The Value of Values

I've had an interesting experience this past year... I was called upon to become a high school debate judge for my son's debate team, and have thoroughly enjoyed the experience.  Somewhat familiar with healthy debate myself, it has been interesting to watch these young people be given topical resolutions, and then to prepare arguments for each respective side of the issue.

In a recent discussion online, my son, who is an energetic, enthusiastic and quite talented debater (even though this is his first year), argued a particular side of an issue "just because no one else was."  That got me thinking.

I began pondering about all the "resolutions" that one could come up with regarding current societal issues, and which ones would be open to legitimately exploring different sides of a given issue, and which issues seemed to be inherently "indefensible."  Or whether there really were such issues?  In other words, can every conceivable issue be intelligently and legitimately debated?

In debate, as I have observed, a topical resolution is provided, and then both sides reduce their respective position into an arguable set of defensible factual points.  Each side analyzes the resolution, and then assigns a "value proposition" that frames their argument, and then "contentions" to support their analysis and value proposition.

It's all very fascinating to watch and the opportunities for real-world application of these skills, particularly in the legal profession, are very easily observed.

It got me thinking, though... while arguing for the sake of learning formal debate skills, solid research techniques, and thinking on one's feet is one thing... is it wise or justified to carry that over into the real world on every issue?  I suppose the question occurred to me, "When should something be defended (in the absence of someone defending it), and when should it not?"

As I enumerated in my mind the various issues that I thought logically indefensible, it occurred to me that what I was really tallying was a list of my own personal values, and that the more importance a given value had to me, personally, the more indefensible the opposing position to that value was.  At least in my mind.

It's always a slippery slope when I muse on philosophical issues at O'Dark Thirty.

The cascading torrent of thoughts that followed enticed me to explore the possible reasons why others seemed to be able to attack issues that I had always held indefensible with such amazingly brazen ferocity... and it occurred to me that what I was munging on was nothing less than a subtle societal shift towards moral and ethical devaluation.

I'm a child of the '60's.  Even in the midst of the love-fest of the Flower Children and Beatnicks, there was also a greater societal foundation of values and taboos... a long-lost word in our 21st Century vocabulary, but a very functional one in a society that held certain values dear.  Taboos were behaviors, practices, and ideologies that were so far off the societal radar that they weren't even thought worthy of discussion.  To be against them was "common sense."  To defend them was unthinkable.

As time has trudged on however, values have waned, taboos have been emboldened, and the societal values we once held dear have been diluted to the point where they are only barely perceptible passing thoughts anymore.  We have spent so much societal capital trying to be politically correct that we have, in the process, devalued the "dollar" of our common ethics and morals to the point where we don't have enough left to buy gum.

Author Richelle Goodrich commented on this: 

“When you devalue ethics and morals by proclaiming that our attitude toward them should be casual or lenient, you can't be surprised by a rising generation who then behaves disrespectfully; treating life, people, and choices as if they possess little value or worth.  For whether or not that was the intention, society has taught them to believe thusly.”   (Richelle E. Goodrich, Smile Anyway, Purple Papaya LLC)

Without trying to sound too ancient, I miss the "Old Days." 

In the "Old Days," societal ethics and morals were part of who we were as a people.  They were what set us apart.  They defined us in a very real way.  Today, those values have been reduced to a set of contentions that can be interchangeably argued at will, with equally valid conclusions. 

The side that "wins" is simply the side that makes the most convincing argument.  Not the side that's "right..." for there is no "right" or "wrong" anymore.  In fact, in this increasing "enlightened" age of relentless "Progressivism" and its ugly sister "Relativeism," morality and ethics have become nothing more than quaint curiosities.

Debates, whether in high school or the real world, are now merely exercises in evidence-gathering and argumentation skills.  They have no real meaning beyond the scope of teaching students how to collect and process data.  The actual intrinsic value of the issues being discussed is negligible.  Discussions based on the respective ethical and moral merits of those values don't happen very frequently, and more often than not, moral and ethical evaluation has simply a long-forgotten remnant of a bygone day and a former era, and is seen as having no functional value in society.  We're far too occupied trying to ensure that no one's feelings are hurt.

