Dan Brooks's Blog, page 2

The Line In The Sand

We often hear some say that Jesus is with them and against us or some group defined as other. But where would Jesus really side? The only hope we have of gaining a concrete and realistic understanding of who Jesus would side with is to look at who He sided with during His life and ministry.
The Pharisees had a works based understanding and Jesus seemed to have a more grace based understanding. Because of this works based theology the Pharisees had, so many people, most people arguably, were relegated to the status of "other."
Sinners like tax collectors, ritualisticly unclean men and women, theives, liars, adulterers and even the disabled like the blind or the sick such as lepers were the outcasts of the society Jesus lived in.
Jesus and His Apostles came upon a blind man. And the Apostles asked a question that was typical of Hewish culture of that time; 

1And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

6When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

7And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

8The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

9Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

10Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?

11He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

12Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

13They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

14And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

15Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

17They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.

18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

19And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?

20His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

21But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

22These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?

27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?

28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. John 9:1-28 KJV

There are a few take always from this for me. One is that even Christ's disciples thought that this man was blind due to sin, even his parents sin. Jesus did not agree. The Pharisees see a miracle first hand and only see that a miracle was done on the sabbath and therefore it constituted work which made it wrong. They saw no righteousness in a miracle.

And they said it themselves, they are disciples of Moses, they did not say they were disciples of God. They were guilty of prophet worship. They loved debating the finer points of the law rather than uplifting the spirit behind those laws.they views the law in legalistic terms rather than in spiritual terms.

And the church leadership and many members are guilty of the exact same reasoning. Which turns a religion founded by perhaps the most inclusive teacher ever into a religion of exclusivity and elitism just as the Pharisees had done eons ago.

The Pharisees only loved and cherished those who were deemed good enough. Jesus loved and supported almost everyone. Aside from money changers in the temple, who were taking advantage of the poor, Jesus only seemed to rebuke the Pharisees and those like them.

Everyone else was cool in Jesus' book. 

The main problem in a works based theology is that we are held to the standard of Jesus without ever being able to measure up. Thus we feel guilty and are even shamed for not measuring up in the same ways as those in authority over us. The irony is that they also fail to uphold every one of the 613 commandments of Mosaic law. But because they sin differently than we do somehow they are righteous and we are not.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

"For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." 2 Nephi 26:33

See no matter how righteous we perceive a man to be whether he is the president of the church or an outcast "sinner" of any kind, compared to Christ they are not so different. None of us has the right to cast stones because none of us is without sin. And the only one who was, never cast a stone even when He could.

See when the Pharisees brought the adulteress to Christ, they drew a line in the sand so to speak in order to see where Jesus stood. They wanted to see who Jesus would stand with, the righteous men beloved of God or the worthless harlot begging for her life. Jesus chose to not cast a stone, remind the self righteous that they had no right to cast stones, and He chose to not condemn the adulteress but to simply say to go and sin no more. 

I feel like any time people draw a line in the sand to divide God's children between us and them, between righteous and sinner, between beloved of God and worthless sinner, Jesus stands with those deemed as "other." Just as He did in His life. He stands with those who have been cast aside, those deemed as worthless, those labeled as sinner, those who are "other."

He gave His life to redeem us all even those who are told they don't deserve it.

Jesus told us to judge not lest we be judged by God by the same standard we judged by.

Jesus said this about holding grudges: "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:23-28

Jesus compares hate to murder and lust to adultery. Jesus intends us to live by a higher law than Mosaic law. We will never be as perfect as Christ, but we are meant be perfected in Christ. In Hebrew the word for perfect also means to be made whole or complete. We may have never been meant to be flawless like Christ but to be made whole by Him. We are not intended to save the world but neither are we free to abandon it. Sometimes we must shoot for the stars just to get off the ground. 

The following quote is from a conference talk by the newly appointed Apostle Redlund: "My invitation to all of us is to evaluate our lives, repent, and keep on trying. If we don’t try, we’re just latter-day sinners; if we don’t persevere, we’re latter-day quitters; and if we don’t allow others to try, we’re just latter-day hypocrites.10 As we try, persevere, and help others to do the same, we are true Latter-day Saints."

This new policy is wrong. And we who feel that to be true, we who are affected directly or indirectly are not alone. The fault is an ugly bigoted, discriminatory and cowardly policy aimed at children. If this policy is meant to protect children why do the children suffer so much? No one needs this kind of "help." If you think this policy is loving then I'd hate to see what you think is harmful, hateful, or bigoted.

By outlining this new policy, the church has drawn a line in the sand and it is those defined as "other" who Christ comforts, stands by, and loves unconditionally.

Conditional Love: The LDS Church And LGBT Families

Here's what Christ said about accepting children into His midst:

"15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." Luke 18:15-17 KJV

So Jesus was not just willing to accept but adamant that those who would come to Him could. Him accepting all was a key feature of His life and ministry.

And what of His one true church? Well, for one, they believe that His love is conditional and for another they don't seem to believe or hold to the 2nd article of faith which states "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

No, now all children are responsible for their parents "sins." Which I don't believe. And I don't believe that being true to the way God Himself made you is anymore an abomination than being left handed.

No one chooses to be straight so I don't get where the idea that being gay is a choice comes from but being an asshole is a choice and they can still get baptized, confirmed, receive temple recommends, take out their endowments, and be sealed. 

Still, we, according to the articles of faith as written by Joseph Smith are responsible only for our own sins. Logic follows that children of sinners should not need special permission for the privileges that other members need only ask their bishop and/or stake president for.

Madison Brown's parents are polygamous. Her family is the focus of a TV show called Sister Wives on TLC which has been fairly famous and well known even to those who have never seen it.

She was deeply interested in becoming a member of the LDS church, but like the Apostles who rebuked the children who wanted to come unto Christ, our modern Apostles forbid Madison from even being baptized a member unless she denounced, disavowed, and cut off her family. Which is a key feature in cults. Which will be a post for another day.

Because families are forever, right?

There are, from my research, plenty of polygamous families as members of record within the LDS church. It seems, as this decision came from the first presidency, that the church simply wanted to avoid bad PR. And other than building luxury condos and shopping malls, PR is much more important than saving souls or accepting God's children into His one true church. Accepting children and their parents was all Jesus seemed to do with His life and ministry.

See, according to the Apostle Paul "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 KJV

So if that's true, the only sinless human was Jesus Christ, then none of us are in a position to judge or condemn which is why Jesus taught us to judge not. Or that we would be judged by God by the same standard we judged others.

And even if some would argue that you must turn from sin to be accepted by God that doesn't jive with the idea that we all sin and have fallen short of God's glory. Meaning that the most we can do with our lives is to sin less today than we did yesterday and over the course of our lives we will be much improved. But we will never be sinless or perfect.

And this idea that we are to be cut off from God by being denied saving ordinances doesn't make sense to me either. For one, secret ceremonies and secret handshakes do not save a soul.

But living Christ's teachings will. Living them as best we can and as best as we understand them, those teachings save lives and they save souls. They are the only things that can save this world.

Because these elitist and exclusionary policies and doctrines deny the validity and power of the Atonement. By denying the idea that Christ suffered for our sins, past, present and future, these policies deny that we have all been forgiven of our sins.

It seems to me that the atonement cannot be static but rather it is ever present in our lives from the moment we are born until the moment that we once again find ourselves in the presence of The Lord.

Part of the core problem that has resulted in these two exclusionary and elitist examples(Madison Brown being denied membership and children of LGBT parents being denied membership as well) is not just that they deny the power and nature of the Atonement and the 2nd article of faith, but that they are by their very nature pharisaical.

