which is peculiar to itself, but it is without prejudice; it also gives scope to the mind, which enables us to conduct ourselves with greater liberality towards all that are not of our faith, than what they exercise towards one another. These principles approximate nearer to the mind of God, because it is like God, or Godlike. 

Here is a principle also, which we are bound to be exercised with, that is, in common with all men, such as governments, and laws, and regulations in the civil concerns of life. This principle guarantees to all parties, sects, and denominations, and classes of religion, equal, coherent, and indefeasible rights; they are things that pertain to this life; therefore all are alike interested; they make our responsibilities one towards another in matters of corruptible things, while the former principles do not destroy the latter, but bind us stronger, and make our responsibilities not only one to another, but unto God also.(6)

Where is any of this to be found in the experience and environment of a New England and New York farm boy whom many accuse of only being interested at this time of his life in “money digging,” that is, searching for treasure with his psuedo-spiritual gift of seership? He was twenty-four years old when the Book of Mormon came off the press in March 1830. If he were making up this book to palm off on an unsuspecting world, what in that world would have impelled him to concoct Alma’s baptismal covenant?  What would be his motive? It is righteous and good, and noble, and elevated.  Where did a twenty-four-year-old of his time get this?(7) If it was genuinely in his heart as it is in Alma’s, that certainly contradicts the generally held anti-Mormon notion that he was a ne’er-do-well black heart, a corrupt fraud and deceiver.

And there is more. Noel Reynolds a retired BYU professor, in a recent article, shows how this passage, as are many others in the Book of Mormon, is expressive of the Biblical concept of hesed.  Hesed is a Hebrew term regarding God and his interaction with his children, the meaning of which is so broad that it is difficult to find an adequate synonym, or even a collection of synonyms to express it. Indeed, according to Reynolds, it calls “to mind the entire complex of moral qualities associated with God and his righteous people in covenant Israel.”(8) Regarding Alma’s statement in Mosiah 18 and the Biblical concept of hesed, Reynolds wrote:

[W]e do see the divinely sanctioned covenant structuring a community that expects each to help others as their means and abilities would allow, including the redemption of captives–in this case, the redemption of fallen people from the captivity of the devil....  In every respect, Alma’s description of the moral implications of the covenant reflects the classical Old Testament notion of hesed that was expected of Israelites under the covenant of Abraham....(9)

So, Reynolds adds one more example of The Book of Mormon as truly one “marvelous work and a wonder,” among many that continue to accompany the Restoration of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But, even without Reynolds’s persuasive arguments about hesed in the Book of Mormon, Alma’s description of the baptismal covenant stands as a witness of the complex, elevated and deeply spiritual nature of the book in which it is found. Reason compels us to ask if young Joseph Smith was capable of imagining, let alone articulating such a covenant; one that is entirely consistent with both ancient covenants and concepts. In my opinion, the likelihood that he knew of these things in his farmland homes of the northeast approaches zero.

Thank God for Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, and faithful scholars.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  Joseph Smith, in B. H. Roberts, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 Vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1963, 1:313, hereafter cited HC.

2.  Mosiah 8:8-10. There are more stipulations that fit the traditional mold of a bilateral covenant between the individual and God, where one promises to “stand as a witness of God at all times and in all things, and in all places, and to “serve him and keep his commandments.”  

3.  This distinction was encountered in today’s early morning reading in Noel B. Reynolds, “Biblical hesed and Nephite Covenant Culture,”  BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no 4 (2021):167-69.

4.  1 Nephi 13:26.  Equally interesting is the motive attributed to those who took those things out of the Bible.  “And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.” (1 Ne. 13:27.)

5.  Joseph Smith, HC 1:269, emphasis added.

6.  Joseph Smith, HC 3:304, March 1839, emphasis added.

7.  And this is only one of many such like things, not only in the Book of Mormon, but also in the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.  It brings to mind D&C 67:9 where the Lord is taking on critics of Joseph Smith’s revelations and asserts “For ye know that there is no unrighteousness in them, and that which is righteous cometh down from above, from the Father of lights.”