This freight train was heard rumbling down the tracks in 1915.  In an essay by social scientists titled "Social Degeneration," they observed;

"Social degeneration is the breaking up of the coordination existing between the various social elements, individuals and the subgroups which cooperate in the social process, — by the growth of so many antisocial elements that social unity is destroyed. This comes about by the growth of degeneracy among the individuals who make up society. Therefore, individual degeneracy has a direct bearing upon social degeneration, for degenerate individuals are either unsocial, or antisocial and are unable to cooperate in the aims and purposes of society.

"Social degeneration, then, arises from the decline of the individual who fails to perform his part in the social activity. This causes a breakdown in the social mechanism and a decline in social activity. So long as each individual may be replaced by another as he fails or declines, society may be perpetuated, if not destroyed by outside influences. Just as a diseased member of the body may eventually destroy the individual, so a diseased part of society may be the cause of the destruction of the whole body. Social degeneration, then, is an evidence of social disease."

My fear is that our stubbornly consistent devaluation of solid moral and ethical principles as a society is nothing more nor less than devastating evidence of Stage 4 Societal Cancer from which we may never recover.  And perhaps we ought to debate THAT before it's too late.

And on Earth, Peace to Men of Goodwill

Ah, December 25.  The ancient pagan festival of Deus Sol Invictus, or "Day of the Unconquerable Sun."  A celebration so popular that even Christians gaily partook... much to the chagrin of Pope Julius 1.  So, in 350 AD, he "Hijacked" the pagan festival with "Christ's Mass," which later would be shorted to "Christmas."  The shortened version, which some recoil in righteous indignation at, "X-mas," was a contraction based on the "Khi" ('X') in Greek being the first letter of "Christmas."  Even though it was well known at the time that Christ was born sometime after Passover in the Spring, the Church could not be shown up in the Festival department... it simply wouldn't do.  And thus Dec 25 as the day to celebrate the birth of our Savior was born.

Most people are at least passably familiar with the Christmas Story in Luke 2, but they probably aren't aware of the story behind the story.  So, to quote the inimitable Paul Harvey, this is "The Rest of the Story."  Feel free to share this with your family and friends this Christmas Eve, and help them understand the incredible significance of this singular event more richly. 

The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke the Evangelist, not Luke the Apostle as many suppose.  Luke the Evangelist was a physician, and a disciple of Paul.  In fact, he accompanied Paul on at least one missionary journey, and was with Paul in Rome when Paul was under house arrest.  Luke was an intellectual, and a highly educated, articulate, and erudite leader.  He authored both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, which were originally intended as a 2-volume "companion set."

Both books were written to "most excellent Theophilus."  Theophilus was most likely not an actual person's name, but a title of honor given to someone of great status or intellectual prowess.  "Most excellent" was a salutation give almost exclusively to Roman Nobility... and the best guess is that they refer to a man named Titus Flavius Sabinus, the Prefect (Mayor) of Rome, and the big brother to then-future emporer Vespasian.  Sabinus' sister-in-law is believed to have converted to Christianity, and thus Sabinus protected Paul during his house arrest in Rome.  It is most likely to him that these works were addressed.

So now that we know a bit more about the background, let's explore the story itself.

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.   (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)  And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city."  (Luke 2:1-3)

The word "taxed" here is an error... the word in Greek is "apographos," which means "enrolled," or "registered..." not "taxed."  Later scribes would look back, assume that the census was for the purpose of taxation (which it was, in a minor sense), and replaced "registered" with "taxed," presumably for clarity.