And by that I mean that as Phil McLemore states in his Sunstone article "Hindering the Saints" that Jesus' statements about the Pharisees asserted 3 things:

"1.That they were hypocrites.

2. That they did not understand the inner meaning of the Law and the scriptures.

3. That they had set up a system to measure spiritual status and worthiness that emphasized external religious practices, thus neglecting the inner path of spiritual rebirth, which is 'the key of knowledge.'"

I think as people the LDS Apostles fill every one of the 3 assertions Phil McLemore states in his article. More specifically I feel that current church theology, doctrines, and policies are also fundamentally based on a pharisaical world view. Specifically the works based model of worthiness. But not just worthiness to hold a temple recommend but the worth and value of a soul.

This pharisaical model means that your worth as a person, as a child of God, and your worth to be loved is all based on the works you do or don't do.

As in if you're a woman or young girl and you wear "immodest" clothing you loose your worth. If you have sex before marriage you loose your worth. If you break the word of wisdom you loose your worth. These violations have little to do with whether or not you have negatively impacted your own life or the lives of others. They do however have everything to do with keeping up appearances and following arbitrary rules.

LDS leaders from bishop to Apostles and even the members of your wards will see you as a second class member and person for these violations. But worst of all they will tell you God loves you less as a result of breaking these rules. And tragically many believe them.

But for any of that to be true God's love would have to be conditional. Thankfully it is not, it never was, and it never will be. If it were, God would not have sent His only begotten to suffer for all of humanities sins, and yours, including the ones you haven't committed yet.

Agape is the Greek word for love. Eros, Philia and Storge are the other types of love found in the New Testament. Eros is sexual love, Philia is brotherly love or comradery and Storge is family love.

But agape is the highest form of love in the original Greek of the New Testament.

This definition signifies an unconditional love. A boundless, limitless, and eternal love. Jesus gave His life because His love for us is unconditional and unmerited. We did nothing to earn that love and so we can do nothing that will sever that love.

We are loved by God because we are His children and in someway a part of Him. I love my children regardless of how horrible they can be. I would never kick them out onto the streets, abandon them or disown them for any reason so I find it impossible to believe that my love for my children is somehow stronger or better than God's love for us.

One of my children came out as gay, another is trans and the 3rd (out of 4) is pansexual. The thought to love them less or discipline them, or threaten kick them out onto the streets never crossed my mind. I cried for knowing I would not always be able to protect them from the hate, the vitriol, and the venom spewed by others who refuse to see their worth. And especially those who spew venom in the name of God. There have been many who have taken their lives over such hateful anti-LGBT doctrines and policies. As there will be many more suicides due to this recent policy clarification. Which I will devote a separate post to as it deserves one.

I am deeply disturbed by parents who have done more than threaten but actually cast out their own children for staying true to the way God made them.

I may be a good parent, I may be a good Christian, but I am not better or more loving than God, so to say that God's love is conditional would be to say that I, and parents like me, are.

If Jesus welcomed all people but children especially then how much more are we to welcome children into our church regardless of who their parents are or what they have or haven't done? And how much more are we to welcome our own children and grandchildren into our homes despite their sins and imperfections?

Love based on conditions isn't love. It is a lie. It is a terrible lie.

Shouldn't The Church Serve God's Children rather Than The Other WayAround?

So the question is, shouldn't the church serve the people rather than the people serving the church?
In scripture we often read that one person ministered unto another or to several others. The meaning is often lost in translation as there are a couple meanings; one is to serve and another is to preach the good news.
And sexism is found in this double meaning because when a woman like Martha preached to Jesus and His disciples the word is translated in the context of service.
But when men preached it is translated in the context of preaching.
That aside are we as the body of the church, as those who willingly take upon us the name and mission of Christ, supposed to act in His stead and serve God's children rather than having them serve the church?
It's not that preaching is wrong it's that usually it is done simply so that others will convert to believing as we do. This doesn't do as much good as feeding the hungry, or visiting the sick and imprisoned.
Thick Nhat Hahn once said "The most precious gift one can give is the gift of the presence." That's not verbatim but the point still stands that being truly present and to listen with the intent to understand and develop compassion for the one you are presently with rather than simply waiting for your turn to talk, is the greatest gift you can give. Convincing them to think as you do or to believe what you believe does not.
Cory Booker put best what I'm trying to say "Before you speak to me about your religion, first show it to me in how you treat other people; before you tell me how much you love your God, show me in how much you love all His children; before you preach to me of your passion for your faith, teach me about it through your compassion for your neighbors. In the end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as in how you choose to live and give."
Jesus has a divine authority to heal, to minister and command us but that's not what gave His teachings their power during His life; the way He lived His life, the way He served God's children, the compassion and understanding of those children that He displayed however, did.
That example, and living up to that example as best we can will endow our lives, and the lives of those we come into contact with that same power. Jesus changed the world but not by ruling an Earthly kingdom, writing a book, by art or music. He changed the world by His message but more specifically by living His message.
So how do we best serve Him?
By serving God's children. All of them, as you would yourself or your family.
Jesus gives us perfect examples of how to serve Him here:
"31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew 25:31-46 KJV

How do most church service projects work? You clean the church, you serve the institution of the church in some way, or EQ gathers and helps people move, maybe home or visiting teaching is completed?

These things are important but how much more important is it to visit with those who can do nothing for you in terms of checking off the box on your visiting or home teaching list or fulfilling a request by a church leader but instead to visit with someone who could use the company?

How important is it to help someone who will likely never be able to repay you, leaving you to help because you can, because it's the right thing to do, because you are neither chasing reward or fleeing from punishment and because you are simply doing right because it is right?

God doesn't need our help as much as we need our own help or each other's help. If we are to act in His stead, especially as Priesthood holders then we need to do more of the examples in Matthew 25 more than we need to clean the church or Temples and more than we need to put chairs out or away.

It's not that the little things are useless but we can do far more good than those little things. We can feed a neighbor by cleaning out our pantry and fridge. We can part with a couple bucks to help another catch the Trax. But most of all we can be present with those who could use the company. Like the prisoner or the sick or the elderly.

We could be fully present to those who didn't know how much they needed that until we provided it for them. That could be anyone. So be present then be of service. Serving the church isn't the way it is supposed to work, we as the church are meant to serve one another. You'll never know how many prayers you could answer until you begin to serve.

Love is a verb. It is defined by its action. Vision without action is fantasy and love without action is simply good intentions. Which the road to Hell is paved with.

What If Hell Is Only Temporary?