8.  Reynolds, “Biblical hesed,” 152.

9.  Reynolds, “Biblical hesed,”168-69.

Evidence Sixty-Seven: “Hold on Thy Way:" A New Look at Enduring to the End from the Life of the Prophet”©

 101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was a Prophet of God

Evidence Sixty-seven:

“Hold on Thy Way:" A New Look at Enduring to the End from the Life of the Prophet”© 

As so frequently happens when we are faithful in attending Church, this morning I was blessed with a great doctrinal and historical insight, one that has great meaning to me personally. We “attended” via Zoom. It is the day after Christmas and the program was comprised of Christmas musical numbers, a youth speaker, and an adult speaker–sister Sue Salmon. Her assigned topic was “the doctrine of Christ.” She read from 3 Nephi about the fundamental principles that make up the doctrine of Christ and then expounded on each one briefly.

When she came to “endure to the end” she taught me something very important. She said she long wondered what that meant and went on to give an idea from the life of Joseph Smith. He endured so very much during his life. He endured persecution, rejection, misunderstanding, betrayal, loss of close friends and family, financial problems, being driven from his home, death of children, and much more. And, in what at the time seemed to be the culmination of his problems, in 1839 he was languishing in Liberty Jail, a cold, damp, dreary dungeon in Missouri. He cried out to the Lord. As part of the answer given to him then, sister Salmon quoted something we often quote in these kinds of discussions, but it is something I think contains a message that is often overlooked.  D&C 122:9  begins: “Therefore, hold on thy way....” “Hold on thy way?” Continue what you have been doing!

Joseph was instructed to persevere through the Liberty Jail experience like he did through all of his previous difficulties. Apparently, this wasn’t the end, either of his life or his trials. Apparently, there was still more for him to do and he was not to be distracted or derailed by the intensity of what he was then experiencing. He was to “hold on thy way.”

Then Sue said something, that brought it all into focus for me–this is the doctrinal and historical lesson that I learned from her that instantly became a treasure to me. She pointed out that between his 1839 Liberty Jail experience and his Martyrdom in June 1844, Joseph Smith received and gave to the Church some of his most important doctrinal revelations, particularly relating to the temple and its ordinances. When I say things came into focus for me when she said that, I mean really, really sharp focus. I have spent much of the last fifteen years of my life studying the temple, its doctrines, rituals, and ordinances. They are most precious and important to me. Sister Salmon’s almost casual insight rocked me in my chair. I now have a clearer and fuller understanding of “enduring to the end.” “Hold on thy way” because the last may be the best if you do.  

In this sense Joseph Smith was like Nephi and other Book of Mormon prophets. He perhaps didn’t see clearly why the Lord wanted him to hold on and “hold on thy way” while he suffered in Liberty Jail; just like Nephi and Mormon did not understand why they were to make the plates and the records they were commanded to. With 100% hindsight, we now know that the Lord was doing it for other people at another time–the future–for you and me. In the midst of the loneliness and sense of abandonment Joseph doubtless felt in jail, I doubt he understood that the next 4-5 years would be the doctrinal culmination–the theological apogee of his prophetic career. He must endure Liberty Jail, because on the other side the true meaning of the “fulness of the Gospel” became evident.

And the personal application of all this to me? Well, I am 78 ½ years old, and because of two back operations and related matters I am physically useless as a minister, friend, or family member. Yet I am reasonably healthy and happy and as interested and motivated about my life-long interest in studying the Church and gospel as I have ever been. I have built over 22,000 files on many aspects of the gospel and yet I find myself adding new ones almost daily. On Christmas I added three, and this subject is the first for today. Because of my physical limitations, I’ve prayed for guidance about what the Lord would have me do with my time. Without really recognizing it, the consistent answer seems to be, “Hold on thy way.” Keep doing what you have done for 50 years. And... oh, by the way, I believe the last is the best. The technology and resources now available, the things I’m doing and the materials I’m collecting, organizing, and preserving are among the best of my whole life! Now, my prayer, like those of the Book of Mormon, is that they may be of great value to someone in my family and in the Church.