Caesar Augustus' real name was Gaias Octavius, and he reigned over Rome for 41 years... from 27BC to 14AD.  Augustus was Julius Caesar's grand-nephew, who Caesar adopted as his son.  The Roman Senate gave him the name "Augustus," which literally means "worthy of reverence."   He was a conscientious and benevolent man, a magnificent emperor, relatively.  The Roman Empire enjoyed Pax Romana under his leadership... Roman Peace. He was a religious reformer, of sorts, and was convinced that the allegiance and devotion to the Greco-Roman pantheon of Gods was what made the Empire great, and was deeply concerned about the foreign "mystery" religions that his people had wandered off after... so he remodeled and rebuilt over 82 temples in Rome alone, and appointed himself Pontificus Maximus... the High Priest and leader of the State Cult.  

Augustus was very concerned about the state of the Empire, particularly whether it was growing, or waning.  His concern was grave enough that he initiated 3 different censuses during his reign... 24BC, 8BC, and 14AD.  The purpose of the census was not so much to tax as it was to see what the birth rate was doing throughout the Empire.  On one occasion, Augustus went to the Forum, separated the married men from the bachelors, and took the bachelors aside, and chewed them out for failing to do their duty n marrying and raising children.  He made promiscuity a crime, took away the inheritance rights of bachelors, and gave rewards, recognition, and incentives to those who had more than 3 children.

It is interesting that Luke's narrative mentions Quirinius, who was filling as Governor of Syria on a temporary basis during this time, after which he became the permanent prefect of Syria around 6-7AD.  He was what was called a "New Man," meaning that he achieved his position on his own merits, and not on the basis of who his family wasy.

^"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)"  (Luke 2:4)

The fact that Luke is spending so much time describing the geography of the area is another clue that leans towards Titus Flavius Sabinus as the one whom this Gospel is addressed to... he would not have been familiar with the area, where a local Jewish man would have.

There were actually two different "Bethlehems" in the area at this time... one was several miles northwest of Nazareth, which was in the Northern Kingdom.  The Bethlehem which was the City of David was located several miles Southwest of Jerusalem, in the Southern Kingdom of Judea. and 94 miles South of Nazareth... about a 3-day journey.

Which poses an interesting question... if Bethlehem was SOUTH of Nazareth, why does Luke say that Joseph "Went UP from Galilee?"  Very simple.  Bethlehem was 2300 feet in elevation... and it was a climb to get there from Nazareth... therefore "going up" to Bethlehem was an entirely appropriate way to put it.

^"To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child."  (Luke 2:5)

There are two errors in this sentence alone...  first, it should be "registered" instead of "taxed," and secondly, it should be simply "his wife," instead of "his espoused wife." The Greek here means "engaged" instead of "married"...  when Mary was 9 months pregnant... a fact that would have been a massive scandal if they had merely been engaged, as the bride must be a virgin when the marriage is consummated.

"And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered."  (Luke 2:6)

Contrary to what some have thought, Mary did not give birth along the way.  She and Joseph had arrived in Bethlehem, and had been there for some unknown period of time when she went into labor.  Also contrary to common belief, there was no "inn."  The Greek word for "inn," as used in the story of the Good Samaritan, was not used here... instead, the Greek word used means "Guest room/Dining Room."  Bethlehem at the time of the census, as a dirt-clod of a town... a very, very small and insignificant village (except, of course, for its' history).  The inhabitants were very poor, and there was a huge influx of people traveling to be registered in the census.  Traditionally, travelers would stay with relatives, even distant relatives, for lodging if possible.  More than likely, that was the situation here.

In Bethlehem, there were a large number of caves in the hillsides.. and modern archaeology has discovered that many of those caves had been turned in to homes, which were built into the hillside.  In standard Jewish fashion, homes consisted of an "upper room," which was a combination guest room and dining room (think "Last Supper), and the first floor was the kitchen/living area.  It was also where the animals were kept when it was cold, since the kitchen would be the warmest room in the house.  In those days, there were no separate out-buildings for the animals... they were kept in the same building as the family.

It is entirely likely that when Joseph and Mary arrived, the "guest room," or upper room of their relatives' house was full to capacity... so they had to stay on the first floor, where the animals may have been brought in from the cold for protection.  The "manger" was most likely made out of wood or stone, but in reality, was probably a hollowed-out log.