I studied the Quran at a Mosque near Trolley Square in downtown Salt Lake tonight for maybe an hour. I learned much I did not know. And I deepened understandings I already had about Islam, Muslims, and the Quran.
One of the new ideas I did not know is that, according to many Muslims, the Quran teaches that Hell is temporary. Once a soul has atoned for their own sins, since Muslims believe Christ was a prophet and not a Redeemer, they are forgiven and reconciled with God and return to Him in Heaven.
But if you sin against another, it is up to them to forgive you, it is out of God's hands. Because Christ is a prophet rather than a Savior and Redeemer, we must each atone for our sins on our own.
The idea of Hell being temporary is not unique or even new. It is well know and well argued.
One idea is that if God is truly victorious over evil then evil, even if it's contained, cannot continue its existence. So Hell must be temporary in whatever form it exists. 
This opens the door to two unique and opposing theological arguments; All souls, Satan included, are reconciled to God in the end or evil souls are annihilated or suffer "The second death" as is stated in scripture.
The former idea is offensive to many because it means that Satan-the father of all lies and evil will one day be forgiven. It also means Hitler would also be forgiven but more heinously, for some, the man who raped and killed your daughter, wife or grandchild would also be forgiven. The man who drove drunk and killed your fiancé or the terrorists that killed your son or brother or battle buddy in Iraq will also be forgiven.
And while within an Islamic framework a soul's damnation is, in part, in the hands of those they've sinned against, within a Christian framework Jesus has Atoned for all sins and so forgiveness is God's alone to give.
If we hold on to our hurt, how ever justified it may be, we hurt ourselves as well. Holding on to anger is like holding on to a hot coal to throw at your enemy, the only one who gets burned is you. Or one could say that hatred is like drinking poison and expecting your enemy to die.
Again, justified as our pain and grudges may be, they still poison us as well. Forgiveness isn't just about others deserving it, but if Christ suffered and died to Atone for you, He also died and suffered for those who have sinned against you as well. So who are we to deny what Christ suffered and died to provide to others with-forgiveness?
Much of the debate about the nature of Hell has to do with the nature of sin and evil. For brevity let's look at sin; Buddha said that "You are not punished for your anger, you are punished by it" if we think of sin in the same way then that describes best what makes a sin a sin-negative, evil, and unhealthy consequences for ourselves and/or others.
This then also illuminates the nature of evil and what God cannot tolerate in His presence. It's not a matter of offense as much as it is a matter of ethos, beliefs and behavior that are in direct opposition to the ways of The Lord. 
Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right. And discipleship is concerned with putting it right.
If disciples of The Lord are tasked with putting wrong things right, how much more is The Lord Himself concerned with putting wrong right?
 And if Christ atoned for every one of God's children who are we to condemn, or refuse forgiveness to, anyone?
And if Christ Atoned for all of God's children to forgive them of their sins and redeem them, thus the title Redeemer, then how could Hell be eternal?
Aren't all souls redeemed?
Wouldn't it make sense that Hell would feel everlasting but once we have been purified by the fires we would be reconciled to God and return to Him?
The idea of annihilation of souls is that because nothing unclean can be in the presence of God and God is victorious over evil, that souls will be destroyed and suffer what is called in scripture "the second death."
I personally subscribe to the idea of reconciliation but that's not beyond debate in the slightest.
The larger idea behind reconciliation is tied to all souls being eternal because if God is victorious over evil then evil must either be destroyed, which means all souls are not eternal, or evil souls must be reconciled to God in the end. But then that would mean redeeming and saving every last soul in the end is what God's plan has always been. That Christ's Atonement applies to all, in every land and in every time.
Can God really be victorious over all evil if He only contains evil without destroying it? But if He reconciles evil souls so that their hard hearts soften and they turn to God rather than away from Him, that at once rids evil and saves His children.
Abraham Lincoln once asked "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?
How is Lincoln more compassionate and understanding than our God?
I may be wrong in believing this take on the nature of Hell, but it's ok, Jesus has redeemed me.

Saints Without Borders

So every Sunday near July 4th we sing God Bless America and praise our service members and veterans. And it's not that they don't deserve praise, it's that Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to love our enemies. How can we kill those we love?
The news is full of stories about people who kill their loved ones. In the act of killing many emotions are in play but I do not believe that love, Christlike love, is one of them.
A patriot loves his homeland, as does a nationalist, but a nationalist also despises the homelands of others. And we have far too many nationalists in 'Murica!
It's odd to see church services where politics and religion blend and leave us feeling that we are justified in killing foreign people's because, thankfully, Jesus said they totally deserved it.
It so strange to talk to those who say "Jesus said to love our enemies but He didn't mean under these circumstances." The idea that there are exceptions to the nonviolent teachings of Jesus is strange to me. This just war theology does not jive with the Gospels or with early Christian history.
Jesus healed one of the Roman soldiers who came to arrest, beat, and Crucify Him. He also prayed earnestly for God to forgive His murderers for they knew not what they did.
And early Christians went to their deaths peaceably in Roman Colloseums and crucifixions to be burned as human torches all because they believed Jesus taught them to love their enemies and that they were forbidden to use violence even to save their lives.
I'm not sure I would meet my end peaceably were I or my family to be threatened with death. But the early Christians clearly believed that they were to be nonviolent and love their enemies even at the cost of their own lives.
We are supposedly a Christian nation, so what would it look like if our nation treated other nations and people as Christ did? If we forgave middle eastern countries as Christ forgave the adulteress? If we welcomed every nation to us and treated them with compassion and understanding as Christ treated all those He met in His life? We might look and behave as a Christian nation rather than just claiming we are.
What would it look like if we treated people in turbans they way we treat friends in church? What would it look like if we were as loving and understanding with Muslims as we are with those we meet in the Temple? What if we were as kind to those who believe in other Gods, or no God at all, as we are to those who believe the same as we do?
What would it look like if we loved neighboring nations, or all nations, as we love our own?
We might be closer to living the teachings of Christ rather than simply professing belief in teachings we only follow when it's convenient for us.
The Gospel is meant to transform us. It transformed a Zealot like Simon into a pacifist. It turned fishermen into prophets. It turned a Jewish tax collector for the Romans into a beloved Saint and lead him into giving his life for the Gospel message.
It turned a simple hand worker who was as poor and illiterate as the rest of His people, who held no public office, who never lead any Kingdom, who never wrote a book, into arguably the most influential man in history.
It wasn't so much the man as it was the message that changed the world. But the life of Christ is what gives His message power. The power is where the authority comes from. We would do better if we relied on truth for authority rather than relying on authority for truth.
But that's for another post.
If we act as saints without borders we treat all people, not just loved ones, as children of God who are worthy of His love. Jesus blessed and healed Romans, Samaritans, and all people based on their inherent worth as children of God. And without respect to their race or nationality, He treated us all as His brothers and sisters. His message was not for only one nation or one people, it was for all of God's children. 
If we were to do the same we would immeasurably improve our world.
I had asked in prayer "Why do you allow such suffering and injustice in the world when you could do so much to prevent or stop it?"
Then I stopped. Because I was afraid God would ask the same question of me.

Why Pharisees Care So Much About Lipstick

Jeremiah 4:30  - And [when] thou [art] spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; [thy] lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 1Timothy 2:9-10 

Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;  1Peter 3:3-4

So the Bible makes it clear that humility and a humble nature are preferred by The Lord who looks to the heart before He looks to appearance.

The idea seems to be that the contents of the heart take priority over the contents of your wardrobe.

The reason, it seems, that The Lord doesn't so much disapprove of fine apparel and adornment as much as He teaches us to look to the contents of the character of others as well as ourselves because it is harder to look to the hearts of others or even ourselves if we train ourselves to look only at the superficial and the appearances of others. And we can't look into ourselves if we are obsessed with our own appearance.

The kingdom of God is within us, not in our wardrobe or in our lipstick case.

Obsession over the superficial and over appearances was never a feature of Jesus' ministry and teachings. It was, however, a key feature of the Pharisees teachings.

Outward signs of righteousness and piety, outward signs of wealth, outward signs of obedience were praised while the true nature, content of the heart, and the personal history and circumstances of the people were ignored in favor of outward appearances.

Jesus said in John 7:24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."In the Hebrew context of His time and even now, righteous judgment means to judge favorably or to give the benefit of the doubt. It in no way allows for self righteous judgment or harsh judgment.
Here's another scripture that emphasizes the point Jesus made about appearances being irrelevant;
"4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Matthew 23:4-39

So in the Community of Christ the doctrine and covenants is different because it's considered to be living scripture; meaning that when new revelations are taken they are voted on according to the law of common consent and then added to the D&C.

