I have a friend online whose son returned home from a full-time mission as a result of anxiety attacks he thought were under control prior to beginning his mission. She asked me for my advice about how to try to lessen the possible negative impact of that situation on her son, and I came across what I told her and decided to post it here.
One of my very close friends growing up came home early from his mission, entirely because he didn't feel right telling people they could have experiences he hadn't had. He asked for the release, and he was given an honorable release by a good Mission President who understood. I admired my friend immensely for that, and even more so when his girlfriend broke up with him because, in her words, she only wanted to marry a "real" RM. (I really loathe that attitude, and I choose that word intentionally.) He faced some judgment from others when he returned home, but his parents were very supportive - and he has a strong testimony of compassion, love and charity as a result of his experiences.
I would share with your son the details of Pres. George Albert Smith's life - of his constant physical trials and his struggles with depression throughout his life. I would explain that Pres. Smith was one of the most loving, humble, charitable leaders we have had in the Church - and I believe his struggles were a large part of reinforcing his natural tendencies in that regard. If a President of the Church struggled as much as he did, there is NO shame or guilt whatsoever in your son's situation.
I also would have him read 2 Nephi 4 from the perspective of a clinical evaluation of Nephi. I believe there is a very good chance Nephi would have been diagnosed with depression, bi-polar disorder or something similar, based on the symptoms in that chapter. That chapter is one of the reasons he is one of my favorite prophets - not because of his recorded visions. I appreciate the struggle described in that chapter FAR more than any sanitized accounts of other prophets.
More than anything else, I simply pray for him and your family. May you be able to rise above the pettiness that you might face and be the example for others they should be for you - amid your struggles, not without them.
"we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
I'm NOT going to go into the different ways that verse can be interpreted right now, but I think it might help your son in his current situation to understand that, no matter what others think about him and his release (even the leaders of your ward and stake, perhaps), and no matter how the verse above is interpreted, it says in crystal clear terms that your son has been saved by the grace of God in the specific instance of his missionary service.
Saved from what? I think it is fair to say from every negative aspect of his release. Period.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows . . . the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
The parts I skipped don't apply to your son's situation, but the parts above do. I hope he can recognize what is taught in these three verses and accept that, in God's eyes, his service was enough - since it was "all (he) can do".
Last Sunday, we covered the last five paragraphs of Elder Oaks' talk - with paragraph defined loosely.
I close with some truths about the blessings of the priesthood. Unlike priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations, the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and to men on the same terms.
I mentioned that Elder Oaks said this, with different words, multiple times throughout the talk (including in the upcoming paragraphs) - but that he was about to use two specific examples that rarely have been discussed in those terms in the past.
The gift of the Holy Ghost and the blessings of the temple are familiar illustrations of this truth.
We defined "the priesthood" one more time (the power of God) and I asked the students if they could list times / events in life when we could say we represent God in some way. The obvious responses were ordination for the young men and baptism, so we talked about those and others.
1) We believe we all are children of God, so, in a very real way, if we believe that, we also believe we can represent him as his children. That is emphasized in our theology by our belief in the light of Christ, which we equate with our consciences. Everyone, with a few exceptions, represents God in this way.
2) When we are baptized, we covenant to take the name of Jesus upon us - to become "Christian". That is a direct commitment to do what Jesus would do and represent him.
3) When we are confirmed, we are told to receive the Holy Ghost - which we equate to striving to understand and do the will of God.
4) We talk of the Priesthood in terms of service - which, phrased differently, is participating in the work and glory of God.
All of these things are "exercising the authority and power of the Priesthood" - and all of them are available, according to Elder Oaks, to men and women alike. Currently, the only exceptions are, in his words, "priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations" - and those can change if the top leadership receives revelation that would change the historical "pattern" they see right now and not if they don't.
This is another reiteration of one of Elder Oaks' central themes - but it is one of the first times I have heard two apostles say unequivocally that women are endowed with priesthood power when they attend the temple. As was the case with his words earlier in the talk, Elder Oaks did NOT frame this as women having access to the priesthood power men are given; rather, once again, he framed it explicitly as women having / being given the same power men are given - that the priesthood power they exercise is their own power, endowed directly and personally to them.
