“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”

-2nd Article of Faith

“All mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual”

-Helaman 14:16

It is a common claim (see for example Bhodge’s latest excellent post at BCC) the LDS church rejects “original sin”, and rightly so, due to our second article of faith, the belief that Adam and Eve took the fall as a progressive step, and due to our belief that small children are considered not accountable, and thus innocent.

However, one claim I am uncomfortable with, from Blair’s latest post (and I should add the claim is not his, but that of Peter J. Thuesen, is that this somehow allows our faith to escape the situation of an “inherently damnable humanity”, as Hodges quotes. It is, after all, our inherent damnability which is central to the Gospel.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ occurs to reconcile our sinful nature. We sin because we have free will and are weak creatures. The very plan of salvation (come to earth via birth, get a body, be apart from God, have faith, learn to repent, progress towards being heavenly creatures) is set up so that we can progress, and we would not be able to progress without God, we were selected by him to be his children, and he made it his “work and glory” to bring us up to a higher level of existence.

So if Mormonism does not teach the fall causing inherent damnability, it is only because we have removed it as our starting point, and thus moved our personal damnation back to our eternal selves. Our “original sin” truly becomes original to us, with the sin being our inability to achieve the loving nature required of us to live with God.

This does create for us a unique solution, in that our damnation is defined as our inability to attain a certain nature through our own ability, and God’s salvation is his giving us characteristics which we can use to attain to that nature. (A body, the light of Christ, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, covenants, the atoning help of Christ).

It also raises questions. If we are eternal, and unable to change, how does it become possible for God to make this change? I don’t really know, but I do believe.

When I first joined the church, I learned that prayer works. I learned that we could talk to God as one person talks to another and that he can and does communicate with us as well. Almost 2 years later, I went to the MTC and while there, I was taught that good LDS people say thee, thou, thine, and thy in their prayers. (Not in any sort of negative way, merely in that it was innocuously mentioned that I should use thee,thou, thine, and thy in prayer). I personally found that this detracted from my prayers. I spent too much time thinking about what I was saying and whether I was saying the right things. This took away some of my ability to listen to the spirit, and from the ability to feel any sort of closeness to God. It emphasized God’s “Otherness” and made him feel farther away. Also, it emphasized what I was saying, rather than what I was listening for.

Making matters worse, as a new member, if I ignored this prescription, as it wasn’t working for me, it felt more like something was wrong with me, or I felt guilty because I was “breaking rules”. It labeled me “heterodox” to be outside the norm. So I kept at it, even though it made me feel farther from God. Making matters worse, it bothered me enough that I stopped using sentences which required the use of “You” or “Thee” in them, and so for a while, I was limiting my capacity to pray.

Over time, I have both grown more comfortable saying thee, thou, thine, and thy, as well as more comfortable not feeling heterodox if I do not use those words in prayer, as I have come to realize this linguistic effect is meaningless. I find myself saying “We are thankful for”, rather than “we thank thee” or “thank you for” as this is how my mind apparently has resolved the issue.

Which brings me to my point, it is my opinion that using the words thee, thou, thine and thy are merely a cultural affectation, and are spiritually unnecessary. Furthermore, they can cause unnecessary struggles for those who are converts to the church, creating an unnecessary additional barrier to entry into the family of the church, and in communication with God.

I am not asking members to stop saying thee, thou, thine, and thy, as I realize they are “used to it” and so being asked to not say thee, thou, thine and thy would make them feel a lot like I felt, all those years ago, when I was asked to use thee, thou, thine, and thy. That is not what I want at all. I am asking that we leave more room for you and your not being merely some juvenile form of prayer.

That’s my Opinion. Your Mileage may vary.

So my wife is taking a “mommy vacation” this weekend to see her new niece in far far away, and I am teaching Gospel Doctrine for her. I’m a bit nervous about it (because my wife is the greatest Gospel Teacher I have ever met, and I don’t want to mess it up for her), so once again am putting my lesson here for your thoughts and recommendations. It’s a power point, so I know that dings me for some of you, but hey, I may flip it over to prezi for church, if that makes it any less “corporate”…

Anyway, some fun facts from my lesson for those not inclined to look through the power point.