There, in the added scripture, is a very striking an important teaching. Here it is:

c. It is not pleasing to God when any passage of scripture is used to diminish or oppress races, genders, or classes of human beings. Much physical and emotional violence has been done to some of God’s beloved children through the misuse of scripture. The church is called to confess and repent of such attitudes and practices.

d. Scripture, prophetic guidance, knowledge, and discernment in the faith community must walk hand in hand to reveal the true will of God. Follow this pathway, which is the way of the Living Christ, and you will discover more than sufficient light for the journey ahead.

 Doctrine and Covenants 163:7c and d.

"4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

This is crucial, Jesus preaches against superficial thinking and people. But He points out that the Pharisees turned the word of God, an instrument of further light and knowledge into a weapon to be weilded against those who never quite measured up.

They turned a gift from God into a burden, they didn't celebrate their faith, they mourned it.

Works and their importance are discussed many times in scripture but only so far as to prove that one has been saved and transformed by Christ. One cannot be a disciple of Christ if one lives in direct opposition to His teachings. Or can they? If we must measure up to every teaching of Christ we will be damned because we will never truly measure up. This is why the concept of grace is so crucial.

If we believe in grace then we see the inherent value and worth of every soul. As God sees each of us. If we judge according to works we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God as Paul wrote.

I'm saying that if we judge based on grace we see the worth in others as God does but if we look at others as the Pharisees did then we see only inadequacy and sin.

The worth of every soul, including our own, is directly tied to how we value ourselves and others. Do we value others as God does, who gave His only begotten to die for us or do we value others as the Pharisees do who saw no value in Christ Himself?

"9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Luke 18:9-14

The sinner, who by the way was welcome at the Temple, went away justified before God. Whereas the Pharisee who merely checked off his list of outward righteousness missed the entire point.

Sexism is based on the physical differences and also based on appearances.

Here is the definition of sexism:

:1prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially  :discrimination against women 2:behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex And here are examples of six its attitudes and statements:
“Husbands, treasure your wives. They are your most valuable possessions” President Hinkley
You beautiful girls — don’t wander around looking like men. Put on a little lipstick now and then and look a little charming — it’s that simple. I don’t know why we make this whole process so hard.” Elder Ballard
These definitions are based on gender stereotypes and they foster continued sexism into the future. The definition of sexism may not be your own so whenever your definition makes it into a dictionary other than the urban dictionary you let me know in the comment section below.
Our church culture is extremely sexist. And that sexism, to me, smacks of the pharisaical mindset.

The LDS church leaders and much of the membership is has more in common with the ideologies of the Pharisees than with the ethos of Christ.

Because church leaders and many members put ideologies ahead of people. They divide families with rules rather than uniting them with the love of Christ. Families are forever unless your children are gay.

Jesus said the Pharisees not only failed to get to heaven themselves they hindered everyone else from entering as well.

In the modern church your haircut is a testament of your faith, as is shaving everyday. And so, apparently, is whether or not a woman wears lipstick. To conform to grooming standards that are in direct opposition to Biblical law. Your style of dress is proof of your faith. Wearing pants or wearing a skirt to church is the difference between righteousness or harlotry.

One of the key features of Jesus' ministry and teachings is that He always put people ahead of ideologies. He healed on the Sabbath to save the children of God. Yet the Pharisees only saw Him doing work when The Lord demanded all Jews to rest. They saw the healings on the sabbath as a violation of the law rather than its fulfillment.

We must put God's children above ideologies, we must fulfill the higher law rather than burden God's children with His word.

God's word is meant to free us, not oppress us.

Mocking Jesus: Invalidating Pain

So a few years ago I went to my ward's trunk or treat. Everyone was encouraged to dress up, even the adults. I had only one costume-a Jesus costume. I thought I have this costume and I look nearly identical to Mormon Jesus. Tall, thin, long hair and a beard, and white. So I thought, it was a good idea at the time.
I was wrong.
My thoughts and feelings which came up during Elders Quorum and Sunday school, were routinely mocked, invalidated and dismissed. The looks I got, the way people were loud and talkative until I got close were all signs my costume had made bad church experiences even worse.
Even after this trunk or treat my wife would share a thought in Relief Society and hear "Well, what do you expect? You know who her husband is..."
Granted she heard this even before the infamous trunk or treat. But afterwards it was noticeably worse. In Elders Quorum I would raise my hand and even if I was the only one with a raised hand I was not called on.
As I would walk through the church I was glared at, heard muttered insults, and again those talkative types grow quite as I came close and get even louder once I passed. These things were somewhat easy to shrug off before the trunk or treat but impossible to disregard afterwards.
I was Temple worthy for this period, over the course of a few years in fact, yet the Bishop(s) and Stake President consistently "lost" the paperwork my wife and I turned over so that we could be sealed in the Temple. Because my wife's ex husband can marry as many women in the Temple as he wants(or can after his probation is over in another 7 years).
And yet after 7 attempts at turning over the paperwork it had been "lost" every time. We gave up after all of this. The way we were treated, the sexism, the homophobia, which is all institutionalized by the way, it was unhealthy for our family as I have four step daughters and my wife to consider. One daughter is gay and the other child is trans. Not approved, appreciated or even welcomed by Christ's "disciples."
We have been hurt, wronged and wounded by the LDS church. And we were made to feel as if we were simply looking to be offended or hurt and that these wounds were simply in our heads.
A wise man once said "The thing is, when someone tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." And you sure as shit don't get to decide that others didn't hurt you especially when you did not witness the event(s) or never went to church with you to see what you experienced. Or never knew those who hurt you.
Doing so is invalidating your pain. Invalidating pain is a serious for of emotional abuse. One cannot use abusive language with abusive techniques with abusive effects and claim they were not avoid ice with any degree of intellectual or emotional honesty or integrity.
By contrast in our new congregation with Community of Christ myself and my family have been welcomed, accepted, validated, and understood.
I dressed as Jesus last night for our Halloween/fall festival and everyone loved it! I posed for many, many pictures and people just kept getting even more of a kick out of it as the night went on.
Thing is, with Community of Christ church, I look forward to the services and lessons. I look forward to seeing every person rather than just a few specific people if anyone. The best part for me is that if I disagree with something/someone, I can push back respectfully and it's ok and even encouraged.
Like when I went to a synagogue and the Rabbi made a statement and asked what we thought. We all agreed and she said "If everyone agrees, how can we learn anything?"
Pushback is ok and even appreciated.
Ideas and feelings are validated and respected rather than invalidated, mocked, and dismissed.
Again, invalidating emotion but especially pain is emotionally abusive. Pain is something that bonds people together more than just about anything is capable of doing. But invalidating it, making one to feel as if they are just making it up, or that they "shouldn't" be hurt or have no right to be undermines ones self esteem and sense of self as well as confidence and even sanity. Border line personality disorder is linked to emotion invalidation but so is depression and anxiety.
Here is a list of examples of invalidation behavior. 

"I found this list of invalidating phrases on another site. I think we nons can learn a lot from this list. Invalidation is weird – and it is a natural reaction to what we think is “crazy” behavior and feelings:

“Ordering” the BP to Feel Differently

Smile.
Be happy.
Cheer up
Lighten up.
Get over it.
Grow up
Get a life
Don’t cry.
Don’t worry.
Don’t be sad.
Stop whining
Stop laughing..
Don’t get angry
Deal with it.
Give it a rest.
Forget about it.
Stop complaining.
Don’t be so dramatic.
Don’t be so sensitive.
Stop being so emotional.
Stop feeling sorry for yourself
Stop taking everything so personally

Ordering the BP to “look” differently

Don’t look so sad.
Don’t look so smug.
Don’t look so down.
Don’t look like that.
Don’t make that face.
Don’t look so serious.
Don’t look so proud of yourself.
Don’t look so pleased with yourself.