We talked about the temple garment - the "garment of the holy priesthood". I explained that both men and women wear symbolic clothing ("robes") in the temple that represent the ceremonial clothing temple priests wore in the Old Testament time. Thus, in the temple, men dress as priests and women dress as priestesses. We talked about how men AND women leave the temple "clothed in the garment of the holy priesthood" - which means, in a tangible way, BOTH men and women "hold the priesthood" when they leave the temple. In other words, when women wear the garment, they are "putting on the priesthood" once again, symbolically - and that the garment is the tangible representation of their priestess robes outside the temple. Again, with that in mind, when women do the Lord's work outside the temple, they are doing it as priestesses through the priesthood power with which they were endowed when they first went through the temple.
I told the students that if they wanted an interesting experience they should go through the talk again, in its entirety, and count the number of times Elder Oaks said that men and women both have access to the power and authority of God and exercise it in everything they do in the Church. I asked why he would have to repeat it so many time, and, after we talked about that, I told them that I think it's because members who are close to my age and older need to have it repeated that many times to have it register and to understand and accept it. I asked them to be patient when they heard members repeat the former framing - to understand how hard it can be to let go of things that were learned when those people were teenagers and early adults - but to commit to make sure they helped change the Church into more of what Elder Oaks described than it currently is.
I see the story of Adam and Eve, as presented in the temple endowment, as Lucifer positioning himself as the "God of this world" by inserting himself between Adam & Eve and God, "commanding them" and convincing them to hide from God. In other words, Lucifer pointed out their nakedness and then used that nakedness as a wedge to separate them from God.
Having said that, I don't take it literally, so I don't believe things actually happened as I just described. I'm talking about the meaning taken from the story within the endowment - and I really like that meaning, since it includes shame and guilt over simple nakedness as being introduced by the "father of lies". The idea that nakedness is shameful in and of itself is a horrible lie, in my opinion - and I appreciate a story that attributes that shame to "the devil".
The Island of Misfit Toys, with all its issues, still was a haven for the toys there - and their collective charity and acceptance of another misfit eventually set them free.
Jesus was a true misfit in many, many ways - and he spent his life serving his own "kingdom of nobodies" - on an Island of Misfit Toys he intentionally and purposefully created during his ministry. Who cares if we are blind? He healed the blind. So what if we feel "dead" sometimes. He raised the dead. Who cares if we are rejected and despised by the "mainstream" religious culture of our time? He walked and talked and healed those outside the mainstream. What does it matter if we are sick or tired or different? He loved and blessed the sick and the tired and the different in a very special way.
I believe we are doing God's work here in mortality, in a very real and important way, when we interact with and love those who are suffering and struggling in some way - and I think if Jesus were to spend any time with members of the LDS Church in a second ministry, it would be with those who struggle the most in the Church. I really think he would spend more time outside our meetinghouses than in our Sacrament Meetings, if his first mortal ministry is any indication - and I am not disparaging our meetinghouses and Sacrament Meetings in any way by saying that. I wish badly that more of our congregations and activities were gatherings of misfits much more obviously than currently is the case.
I really love the idea of looking for and loving those who live on their own Island of Misfit Toys (and realizing that all of us, in a real and important way, are Misfit Toys) - and my teary eyes as I type this are a testimony to that feeling.
But while the Atonement is meant to help us all become more like Christ, it is not meant to make us all the same. Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads some to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold - that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God, who created every man different from his brother, every son different from his father. Even identical twins are not identical in their personalities and spiritual identities. It also contradicts the intent and purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ, which acknowledges and protects the moral agency - with all its far-reaching consequences - of each and every one of God’s children. As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments. But we are diverse in our cultural, social, and political preferences.
Why Does God Let Us Come to Earth, if He Knows What We Are Going to Do?
"Why does God let us come to earth when he already knows what we are going to do (beyond getting a physical body)?"