I am so grateful for this Church, for its organization and teachings, for Sacrament meeting, for the inspiration and insights of the good basic Latter-day Saints who speak in them, and for the life and teachings of Joseph Smith. This is one more evidence to me, he was and remains a prophet of the living God.

Lets think together again, soon.

Eternal Marriage and Procreation Are Under Divine Direction©

  “Personal and Family Application of the Teachings and Counsel of Living Prophets”

Quotation 2: Eternal Marriage and Procreation Are Under Divine Direction© 

It is no surprise that the world has many opinions about marriage, its origin, purpose and value, and about sex, procreation and the family. What does surprise me is that so many of the younger generation of Latter-day Saints seem to share many of those worldly opinions. Individual freedom from family responsibility surfeits modern culture. My sense is that these trendings have also greatly influenced the most recent generation of Latter-day Saint youth. Their lack of understanding about the LDS doctrine of marriage demonstrates itself in the freedom with which many LDS youth take issue with the Church and its leaders on LGBTQ matters, as if the Church should have one standard for LGBTQ folks engaging in all sorts of sexual practices, and another one for straights who engage in petting, fornication, or adultery. There is no such double standard in the law of chastity as taught by the LDS Church. But, this is not an essay on sexual preference per se. That is only an illustration of the ignorance and the arrogance of the elevated value of personal opinion I see even among some LDS youth about the LDS doctrines of marriage and family. This essay intends to address a single aspect of this subject.

In doing research on those subjects when I was an active sealer in the Logan Temple I came across a wonderful, and wonderfully profound quotation by Charles W. Penrose. He was a counselor in the Church’s First Presidency during the years 1911-1925. He was a native of England and called as an apostle 7 July 1904. The quotation comes from the period prior to his apostleship, but its precision, eloquence, and profundity may give some indication why the Lord thought so highly of him.  In 1881 he wrote:

In its correct form [marriage] is under the divine direction. The Father of the race has the right to a voice in the sexual unions of his children. Those relations are fraught with so much consequence, relating to time and eternity, that the Supreme Ruler should regulate them for the benefit of the parties, the welfare of society and the good of posterity in this world, as well as for eternal results in the life to come.(1)

This is a tightly worded statement, requiring us to unpack it. At least four things are of note in this passage. First, the correct form of marriage [presumably this means temple marriages] are under God’s direction. This is because, as D&C 49:15 says, “marriage is ordained of God unto man.”  There are only two possibilities for the origin of marriage. Either God established it, or it is a man-made institution which evolved with civilization. Since God ordained it, it is “under his direction.”  Elder Penrose thus asserts God’s right and authority to direct marriage, like all other saving ordinances, that is, to give laws and set conditions and boundaries pertaining to both marriage and procreation. 

Second, as part of his direction, God has the right to “a voice” in the sexual unions of his children. This statement likely surprises many. The mantra today is, “It is my body, I will do what I want with it.” Many, perhaps most people, including many Christians, are not aware that the Apostle Paul taught otherwise. Here is what he said in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20.

18) Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.19) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20) For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

When you think about it, it must be this way. Otherwise how can God hold us accountable in the judgment for various sexual transgressions with the body? But brother Penrose suggest other reasons we should seriously consider. 

His third point is that those sexual unions are “fraught with so much consequence, relating to time and eternity,” that God regulates them. What consequences relating to time and eternity? For one, we are back to the judgment. Most in secular society and a large number of Christians, have abandoned the notion that God means what he said on Sinai–“thou shalt not commit adultery,” or that there will be any consequence for doing so. Christ raised the ante when he declared that if one engages in lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart. (Mt. 6:28)  And Elder Jeffrey R. Holland reminds us that,

Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.

Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?(2)

So much for eternal consequences. We turn to contemplation of the consequences relating to time of which brother Penrose spoke. It isn’t difficult, just look around. See tens and hundreds of thousands of moral-less men (the sterile academic term is amoral) scattering their sperm around like a gardener fertilizing roses, with equally as many willing moral-less receptive women. See the deadbeat fathers leaving the hapless women to suffer the consequences alone, with apparently none to themselves. See about a million of these women a year in the United States alone since Roe v. Wade (1973), eliminate the conception as if it was so much flotsam.  See the hardness of heart, insensitivity to the sacredness of life, and total lack of responsibility to man or mankind evident in these two patterns of behavior and consider the consequences in time. This is but one of a myriad of scenarios playing out in the era of  modern sexual freedom.(3)

Finally, as with all aspects of the Gospel, brother Penrose says God regulates the sexual unions of his children for the benefit of three entities: 1) “the parties,” i.e., the couple, 2) the “welfare of society,” 3) “the good of posterity in this world,” and 4) for “the eternal results in the life to come.”  

What practical benefits does adherence to the laws of chastity and eternal marriage bring to the couple?  Modern apostles and prophets speak of many. Church leaders have consistently taught that marriage is necessary for the growth, refinement, and perfection of men and women.(4) Elder Bednar explained, “The natures of male and female spirits complete and perfect each other and therefore men and women are intended to progress together toward exaltation.”(5) Elder Glenn Pace wrote, “There is a spiritual development that can only be obtained when a man and a woman join their incomplete selves into a complete couple. Just as conception requires the physical union of male and female, perfection requires the union of the very souls of male and female.”(6)  Elder Bruce Hafen said, “Marriage and family life are among God’s chief institutions for perfecting us....”(7) Elder Packer taught, “No relationship has more potential to exalt a man and a woman than the marriage covenant.”(8) President Nelson observed, “Marriage should ever be a covenant to lift husbands and wives to exaltation in celestial glory.”(9) In addition, the prophets and apostles teach that eternal marriage and families are  relationships out of which can grow here and in the eternities the greatest love, joy, peace, serenity and happiness known to man.(10) These are just a few of many statements on many aspects of this subject which could be cited.

How do the laws of chastity and eternal marriage benefit the “welfare of society.” Elimination of a million abortions a year in this country isn’t a bad start. Elimination of a million Lady Macbeth’s with indelible blood incarnadine on their hands could introduce a new element of respect for life, and compassion, responsibility and family strength that would inevitably redound to strengthen our society. Elimination of hundreds of thousands of expectant mothers that do not want to be, would lift legions of women each year. Hundreds of thousands of men respecting the chastity of women, providing for the children they sire–who can count those benefits to the welfare of society? If you want a good society it isn’t created by governmental legislation, it is created by honorable, honest, moral men and women, one at a time. Idealistic you say. Consider the havoc perpetually wrecked upon society in the absence of such ideals! 

Brother Penrose also calls our attention to the benefits of adhering to God’s guidance in matters of marriage and procreation to the “good of posterity in this world.” Now, things incessantly spiral ever downward, perpetuating secular immorality, crime, poverty, ignorance, and a host of societal ills. What benefits would come to millions of children if they were raised in a two-parent home, with a responsible father? We would eliminate millions of children who are often reared by a poor and uneducated single mother, who but for exceptional circumstances, start life on an uneven playing field with little or no chance to catch up, trillion dollar government programs notwithstanding. 

Brother Penrose concludes by asking us to consider the “eternal results in the life to come.” The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith those who meet the conditions of eternal marriage 

shall be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall the be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.  (D&C 132:20-21)

I hope, at this point, that you agree that brother Penrose’s statement was all that I said it was and more.  And I assure you there is much, much more that could be said in reference to this single quotation.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1. Charles W. Penrose,  “Leaves from the Tree of Life,” Eleventh Leaf, The Contributor, 2 (August 1881):337. Elder Penrose went on to write, “The male and female elements of humanity seek union, of their own volition. The natural attraction that prompts this is right and proper. But if there were no rules and restrictions for the government of these tendencies and the actions resultant, confusion would ensue, and the effects would be sorrow, ruin and destruction. Matrimony therefore becomes a part of religion. It is a divine institution, and hence should be divinely directed.” Emphasis added.

2. Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Cost–and Blessings–of Discipleship,” Ensign (May 2014):7-8.  See also Mosiah 4:29-30 and Alma 12:14.