Denying the BP’s Perception, Defending

But of course I respect you.
But I do listen to you.
That is ridiculous (nonsense, totally absurd, etc.)
I was only kidding.
I honestly don’t judge you as much as you think.

Trying to Make the BP Feel Guilty While Invalidating the BP

I tried to help you..
At least I …..
At least you….
You are making everyone else miserable.

Trying to Isolate the BP

You are the only one who feels that way.
It doesn’t bother anyone else, why should it bother you?

Minimizing the BP’s Feelings

You must be kidding.
You can’t be serious.
It can’t be that bad.
Your life can’t be that bad.
You are just … (being difficult; being dramatic, in a bad mood, tired, etc)
It’s nothing to get upset over.
It’s not worth getting that upset over.
There’s nothing wrong with you.

Using Reason

There is no reason to get upset.
You are not being rational.
But it doesn’t make any sense to feel that way.
Let’s look at the facts.
Let’s stick to the facts.
But if you really think about it….

Debating

I don’t always do that.
It’s not that bad. (that far, that heavy, that hot, that serious, etc.)

Judging & Labeling the BP

You are a cry baby.
You have a problem.
You are too sensitive.
You are over-reacting. You are too thin-skinned.
You are way too emotional.
You are an insensitive jerk. .
You need to get your head examined!
You are impossible to talk to.
You are impossible.
You are hopeless.

Turning Things Around

You are making a big deal out of nothing.
You are blowing this way out of proportion.
You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Trying to get the BP to question himself/herself

What is your problem?
What’s wrong with you?
What’s the matter with you?
Why can’t you just get over it?
Why do you always have to ….?
Is that all you can do, complain?
Why are you making such a big deal over it?
What’s wrong with you, can’t you take a joke?
How can you let a little thing like that bother you?
Don’t you think you are being a little dramatic?
Do you really think that crying about it is going to help anything?

Telling the BP How he/she “Should” Feel or Act

You should be excited.
You should be thrilled.
You should feel guilty.
You should feel thankful that…
You should be happy that ….
You should be glad that …
You should just drop it.
You shouldn’t worry so much.
You shouldn’t let it bother you.
You should just forget about it.
You should feel ashamed of yourself.
You shouldn’t wear your heart out on your sleeve.
You shouldn’t say that about your father.

Defending The Other Person

Maybe they were just having a bad day.
I am sure she didn’t mean it like that.
You just took it wrong.
I am sure she means well.

Negating, Denial & Confusion

Now you know that isn’t true.
You don’t mean that. You know you love your baby brother.
You don’t really mean that. You are just … (in a bad mood today, tired, cranky)

Sarcasm and Mocking

Oh, you poor thing. Did I hurt your little feelings?
What did you think? The world was created to serve you?
What happened to you? Did you get out of the wrong side of bed again?

Laying Guilt Trips

Don’t you ever think of anyone but yourself?
What about my feelings?!
Have you ever stopped to consider my feelings?

Philosophizing Or Cliches

Time heals all wounds.
Every cloud has a silver lining.
Life is full of pain and pleasure.
In time you will understand this.
When you are older you will understand
You are just going through a phase.
Everything has its reasons.
Everything is just the way it is supposed to be.

Talking about the BP when she can hear it

She is impossible to talk to.
You can’t say anything to her.

Showing Intolerance

This is getting really old.
This is getting really pathetic.
I am sick of hearing about it."

I hope this simple list helps you spot invalidating behavior. There is more information found on line but what I found was too extensive to be helpful here. And I wasn't sure of what to share. But it's not my opinion that invalidation is emotional abuse. It has been validated by the mental health community. I think it's something we've all a been through to some degree.

If you've been hurt by the LDS church you are not alone, you were not just looking to be offended, your pain is legitimate and deserves to be respected, validated and understood. Rather than judged, dismissed or even mocked.

God loves you enough to have His only begotten live and die for you and your benefit. If others can't see your worth, the worth God has always seen in you, then how can they be claiming to act in His stead? How can the claim to be His disciples?

I don't think dressing as Jesus is or was mocking Him. If you do then be sure to take down every last picture or sculpture or bust you have of Him since the 2nd commandments prohibits and graven image. Do that, follow all the commandments and maybe I'll put my Jesus costume back in the closet.

I think it's mocking the idea that He was a white European looking Jew in the ancient near east.

I think being judgmental as hell, condemning and shaming others in His name is the highest blasphemy and mockery of Christ.

I think worshipping a homeless man on Sunday, ignoring at best and hating at worst, the homeless we see throughout our day and throughout our week is mocking everything Jesus taught, lived and died for.

Demanding conformity over simple acceptance of who and what His children  are is mocking the acceptance and love that defined Jesus' life and ministry.

Invalidating the thoughts, feelings and experiences of others is truly mocking Christ to me.

But that's just my take....

Women, The Priesthood, And Sanitizing Church History....Yet Again

So The LDS Church has released a new essay about women, The Priesthood, and Heavenly Mother.  And, as I will demonstrate shortly, has attempted to sanitize church history according to patriarchy.

I will simply take on this task by discussing the text. As much of it as I can do in one post anyway.

And so it begins.....

"Women and men enjoy many opportunities for service in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, both within local congregations and at the Churchwide level. Among other things, Latter-day Saint women preach sermons in Sunday meetings and the Church’s general conference; serve full-time proselytizing missions; perform and officiate in holy rites in the Church’s temples; and lead organizations that minister to families, other women, young women, and children. They participate in priesthood councils at the local and general levels. Professional women teach Latter-day Saint history and theology at Church universities and in the Church’s educational programs for youth. Because only men are ordained to priesthood office, however, questions have arisen about women’s standing in the Church. This essay provides relevant historical context for these important questions and explains Joseph Smith’s teachings about women and priesthood authority."

Women enjoy "many" opportunities for service in the church? Women can serve in the primary program, the young women's program, and in the relief society.  But women are only in charge of other women essentially holding barely more rank in their church and in their homes than children do.

And women preach sermons in Sunday meetings, meetings that are overseen by men and are only allowed to speak about what the male leaders allow or want them to speak about.

And women preach sermons in General Conference?  Want to know how often that happens? Let's just look at this snippet from the blog ByCommonConsent which was published in January of 2014:


"With 25% of the speakers at the women’s meeting being male, and only 8% of the speakers in the general sessions of general conference being female (this excludes Priesthood Session, which is 100% male), there are three times as many male speakers in the women’s meeting than there are female speakers in the meetings that are supposed to be for men and women. If you include prayers and other speaking parts (as shown in the infographic), the women’s meeting has about 50% more male participation than the sessions for “everyone” have female participation."

 "[1] This post concerns General Conference. One might think that our local sacrament meetings, with typically 50/50 gender ratio on the talks, would be better. Elouise Bell’s classic piece, “The Meeting,” is a gender-swap hypothetical to show how unbalanced things are there as well. Please consider this sentence the prose version of some kind of effusive hug/heart emoticon expressing my admiration of Elouise Bell."

So saying that women preach sermons in General Conference is like saying since we have had one African American President that minorities are fully represented in our government and they totally give Presidential speeches all the time. It's disingenuous at best and flat out deceitful at worst.