1. Paul compares us to temples in two different ways. The one quoted in the title of the lesson has nothing to do with Sexual Morality, but is an analogy related to the problem in Corinth of clicks being formed for each group taught by a different minister. The analogy is Christ is the foundation, The Ministers are the Builders, and when we are built up in the Gospel on the Foundation of Christ, we are not the Temple of Paul or Apollos, But we are the Temple of God. Paul even goes on to call for missionaries to not be self-deceived that they are building up Glory to themselves.

2. Paul was a tent maker, and worked for Priscilla and Aquila while he was in Corinth. How did I not know that?

3. Corinth is 1200 miles from Jerusalem, that’s like driving from Texas to either Coast.

4. The Athenians coined a slang term “Corinthianize” as a Euphemism for fornicate.

5. Paul promoted excommunication for a member who had Corinthianized with his father’s wife.

Tomorrow, I am teaching Elder’s Quorum lesson #38 “Eternal Families”- and have decided, after reading Jonathan Stapley’s incredible article this week, to review the history thereof. Sadly, I don’t have Sam Brown’s accompanying article, so am relying on Gordon Irving’s earlier work for that piece of it.

Anyway, here is my simple timeline for my lesson (emphasis on my trying to keep it simple). Can anyone with access to Sam’s article, or with direct knowledge, help me out and make sure I don’t have any outdated concepts in my history. (like no adoptions before 1845 or the role of the concept of polygamy)
(more…)

Well, I’m getting older, and in three weeks, give or take, my oldest daughter will be baptized. I’ve talked with her about many different things, but it is getting down to the wire here and there are so many things I want her to feel and understand. I accept that she is 8 and my baptism at 21 is spiritually and emotionally different than hers at 8. But there isn’t exactly a Mormon parenting for converts guide.

What should I do to prepare my daughter for baptism? What should I tell he to expect? What should I expect?

Inspired by aquinas’ excellent post over at FPR, I thought it may be worthwhile to attempt to put in one place some of our many many many many many discussions on the preexistence and spirits.

There are currently, so far as I can tell, five distinctive models in LDS thought for our pre-existent state.

1.- Eternal Spirits in an eternal relationship with God and eternally of the same essence as God. – Sometimes attributed to Joseph Smith and championed by Blake Ostler, this notion is that we have always existed and have always been in the relationship we are now in with the Godhead. This concept faces the challenge of eternity and progression, ie- why did it take us so long to get to this life on earth? It also is commonly challenged by the spiritual creation narrative from the Book of Moses, though this is often dismissed by claims of doctrinal supersession. Some, like Geoff J, have used concepts like Multiple Mortal Probations to alleviate this challenge. In terms of Spirit Birth, there is no beginning, so no birth.

2. Eternal Spirits in a Non-eternal relationship with God but eternally of the same essence as God.- Also attributed to Joseph Smith, this concept was once speculated by Truman Madsen (When he wasn’t championing BH Roberts). It speculates that the Godhead was formed at a specific point in time via covenant for the purpose of bringing about God’s plan. By extension, just as the relationships of the Godhead had a beginning, so also do our relationships with God. While this sidesteps the challenge of eternity and progression, it does not completely eliminate it, and it also brings up the question of Joseph’s Ring Analogy (If there was a beginning, there must be an end). Another major challenge is that it has never been popularized by a prominent LDS leader or teacher. In terms of Spirit Birth, Spirit Birth is limited to merely being the adoptive change of state we go through via accepting our relationship with God the Father.

3. Eternal Spirits called Intelligences in a Non-eternal relationship with God and not eternally of the same essence as God (lacking a spirit body)- Here we have the concept championed by BH Roberts, and popularized by Truman Madsen. The main difference between this and #2 above is that it attempts to harmonize #2 with concepts and statements put forth by Brigham Young or the Pratts which called for Spirit Birth, as well as ideas like those found in the Book of Moses (spirit creation) with statements from Joseph Smith in the King Follet Discourse and in the Book of Abraham revelation. (spirits without beginning or end). This plan merely divides the pre-mortal state into segments, moving from amorphous intelligence to spirit body. Challenges to this concept include it being initially derided by higher general authorities, it’s having been intellectually thoughr out, rather than arrived upon via official revelation, and its common (though unnecessary) connection with spiritual vivaporous birth. This is one of the primary areas of spirit birth, though there is a range of belief as to how literal this birth is, going from a literal sexual act where spirit seed fertilizes spirit eggs, through less literal views up to something closely resembling #2 above.