I'm not so sure he does know every single thing we will do - and I'm not so sure it matters in the long run, since I think we have much, much longer to reach our ultimate destination than we realize, no matter what we do in every single instance.
Then, obviously, I might have to explain in greater detail - but I might not.
Because it's not about God; it's about you and me and everyone else.
I don't know for sure. What do you think?
The ability to consider multiple possibilities is a wonderful thing to me - as is an understanding that most, if not all, answers merely give rise to more questions.
Some questions require answers - at the very least, temporary ones; some questions don't require answers but serve more to open doors to other questions.
Having said that, many people need answers - and I'm not about to disparage them for that need. In some things, I like (nearly) immutable answers.
Each of us has to determine for ourselves what questions require answers for us and what questions don't - and we have to fight the tendency to deny that right to others whose conclusions are different than ours.
We tend to take the summary, abridged descriptions in the Book of Mormon at face value and, often, don't step back a bit and remember that what we have is presented as not even 1/100th of what could have been included - or that it was recorded by very few individuals from their own perspectives. We can accept them as prophets and good people without sacrificing our acknowledgment that they also were humans with personal biases and motives that influenced their writings - especially in the case of Mormon, who, like any historian with space and time constraints, had to pick and choose what to share and what to exclude.
1) Mosiah had taken leadership of a people more numerous than the Nephites. That simple fact opens all kinds of issues relative to his government-altering actions before he died.
2) If one of his sons wasn't going to take his place, there was a good chance that one of the people of Mulek who already was influential and popular would do so - especially if the kingship was determined by popular vote. Again, it is stated clearly in the text that the people of Mulek greatly outnumbered the descendants of Nephi in that area. In fact, the moment Mosiah's sons rejected the throne (and Alma the Younger also did), those other influential Mulekite contenders might have started agitating for the position very quickly.
3) Nehor is described as being another King Noah, in philosophy and intent. Amalici was one of his disciples. They are said to have gained a following FAR too quickly to have started a grass-roots campaign from scratch at the end of Mosiah's life.
4) If Mosiah knew either of them was likely to become the king, it would have provided the best possible motivation to change the system.
5) If you think about it, the best possible reason for Nehor, and then Amlici, to be extremely upset and demand what they had assumed they would attain would have been what they would have seen as an attempt to perpetuate the minority rule of the Nephites over them. Consider the situation in some Islamic countries even today; there are striking parallels.
6) It's easy to condemn Nehor and Amlici, given the descriptions we have of them, and I'm not trying to endorse them in any way - but it's harder to realize that they might have had a very compelling legal argument and an incredibly strong emotional appeal to a majority people ruled by those of the minority.
Many things are less clear than we tend to assume in hindsight - and many things in the Book of Mormon are pretty amazing when looked upon a bit more expansively than we tend to do.
It reminds me of "The Shaman Exercise" -- an exercise a coworker told me about once. When someone has a problem, they stand in the middle of the circle and present the problem to the circle. The circle is composed of people from all walks of life and status in the world. Each person in the outer circle gives their analysis of the problem and a proposed solution, while the person in the center listens.
In theory, that is exactly how councils in the LDS Church should function with regard to many decisions.
The great designs of God in relation to the salvation of the human family, are very little understood by the professedly wise and intelligent generation in which we live. Various and conflicting are the opinions of men concerning the plan of salvation, the requisitions of the Almighty, the necessary preparations for heaven, the state and condition of departed spirits, and the happiness or misery that is consequent upon the practice of righteousness and iniquity according to their several notions of virtue and vice.
Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the promptings / will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.
Understanding and living by those simple principles, according to the dictates of our own individual consciences, really is the key to internal peace and joy.
When that is coupled with a collective acceptance that ALL people have that same privilege to craft their own internal peace and joy (subject to minimal restrictions, based on the fundamental principle of love), again, even if they view many things differently - in those cases, "Zion" truly exists.
The topic this month is "Priesthood and Priesthood Keys".