Moving on the the 2nd paragraph of the essay:

"The restoration of priesthood authority through the Prophet Joseph Smith is a fundamental doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Early in his ministry, Joseph Smith received priesthood authority from heavenly messengers; with that authority, he organized the Church, conferred priesthood upon other men, and ordained them to offices in the priesthood.1 By this same authority, Joseph Smith organized the Relief Society as part of the structure of the Church, which formally defined and authorized a major aspect of women’s ministry. All this was done to prepare the Saints to participate in the ordinances of the temple, which were introduced soon after the founding of the Relief Society. At the time of his death, the revelatory vision imparted to Joseph Smith was securely in place: women and men could receive and administer sacred priesthood ordinances in holy temples, which would help prepare them to enter the presence of God one day."

Yes, let's discuss the history of female Ordination to the Priesthood in the early Christian church as well as during Joseph Smith's lifetime because contrary to the church essay women were in fact ordained both in the ancient Christian church and during Joseph Smith's lifetime.  Let's look at the ancient church first:

Here is a good book on female ordination in the early Christian church.
 Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History 1st Edition by Kevin Madigan (Editor), Carolyn Osiek (Editor)


4 customer reviewsWomen having been ordain to the Priesthood in the early Christian church, and as a matter of normalcy rather than an exception, is a historical fact. As is the ordination of women under Joseph Smith's tenure as Propet and President of the early LDS church.  Here are several, 20 examples to be precise, that will demonstrate that when Joseph Smith uses the word ordain, it does mean what you think it means:
Here is a link to 34 quotes from LDS sources about women's ordination under Joseph Smith. Please read these quotes as they will allow you to understand what Joseph Smith himself meant by ordination and his vision for women to have the priesthood as in Paul's day.  As they had for centuries before women were stripped of their priestly duties in the early Christian church.
And now on to the 3rd paragraph of the church's essay:

"Early Latter-day Saint Understandings of PriesthoodThe restoration of priesthood authority came at a time of intense religious excitement in the United States. This excitement was driven in part by questions about divine authority—who had it, how it was obtained, and whether it was necessary.2 In the early 19th century, most Christians believed that the authority to act in God’s name had remained on the earth since the time of Jesus’s mortal ministry. Joseph Smith taught that Christ’s priesthood was lost after the deaths of the ancient apostles and had been newly restored through angelic ministration. Even so, many Latter-day Saints initially understood the concept of priesthood largely in terms common for the day. In 1830s America, the word priesthood was defined as “the office or character of a priest” and “the order of men set apart for sacred offices,” identifying priesthood with religious office and the men who held it.3 Early Latter-day Saints likewise thought of priesthood primarily in terms of ordination to ecclesiastical office and authority to preach and perform religious rites.4 As in most other Christian denominations during this era, Latter-day Saint men alone held priesthood offices, served formal proselytizing missions, and performed ordinances like baptism and blessing the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper." The above link with early church quotes from Joseph Smith and other refute the statements in the 3rd paragraph.  But here is an article with specific examples of female ordination and participation in church leadership of the ancient Christian church. So unless Joseph SMith, members of the first Relief Society, including Emma Smith are wrong in which case the history contained in the following article was either against what Joseph personally taught or it was in line with what he taught and it waslatter generations of our church leaders who knowingly sanitized church history and practice with regard to female ordination." The earliest references to local resident leaders in the Pauline churches are Philippians 1:1 and Romans 16:1-2. Paul addresses his letter to the community at Philippi with their episkopoi and diakonoi (both masculine plural titles in Greek, both terms borrowed from secular leadership). These are the terms that later came to mean "bishop" and "deacon." The episkopoi cannot mean here "bishop" as we understand it because there are many in one community. The role of the diakonoi also had not yet evolved into that which was later understood as deacon. The revised edition of the New American Bible translates the words as "overseers" and "ministers" and acknowledges in a note that the later development had not yet taken place.

Masculine plural forms are used in Greek to refer either to groups of men or to groups of mixed gender. In Romans 16:1-2, Paul introduces to the letter's recipients a woman named Phoebe, a benefactor who is also a diakonos of the church at Cenchreae, one of the seaports of Corinth. Thus we know that women could hold this title at the time, and therefore the diakonoi in Philippi could be a mixed group. If the episkopoi of Philippians were heads of house churches, as seems likely, it is not impossible that some of them were also women (for example, Nympha in Colossians 4:15).

The account in Acts of the Apostles 6:1-6 of the apostles choosing seven men to take care of table service is usually considered the origin of the office of deacon, yet no one in the story is called diakonos and the apostles appoint them for the diakonia of the table so that the apostles can devote themselves to the diakonos of prayer and the word. All perform diakonos of different kinds.

Some years later, the churches of the Pastoral Epistles seem to have had a single episkopos, now a bishop (1 Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:7), with deacons as assistants. Women are explicitly included among the deacons (1 Timothy 3:11), possibly as wives of deacons but most likely as deacons themselves. Presbyters are a shadowy group here, mentioned later (1 Timothy 5:17-19). This reference could be to leaders in general, since the word originally meant "elders." Slightly later texts, like the letters of Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century, show the developing structure of bishop with his deacons and presbyters. The role of the deacons is clearer, as assistant to the bishop. The presbyters seem to be a council to the bishop. Nothing is said that precludes the presence of women in either group.

By the third century, there are both male and female deacons, particularly in the Eastern church. There is abundant literary and inscriptional evidence of female deacons. Their title is "deacon" or "deaconess," seemingly interchangeably. The early third-century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum compares the bishop to God, the male deacon to Christ, and the female deacon to the Holy Spirit. The presbyters are likened only to the apostles; their role is still not clear (9.3-8). Though this document prohibits women from teaching, female deacons have a ministry to women that only they can perform: instruction, assistance at baptism, and other kinds of pastoral ministry. The late fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions gives the rite for ordination of a female deacon, with hands laid on and invocation of the Holy Spirit (8.19-20).

A further document, the Testamentum Domini, probably written in the late fourth or early fifth century, assumes the existence of deaconesses, but preeminence is given to widows, who are clearly among the clergy along with bishop, presbyters and deacons (1.19, 23). There is a rite for their ordination (1.41). Deaconesses are not seated among the clergy, but at the head of the rest of the women of the congregation. Later in the document, female presbyters appear, to remain after liturgy with the bishop and the widows, fasting and praying until dawn (2.19). Here, the root meaning of "older women" could apply, though their placing with widows for all-night vigil with the bishop would then seem strange.

Only in the mid third century does the role of presbyters begin to emerge, when Christian congregations in a given region are growing too large to assemble all together with the bishop. As church organization evolves in the fourth century, presbyters are now in charge of satellite communities in large urban areas, and increasingly in rural areas as well. From these years come several conciliar and episcopal condemnations of women presbyters (for example, Council of Nîmes, In ministerium leviticum, canon 2; the Council of Laodicea, presbytides, canon 11; Letter 14 of Pope Gelasius, ministrare sacris altaribus; Fulgentius of Carthage, presbyterae). It is highly unlikely that so many condemnations would appear about a nonexistent practice. The frequency of occurrences suggests a widespread practice. Moreover, there is positive evidence of women presbyters. Several earlier inscriptions from Phrygia, Thera, Egypt and Sicily commemorate female presbyters, in one case (Ammion in Phrygia), the commemoration made by a bishop. The holy presbyter Flavia Vitalia in early fifth-century Dalmatia (today, Croatia) sold a piece of church burial property, so she was an authorized church agent. Leta presbytera in late fifth-century Calabria is commemorated by her husband, who does not bear an ecclesiastical title; it is therefore highly unlikely that her title comes from being his wife. Martia presbyteria made the offering along with two men in a graffito from Gaul around the same time. Giulia Runa presbiterissa is commemorated in the church of St. Augustine at Hippo, from a time soon after his death, probably during the Vandal occupation. Most intriguing are two fragments of a tombstone from Solin in Dalmatia, one a cross, the other the word fragment -- dotae, of which the most obvious reconstruction would be sacerdotae, to the (female) priest.