4.Non-Eternal Spirits formed from unintelligent matter called intelligence and not eternally of the same essence as God (lacking a spirit body)- Championed by Brigham Young, this notion, it is argued, comes from the early apostles missing out (due to missionary work) on the later sermons of Joseph Smith, which were not verified nor widely available until BH Roberts published History of the Church. (or possibly until JFSII abridged it to TOPJS). Here we have something fundamentally similar to creation ex-nihilo, where God as creator takes the chaos of eternal matter, forming it so that our spirits may emerge naturally or supernaturally from within. Good spirits go on to greatness, while the bad ones face eventual obliteration, decomposing back to the raw material from which they came. Being like ex nihilo, it faces the challenges therein. Whether it escapes the problem of determinism depends on whether you feel life is naturally emergent from formed intelligence or if you believe God supernaturally made it so. However, naturally emergent life comes with its own set of challenges, primarily the lack of need for a creator. Sprit Birth here is typically of the sexual variety, though again, not really out of necessity. It could just as well be a chemistry set.

5. Non-Eternal Spirits formed from intelligent Matter called intelligence and not eternally of the same essence as God (lacking a spirit body)- Here we have Pratt and Pratt’s concept of spiritual atomism, with intelligent subparts coming together and forming, via synergy with God, a being greater than the sum of their parts. I always fail at describing this one correctly, having not been interested enough to dig through the seer and gaining most of what I know about it from the letter in which it is repudiated. So I’ll leave this one to more capable hands

So which Model do you prefer? Why?

Stephen Finlan, Author of “Options on Atonement in Christian Thought”[1] ends his book with a modest proposal. It is that our understanding of divine revelation is subject to a form of evolution. Finlan Suggests that “God always seeks to deepen and expand the revelation of truth, but we humans (including the biblical authors) only perceive a part of the message. We adapt and domesticate new ideas to old and familiar ways of thinking. We always pour new wine into old wineskins, but the new wine expands and bursts open our containers (Mark 2:22), our old ways of thinking.” [2] Finlan calls this “progressive development in religious conceptualization”. (more…)

Today I received the following email forward from an 85 year old man in my ward:

Subject: Call the elders — or the sisters?

FYI

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/51785971-180/healing-mormon-women-church.html.csp

Congrats Guys, you’ve reached the Mormon “Forwarded E-mail” Network. We’re proud of you!

Here is the lesson I prepared this month on Missionary Work. We are a bit behind other wards, due to Stake Conference and an odd repeating of one lesson twice last year.

Missionary Work

I am actually teaching this next Sunday, and it feels a little long and disjointed to me. Any feedback would be appreciated.

I am teaching Elder’s Quorum this Sunday, and have been asked to teach on Elder Oak’s “Two Lines of Communication”. In getting ready, I thought I would take Natalie B.’s advice and search out the priesthood line more deeply. (This admonishment, after all, dovetails nicely into Elder Uchtdorf’s encouragement in conference to learn more, which my past few posts have been on.)

Anyway, according the “Handbook 2: Administerng in the Church” section 2.1.1:

“Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to Priesthood leaders to direct, control and Govern the use of his priesthood on earth.” It is “the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction.”
Jesus Christ holds all the keys and confers them to his Apostles on the earth. The President “is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.”

The president of the Church delegates priesthood keys to other priesthood leaders. For their designated responsibilities, and in their jurisdiction, they become the “presiding authority”

Counselors do not receive priesthood keys, the function by “delegated authority”. Auxiliary presidents do not receive keys. They receive “delegated authority”.

If Priesthood keys are “authority” to perform “designated responsibilities” that are “delegated” to them, what is the difference between priesthood keys and the “delegated authority” that Auxiliary presidents and Counselors have?

Is this a distinction without a difference? If not, what is the difference?