I explained to the students that the lesson outlines had been written before Elder Oaks gave his talk in the April General Conference about the authority and power of the Priesthood, and we were going to go through his talk sentence-by-sentence and discuss what he said and how it changes the way we should talk about priesthood, keys, authority, power, offices and ordination from how we did so when I was their age.
For the purposes of this summary, I will quote the sentences we discussed and give a synopsis of the discussions. We only managed to discuss the first six paragraphs, so we will continue next week - and the following week, if necessary.
I asked them if we really believe this, since it goes against everything about our natural person view of "positions and responsibilities". We talked about a corporate or college President being asked to become a secretary and how many would accept that change. We talked about members of the Church going from Bishop or Stake President to Nursery Leader.
The direct implication is that "all of us" don't understand the Priesthood well enough - that we all need to accept that our understanding needs to change and grow - that what we have believed in the past wasn't full and isn't good enough / adequate anymore. Thus, what Elder Oaks said after this point constitutes "new understanding" that needs to replace our old understanding.
priesthood ordinances and priesthood authority pertain to women as well as men.
I asked them how many of them had heard someone say in the past that priesthood authority pertains to women. None of them had heard that. I told them that Elder Oaks explained that change in the next few paragraphs, and that it is important to start thinking about women using Priesthood authority from now on.
President Joseph F. Smith described the priesthood as “the power of God" [to do lots of things].
So, at heart, "priesthood" can be defined as "power" - most specifically "power to do God's work" (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man[kind]). Jesus is taught to have accomplished the immortality part (living forever as resurrected beings), so our work falls within the eternal life part (being / becoming like God).
We discussed the concept that, given this wording, changes to how priesthood authority and power are used is up to people who have keys to direct, control and govern - and, as we will read further on in the talk, ultimately we teach that Jesus has the final word. So, what happens in a ward is up to the Bishop, within some limitations directed by those who hold more keys (like the Stake Presidents and Apostles) and "confer" Bishop-specific keys on the Bishop (give them to him and authorize him to use them). Thus, at the local level, leaders with keys can do things differently in many ways than others at that same level but in different locations, subject to restrictions put in place by those with more keys.
We spent more time on this statement than any other one. I asked the students who, according to this sentence, can exercise priesthood authority and access priesthood power. It took a little time, but they came to see that ALL means all - so all who are set apart in any calling or who accept any assignment from someone having keys can exercise priesthood authority and access priesthood power. Focusing on the ward, that means it's not just men and young men who can exercise priesthood authority and access priesthood power, but it also is the YW class presidencies, the Primary and Relief Society Presidency, the Ward Chorister, the Librarians, the Primary and Sunday School teachers, etc. I asked them how often they had heard about any of those people exercising priesthood authority and accessing priesthood power - and none of them had heard that previously. I reiterated that this is something that they are going to have to accept and understand, even if older people like me struggle to do so from decades of hearing it explained differently.
In the controlling of the exercise of priesthood authority, the function of priesthood keys both enlarges and limits. It enlarges by making it possible for priesthood authority and blessings to be available for all of God’s children. It limits by directing who will be given the authority of the priesthood, who will hold its offices, and how its rights and powers will be conferred. For example, a person who holds the priesthood is not able to confer his office or authority on another unless authorized by one who holds the keys. Without that authorization, the ordination would be invalid. This explains why a priesthood holder - regardless of office - cannot ordain a member of his family or administer the sacrament in his own home without authorization from the one who holds the appropriate keys.
1) The limits on who will be given authority, hold office and receive rights and powers are set by the people who hold the keys - at whatever level they are. Thus, the enlarging also is in their hands - subject, of course, to what they perceive to be the will of the Lord. That can change, as was the case with OD2 and the lifting of the race-based Priesthood ban. People who previously had been unable to hold Priesthood office, perform Priesthood ordinances, attend the temple, etc. were authorized to do so from that point forward - because those holding the keys to direct, control and govern those things "enlarged" the former boundaries to include people who had been "limited" previously.
2) Even an apostle can't baptize his own grandchildren without the authorization of the Bishop, since that key (directing, controlling and governing right) is given to the Bishop to use.