It is interesting to note that most of the references to female presbyters come rather late and that most come not from the East, where female deacons were more widely known, but from the West." From ncronline.org The National Catholic ReporterAnd women do to this day hold the priesthood and use that power even today. But only in LDS Temples.  During a rite known as the second anointing. And Temple language still uses terms like "Priestess" and "Priestesses" to refer to women.  There is more to it than that but it is curious as to why this language is used if women aren't fit to hold the Priesthood because of their lack of a penis.For me the Priesthood should be about building up the kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven.  It should be about acting in Christ's stead to serve His sheep but also all of His children. The Priesthood and being worthy of and endowed with the Priesthood should not be based solely on whether or not you have a penis.So the notion that women were ever ordain in Christian history is false.  And so is the notion that LDS women were never ordained.  Women still hold the Priesthood but only in Temples but also in the hereafter. They are not allowed to use it in the here and now.And here I present to you the 4th, 5th and 6th parapgraphs: "Unlike those in many other churches, Latter-day Saints extended priesthood ordination broadly to laymen, as directed by revelation. Over time, an extensive structure of priesthood offices and quorums was established. From the beginning, this structure was governed by revelation under the direction of priesthood leaders holding “keys.”5 The keys of the Melchizedek priesthood, given through divine messengers to Joseph Smith and later passed to others, bestowed the “right of presidency,” the right “to administer in spiritual things,” and the “right to officiate in all the offices in the church.”6"
"Latter-day Saints’ understanding of the nature of priesthood and keys grew as a result of revelations received by Joseph Smith. An 1832 revelation taught that the greater, or Melchizedek, priesthood held “the key of the knowledge of God,” and that in the ordinances of the priesthood, “the power of godliness is manifest.” Joseph Smith was charged, like Moses, “to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God.”7 In 1836, angelic messengers committed priesthood keys to Joseph Smith that would enable church members to receive temple ordinances.8 In an 1841 revelation, the Lord commanded the Saints to build a temple in Nauvoo, Illinois, where He would reveal to His people “all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof.”9 The culminating ordinances of the priesthood were to be found in the temple and would help prepare men and women to enter into God’s presence."
"Latter-day Saint women in the Church’s earliest years, like women elsewhere, participated actively in their new religious community. They ratified decisions by voting in conferences;10 they furnished the temple with their handiwork; they worshipped alongside men in meetings and choirs; they shared the gospel with relatives and neighbors; they hosted meetings in their homes; and they exercised spiritual gifts in private and in public.11 Early revelation authorized women to “expound scriptures, and to exhort the church.”12 Even so, like most other Christians in their day, Latter-day Saints in the early years of the Church reserved public preaching and leadership for men." These passages seem to me to be saying "Look, women were present and participated so the church is totally not sexist at all! See!!"  Maybe that's just me though. Again women have always been seen as barely outranking their children in rank in their own homes and especially in their own churches.  Just because it has been this way does not mean it should be this way. Black men, slaves, were given the right to vote in 1870 and yet women were not given the right to vote until 1920. Black men were not given the Priesthood until 1978 so it is unlikely that women will get the Priesthood for another 50 years and even then I don't think it will happen. If it does it will be the Aaronic Priesthood and another 50 years before getting the Melchizedek Priesthood, making women equal to men in the LDS church.These church essay's seek to deny racism, sexism and any sort of bigotry within our church.  Because if the brethren can deny them, they do not have to accept and take accountability for them.  Anyone and anything must be responsible except them and their fore bearers.  Which oddly enough is the definition of narcissistic personality disorder. In that a narcissist can never accept responsibility for their words and actions, meaning anyone or anything must be the problem because they never can be. It seems this narcissism has become institutionalized in the LDS church.You can release all the essays you want but if you can't accept responsibility for wrongdoing you merely paint yourself into a corner of infallibility wherein you say you are infallible yet inevitably demonstrate that you are in fact fallible.    And even then leaders will say they have made mistakes but that they must be overlooked or forgiven and yet when the rest of us make mistakes we get excommunicated without being told what we have done wrong like Rock Waterman.Where's our forgiveness?  "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:1-2 KJVIf this teaching of Christ is true then many who think they are safe are not and those who fear they are not mostly are.The truth is not what it appears within the confines of the LDS church.  Google can teach you more in 5 minutes than the church has for 100 years.  These facts I have presented to refute the claims made in their newest essay are not made up.  In fact, they are from LDS sources. If you haven't found them it is because the church has sanitized it's history to appear to be more congruent then it actually is.  The church would have you believe the truth abut it's history is plain and precious and yet no church has changed more over it's history faster and more often than the LDS church.And in order to appear to have been consistent it has altered it's own history even to it's own members because most LDS members will not pay attention to any information that is not church approved for fear of running into "anit-Mormon" lies.  Which is why Rock Waterman, John Dehlin and Kate Kelly were excommunicated. Becuase it then removes the troublesome facts like a tumor from a cancer patient. And yet the hemorrhaging of LDS members continues unabated.If you are still a member, if you have left faith altogether or if you have joined another church I pray for you to have a safe journey.  I merely present information to counter what I honestly feel are duplicitous, disingenuous, and possibly deceitful information coming from the LDS church.  Many have, but I hope as so many others seek to find the historical truth and to be spiritually feed, that I and others can help along the way for many people on many differing paths. The idea that the church may be hiding things or flat out lying is a hard thing to handle. But if one continues to study there is a light at the end of the tunnel.  But we would do well to remember that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God as Paul said. Flawed people are all God has ever had to work with and His plan will still unfold regardless. If we reserve worship for God alone then we will never be disappointed. It is only when we worship men and those men inevitably fail us that our faith becomes endangered.The reason I think so many who leave the LDS church become Atheist is because the faith of so many LDS members is so entwined with the church leaders that once their faith in the leaders is gone so is their faith in God. 

The members don't have a faithfulness problem, the church has an honesty problem. Leaning on the leadership is to lean on other sinners to be infallible. Which is like the blind leading the blind.  But it is only Christ that gives sight to the blind. And He is the only one we can rely on to give us the sight to see what is true and what is not.

Peace, Humanity, Oneness And Then What?