3. I am aware that there is a trend downward in the number of abortions in the United States.  But I am not simply concerned with US statistics.  Add to our total those from around the world and surely many more than a million fetuses are aborted every year.

4. Indeed, Elder Bednar in teaching that marriage can be understood only in context of the Father’s plan of salvation and exaltation and happiness, says that the first of the doctrines that help us understand why this is the case is that “The natures of male and female spirits complete and perfect each other and therefore men and women are intended to progress together toward exaltation.” David A. Bednar, Increase in Learning: Spiritual Patterns for Obtaining Your Own Answers,176-177. See also: John Taylor, “It takes a woman and a man to make a man. Did you ever think about that, that without a union of the sexes we are not perfect? God has so ordained it. And therefore do we expect to have our wives in the future state? Yes. And do wives expect to have their husbands? Yes.” JD 19:245, discourse of 21 October 1877; Brigham Young, “Speech Delivered April 6, 1845,” Millennial Star 6, no. 8 (1 October 1845):122, in which he said: “No man can be perfect without the woman, so no woman can be perfect without a man to lead her. I will tell you the truth as it is in the bosom of eternity, and I say so to every man upon the face of the earth–if he wishes to be saved, he cannot be saved without a woman by his side.” Cited in Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 3: Theology, 153. See also George A Smith, JD 2:216, discourse of 18 March 1855; Wendy Ulrich, The Temple Experience: Passage to Healing and Holiness, Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2012, 207-17. Ellis Rasmussen has written: “The greatest opportunity of all, to learn eternal values and achieve heavenly potentials, resides in the responsibility and the privilege to create bodies for others of God’s spirit children.” Ellis Rasmussen, A Latter-Day Saint Commentary on the Old Testament, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1993, 7-8; Richard G. Scott, “To Have Peace and Happiness,” in Brigham Young University Speeches 2010-2011, Provo, UT: BYU, 2011, 178; D. Todd Christofferson,“Why Marriage, Why Family,” Ensign (May 2015):52. “A family built on the marriage of a man and woman supplies the best setting for God’s plan to thrive....”  

5. David A. Bednar, Increase in  Learning, 176-177. He went on to say, “By divine design, men and women are intended to progress together toward perfection and a fulness of glory.  Because of their distinctive temperaments and capacities, males and females each bring to a marriage relationship unique perspectives and experiences. The man and the woman contribute differently but equally to a oneness and a unity that can be achieved in no other way. The man completes and perfects the woman and the woman completes and perfects the man as they learn from and mutually strengthen and bless each other.” Emphasis added.

6. Glenn Pace, “The Divine Nature and Destiny of Women,” BYU devotional address 9 March 2010. Available online at:  http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1886 

7. Bruce C. Hafen, Covenant Hearts: Why Marriage Matters and How to Make It Last, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005, 31-32.

8. Boyd K. Packer, “Marriage,” Ensign (May 1981):15. Terryl and Fiona Givens offered an interesting insight when they agree the godly virtues are all social in nature–kindness, patience, mercy, generosity, self-control, etc. Thus, they are best developed and perfected in a social environment with others and God. Terryl and Fiona Givens, The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life, Pleasant Grove, UT: Ensign Peak, 2012, 113.

9. Russell M. Nelson, “Nurturing Marriage,” Ensign (May 2006):37.

10. Bruce R. McConkie, “Celestial Marriage,” BYU Devotional, 6 November 1977, in 1977 Devotional Speeches of the Year, Provo, UT: BYU Press, 1978, 174; Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie, 2:58-59, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954; George F. Richards, Conference Report, October 1942, 40-41; Heber J. Grant, Gospel Standards, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1943,153; “Beginning Life Together,” Improvement Era (April 1936):198-99.

Help Youth Lay the Foundation of a Happy Marriage©

 Introduction: I am starting a new series in this blog. Since I became active in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more than 60 years ago at age 17, I have loved the teachings and counsel of the Apostles and Prophets, ancient and modern. Now in my dotage, I have increased the time I devote to a study of the words of the modern apostles and prophets. My collections of quotations from them on virtually every conceivable spiritual subject and many others is extensive and growing faster now than ever before. Much of what they have and continue to say is so applicable on a personal and a family basis that I have elected to do a series I am calling, “Personal and Family Application of the Teachings and Counsel of Living Prophets.”