We ran out of time at that point, so we will pick up with the next paragraph next week.
The core Josephism to which I cling is: "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." "Principles" is not equivalent to "doctrines" or "intellectual understandings". That's important to me.
When push comes to shove, I don't give a rat's hairy hindquarters exactly what someone says they believe - only what they do and what they are becoming. If they teach Buddhism or if they claim atheism - whatever their background - I don't care one bit. I really don't, as long as they are trying to do the will of the Father (the God in which they believe or their conscience) and become perfected (whole and complete) - and not doing so in a highly destructive way or exercising serious unrighteous dominion and compulsion.
Why do I share that in this context? I believe in the Restored Gospel deeply and passionately, and I enjoy the intellectual stimulation I find on various blogs. However, my intellectual efforts do not define my discipleship. That is defined by my realization that no matter how my brain constructs my doctrinal understanding, it's much more important what I do than what I say - what I am becoming than how convincing my arguments are. My understanding might be different than another's, but if we both are working to become the same thing (complete and whole and "right"eous), our journey can be one of mutual respect and camaraderie and joy.
I engage in internet conversations specifically to find ways to hone my discipleship - to plumb the depths of others' understanding to find new ways to bring me closer to my Father. That's what I long for in the discussions in which I engage - a place of refuge and rest, where I can drink deeply from the cup of perspective and insight - no matter the theological or denominational affiliation of those with whom I converse. I don't want to fight and argue over minute points of doctrinal interpretation, although I will challenge statements that I think are hyperbolic and mean-spirited. I want to share and sup. That is the sustenance for which I hunger and thirst - the soothing sips of insight that restore and reaffirm my resolve for righteousness. I don't hunger and thirst after insight for itself; I hunger and thirst after insight that leads me to greater *righteousness* - to be filled with the Holy Ghost - to do the will of my Father - to bring forth fruits meet for repentance - to become therefore perfected (whole and complete).
Everything else is meaningless if it isn't involved in getting there and helping others get there.
Mormonism, so-called, is a world religion, not simply because its members are now found throughout the world, but chiefly because it has a comprehensive and inclusive message based upon the acceptance of all truth, restored to meet the needs of all mankind.
My wife has been keeping a blessing journal on her blog for the past few years. (Mama De Hotel) Each weekend, she reflects on the week and writes about the blessings she received during that time. It’s been amazing and inspiring to see how doing that regularly actually has changed her outlook and perspective DURING the week – since she is thinking about and recognizing blessings AS they happen, not just in hindsight. She is gaining a “blessed disposition” (a "blessings orientation", if you will).
Until her experience, I’d never realized fully how counting your blessings in retrospect as a practice leads to counting your blessings as a habit, which leads to seeing your blessings in real time as an orientation / disposition. I highly recommend my wife's path for anyone who struggles to recognize blessings as they occur. It didn't happen overnight for her, but it is happening as she continues to endure to the end - and it has begun to change the very definition of "endure" for her.
I believe God communicates to people “in their own language” (meaning using words and concepts they can understand / with which they are familiar), “according to their understanding” (meaning he won’t tell them things they have no chance of grasping). Therefore, I believe the word of God can be different to different people at different times and still be the true word of God – but I also believe much of what people have thought of and do think of as the “pure, eternal, unchanging word of God” really is nothing more than their own best comprehension of the actual pure, eternal, unchanging word of God. In other words, the word of God is honest and infallible – but how we receive and process it, even when totally honest and sincere, is partial and “fallible” in a real sense.
"We see through a glass, darkly."
1) The 13th Article of Faith (which says we need to “seek after” lots of things that we don't have currently) and Joseph Smith’s explicit statement that we will accept truth no matter its source when we find it (meaning there is truth outside of Mormonism and the LDS Church).
2) The practice of vicarious ordinances for the dead, which rests on the foundational conviction that God will save and wants to exalt ALL of His children – regardless of what they knew and did based on that knowledge in this life.
3) To become is better than merely to believe.