I saw a man protesting The Parliament of the World's Religions. Just one man, by himself, on the last day of the interfaith conference.
One sign said "If there isn't one true church, there isn't one, yours or mine friend."
My issue with statements like that is how exclusionary they are. And the reason certain denominations or Faith's were not represented at the parliament, I think, is because to take part in an interfaith summit is to validate other Faith's and one can only do so if one believes in inclusiveness rather than exclusionary theology.
It was quite telling that the LDS church was absent because the leaders had more pressing engagements. Like a conference on traditional marriage.As though stripping others of their legal rights, promoting reparative therapies and demeaning those who God created differently are more important than inclusiveness.
I feel it's likely that to participate in an interfaith conference means they would have to answer questions they could not choose. They would not have had control over the conversation. If they were to have been caught off guard a PR nightmare could have ensued.
Also they could have alienated their base, small as it is, and maybe they felt they would have lost more ground than they would have gained by participating as a result.
But the point that any church that feels they are right and every other faith is wrong and/or of the Devil, then there is no point in participating, still stands.
I saw a poster during the conference that said that religions are like highways, they are not the destination, God is the destination. Religions are the paths to that destination. Just because someone else is taking a different route does not mean they are not heading towards the same destination.
Road signs are like creeds and doctrines in that they help us find the path and eventually the final destination.
They should not become idols to be worshipped in and of themselves. They merely guide us along our journey.
My feeling is that God welcomes us all. And that since God is infinite then no one church, no one person, no one theology and no one path can contain the infinite wisdom, compassion or understanding of God. So how can anyone claim that their path is the only true path? Or that if truth that doesn't originate from their tradition is not truth but false.
Joseph Smith said this about truth; “Mormonism is Truth… One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may. (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199)Later, Joseph bolstered this sentiment with this statement, “We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith page 316.)Only God can claim ownership over all truth. It is a mistake for anyone but God to make the claim that they can.So what is our goal once we reach God?Is our goal to bask in His presence? Is our goal to take part in the further light and knowledge that is God?The goal for me is peace, humanity and oneness. There is no "and then what?" The goal and the journey are the same.Those who are offended by inclusion are those who are all about not just exclusion but those who seek to rule over others, those who seek to put a velvet rope at the pearly gates and who want the power to say who's in and who's out.If every religion is just another highway to God and there is no one true church then  does it matter at all which path you take? Can anyone be a Christian then, Buddhits, Hindus or Muslims?Here's how Christ defined His disciples:

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 13:34-35 KJV

And here's another thought from Jesus:

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:16:20 KJV

So just as with Christ the fruits of our lives prove our faith. But Christ did not say that one has to go to a certain church, or eat or not eat certain foods, or wear certain clothes to be His disciple. He said He wants us to bear spiritual fruits not religious nuts.

When I think about how accepting and inclusive, how understanding and compassionate all these thousands of people of other faiths were to each other and to me I feel that peace, humanity and oneness is the spiritual fruit we are taught by Christ to bear. 

It is what He bore when teaching about good Samaritans who were hated by the Jews, when He taught the Samaritan woman and the Caananite woman when almost no other Jew would have done so. Jesus was opening up the kingdom for all rather than a select few.

"I defeat my enemies when I make them my friends." -The Dalai Lama

When we let the velvet rope in front of the pearly gates drop we allow all of God's children to enter. When we stop dividing ourselves, when we stop separating ourselves and when we stop alienating each other then and only then do we become a brotherhood, a family under God once again. 

As we were in the beginning and as we could be again in the end. If we choose connection over separation we could have that today and not just in the future.

Peace, humanity and oneness is what the journey and destination are all about.

Meditation: The Devil Made Me Do It

So as a part of the Community of Christ congregation I was invited to attend the 5 day event of The Parliament of the World's Religions.
The best part, aside from awesome workshops and panel discussions and sessions, was one on one conversations with Buddhits, Muslims(I exchanged numbers with one guy and he's going to help me study the Quran), but the Sikhs I got to know well.
They were more than delighted to give me a free turban and even wrapped it for me. They feed thousands of people for free, asking for nothing more than their company. There were an estimated 10,000 people in attendance.
During my free meal, which was kosher and halaal as well as vegetarian so that anyone could eat without fear of violating their faith, I sat next to an evangelical who was very knowledgeable about various faiths. We had an awesome conversation about the Old and New Testaments and then gay rights.
When she disagreed she would say "I disagree because for me..." Rather than condemning ideas or beliefs simply because they were not her own, so I must give credit where credit is due.
She attended because she wants to share Christ's love with everyone and as she could disagree without being disagreeable, I think she may have done well with that. That is, until she got to the subject of meditation with me.
Her first point was that the Bible doesn't teach meditation, which by the way is false, for example:

   "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are
   noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever
   things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is
   any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these
   things." (Php 4:8)

    Paul clearly teaches us to "meditate on these things", and   "meditation" is certainly a Biblical subject:    Isaac meditated in the field at eventide - Gen 24:63    Joshua was charged by God to mediate "day and night" - Josh 1:8    The "blessed man" in Psalms 1 is one who meditates - Ps 1:1-2    David became wiser than his teachers through meditation - Ps 119:99    Paul commanded Timothy to "meditate on these things" - 1Ti 4:15  
Meditation was practiced along with prayer by the Patriarchs, Apostles and the first Disciples of Christ.  Meditation has Biblical roots not simply a practice eastern in origin.  It is simply a practice that fell away along with many of the original teachings of Christ and many Jewish foundational teachings and practices. Teachings and practices that have been rediscovered in recent memory and specifically many were rediscovered because of the restoration.So meditation is a biblical practice but because biblical societies were not eastern in origin their form of meditation took a different form but it is still meditation none the less.I wrote a post called "I am a fan of meditation." It is my most popular post of all time so it can be found under that heading on the right tool bar. It details the effects of meditation on the brain. The physical effects of meditation and prayer are exactly the same on the brain, body and emotional state. I told this evangelical lady that and she responded with the idea that when you quiet the mind you open yourself up to evil spirits. Now the Bible most definitely does not teach that!I always thought that only when you quiet the mind can you hear the soul, only then can you hear the breath of God, only then can you feel the rush of the universes' blood flowing through you, but only then can you specifically feel your sense of ego diminish as your sense of connection or oneness with everyone and everything surge.According to this evangelical woman, a sense of oneness is Satanic because we are all separate and meant to be so. Oneness violates God's plan for us and it violates Biblical teachings.Oneness with God seems like a beautiful idea to me. But apparently that's because I am a servant of the Devil..."So the Bible doesn't teach meditation?" I asked, she said "No, it does not." I thought to myself "Well, it doesn't teach particle physics either but that doesn't mean it's bad, Satanic or dangerous to study."Perhaps I should've said that. Maybe not.My experience with meditation has been calming and centering. I have schizophrenia AND bipolar disorder at the same time. So meditating is the only time my mind is silent. My mind is going in a million different directions at a time.It's like having 2,567 tabs open on your internet browser at a time, all the time, forever. Until I meditate. Then I find peace and solitude. And it allows my over active mind much needed rest.But we could all use that sense of rest, solitude and peace.The Bible teaches meditation. It does not teach against it or a sense of oneness. It does not teach that a quiet mind invites evil spirits.She also told me the Bible teaches that bad people don't go to hell rather they will be destroyed by God. The soul is not eternal according to her.Again this is not accurate but the last half of our conversation that I have detailed here was like a fact checkers Valhalla. A target right environment of boldfaced falsehoods.What saddens me is that she preaches the evils of a healthy and helpful practice like meditation even though scientists and therapists now recommend meditation because of its health benefits that one will still receive even when the religious aspects of meditation have been removed.She does not believe the soul is eternal. She does not believe that the soul is a part of God. She believes that only the best people receive eternal life. Even though she spoke of grace and the Atonement as if all have the chance at eternal life. She still believes if you sin or believe wrongly enough then you will suffer utter destruction which is called the second death in scripture.With the exception of the conversation I just related, every discussion I had made me feel inspired. My faith and understanding was deepened and strengthened.I had the time of my life. I really did. This Parliment lasted 5 days and not once did violence raised its head. Not once did someone confront compassion with hate.The man who wrapped my turban on Saturday said that if we can do it here in SLC, UT then we can make this peace everywhere.But if we disagree we would do well to avoid referring to spiritual practices, especially when found to be scientifically healing, healthy and beneficial meantally, physically and emotionally, as coming from the Devil.We would do better to seek out the truth in every faith, seek out the truth wherever it is to be found because God is the author of all truth. And God, His word and His wisdom can not be contained in full in any book, church or spiritual discipline.Joseph Smith said this about truth; “Mormonism is Truth… One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may. (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199)Later, Joseph bolstered this sentiment with this statement, “We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith page 316.)