Each entry will provide an unusual, insightful, and helpful quotation from church leaders in this dispensation, followed by generally brief commentary and suggestions. Much of it will be aimed at my grandchildren, former CRM missionaries who served in California with us from 2002-2005, and anyone else who may find the subjects interesting and worthwhile. So, here is the first one.

********

“Personal and Family Application of the Teachings and Counsel of Living Prophets”

Quotation 1:  Help Youth Lay the Foundation of a Happy Marriage© 

Last night, Saturday 9 October 2021, was a bit sleepless so I turned on the reading light on my night stand and opened a book of the teachings of President David O. McKay called Man May Know for Himself, compiled from his writings by his secretary Clare Middlemiss. I'm halfway into this book and presently in a section about marriage and family. In an early morning hour I read the following statement directed to the youth of the church:

If you want to have a happy home, ever keep in mind the fact that you are going to lay the foundation for it in your teens before you even choose your mate.(1)

A simple, almost self-evident statement, yes!  I suspect many of you reading this, like me, said to your self, “Well, Dan, I know that!”  But do you really?  I admit I don’t remember ever consciously thinking when I was young, or at anytime since, that I laid the foundation for my marriage in my teenage years.  And I certainly did not teach that simple truth to any of my children overtly, and probably not inadvertently.  I never taught it in a class in seminary or institute, or in any talk I have given in a myriad of settings over the last 60 years. So, if it is so self-evident and simple, why didn’t I pass it on? The truth is, the thought did not pass through this thick head for 78 years, until last night.

Here’s my recommendation to my grandchildren, returned missionaries from CRM, and anyone else who will listen. Teach your children from the time they are little up through the time they get married the absolute necessity and importance of being married in the Lord’s way in the temple.  It is one of the five required ordinances for exaltation.  

Then, teach them over, and over, and over again that they must use part of their youth to lay a proper foundation for that marriage, and you help them do that! That includes, gaining a testimony of and living the Gospel of Jesus Christ, doing as much as they can to build a character based on the attributes of Jesus Christ, and here President McKay emphasizes as a beginning, honesty, loyalty, chastity, and reverence.(2) It includes personal worthiness, with an emphasis on chastity for both men and women (check this book out, President McKay has much to teach about this subject), taking care of one’s body and physical health, and education.  I could say more, and you should to your own children and grand children.  What follows are a few brief suggestions to act as triggers as to how parents may do this.  Your own understanding and creativity will come up with more.

1. Regularly devote FHEs and dinner time discussions to the subject of the doctrine of marriage, and to explaining that  youth is the time they lay the foundation for a happy marriage by what they believe, know, and do.
2. Discuss with children what a foundation is and how it applies to the idea of a future relationship such as marriage. Discuss the various elements of that foundation of a happy marriage.
3. You could discuss the teachings of Jesus at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount about foundations and their importance. Be sure you are clear on what the foundation is. There are several other important passages about foundations in the Standard Works you could talk about.
4. You could use President Nelson’s first talk in the October 2021 General Conference which discusses strengthening one’s spiritual foundation.
5. Help children see that important time must be spent in laying this foundation and doing so is much more important than learning to ride a skateboard, play video games, spend endless hours texting friends on social media, becoming a beauty queen or a macho man, surfeiting one’s life with entertainment, fun, and pleasure.  President Kimball once said because of Satan’s increasing influence, parents must do their work “better, sooner.”  Don’t fall into the trap that youth is a time that can be wasted without consequence. What foundation is laid if one’s youth is spent in pursuit of these things? Can it ever be recovered? Do you believe a two-year mission will compensate for a wasted youth? Isn’t that a dangerous philosophy and belief in which to place the trust of the future of your children’s marriage and family life?

If you have other related quotations and ideas about this subject, please share them here in the comment section.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Clare Middlemiss, comp., Man May Know for Himself: Teachings of President David O. McKay, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967, 250.

2. McKay, Man May Know for Himself, 216.