"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."  (Luke 2:7)

When Luke says "she," he wasn't kidding.  In those days, especially in poor conditions, the mother-to-be delivered her own baby.  The husbands typically did not assist with childbirth, nor were there most likely any physicians or midwives around to assist her.  SHE brought forth the baby, and SHE wrapped it in swadding clothes... and SHE laid him in a manger.  Most likely before Joseph ever laid eyes on the Savior.

Swaddling clothes were the ancient version of Pampers and onesies... they were long strips of cloth which were wound around the baby to keep them warm.

^"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night."  (Luke 2:8)

Shepherds in Bethlehem only "abided" with their flocks in the fields after Passover, until what we celebrate as Fall, around Halloween-Thanksgiving... which means that the real birth of the Savior occurred in late March or April.

This is an appropriate place to stop and contemplate the magnificent symbolism in this whole scenario.  The birth of Christ, the Savior of the World, took place in the dark of night... in the darkness of an apostasy and lack of divine revelation for literally generations.  Rather than come to a castle or mansion, the King of Kings came to what Micah referred to as "little among the thousands of Judah."

The one thing that Bethlehem had was its history.  King David was born and raised there, and died there.  Ruth was from there, and Rachel was buried there...  which is why she would be "weeping for her children" when Herod's terrible edict would take the lives of all male children under two in the midst of his fit of jealous rage.  Flocks of sheep had been raised on the hillsides of Bethlehem for thousands of years.  It was there that David defended his flock from the lion and the bear.

As with almost everything in this story, the significance of the shepherds in this narrative is not forgotten.  Christ would be known as the Great Shepherd, and his followers as His "sheep."  Being a shepherd, while a lowly and low-paying profession, was a spiritually significant one, being one of the most obvious metaphors for the coming Messiah.  

Sometimes we have a difficult time today understanding why, because our paradigm is different from those in ancient times.  Today, we have "sheep herders," which are hirelings... the sheep are not theirs.  They do not know them.  If you went up in the mountains in Utah today to see a sheep herder, you would most likely see an old man on a horse at the rear of the flock... asleep... while a bunch of yappy dogs did the heavy lifting in actually herding the sheep.

In Christ's day, it was different.  There were no "sheep herders."  Only "shepherds."  And the difference was immense.  Shepherds knew their sheep by name... they spent time with them, they were their sheep, and the sheep knew them.  Shepherds LED their sheep... and the sheep followed them.  If the shepherd turned left, so did the flock.  If they turned right, they sheep followed.  Theirs was a relationship of trust and love... which makes it such a stunningly accurate metaphor for our relationship with the Savior.

"And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid."  (Luke 2:9)

At the same time the prophet Micah was prophesying that Christ would be born in Bethlehem, he also prophesied that the first ones to know about it would be the "Tower of the Flock," or "Migdal eder," which turns out to be a small shepherd's village a stone's throw from the hills of Bethlehem... it was here that the great Announcement of the Savior's birth was given.  Not to the High Priest.  Not to the noblemen.  Not to the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Scribes.  Not to the Mayor of Jerusalem.  Not even to Caesar Augustus.  But to a group of lowly, simple shepherds who were, quite frankly, scared spitless at the display.

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  (Luke 2:10-12)

Not just any joy.  Not just the joy of a wonderfully warm Spring night.  GREAT joy... the kind of joy that is felt deep down to the core of your very soul... the kind of joy that you cannot keep from shouting from the rooftops... the kind of job that brings you to your knees in tears of gratitude.  The kind of joy that "surpasseth all understanding."  The promised day had come!  The shepherds, among all of the rest of the House of Israel, had been preparing for this moment for thousands of years!!!

^"And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."  (Luke 2:12)

Throughout the Old Testament, or as the Jews knew it, the "Law and the Prophets," God had given signs to the people as visual reminders of the significant events and promises that He made to them.  The rainbow was one... a visual reminder of the promise that God made to Israel that He would never again send a flood to wipe out mankind and cleanse the Earth. 

This practice, with which the Jews were well aware, explains why the Pharisees and Sadducees were so interested in a "sign" when they challenged the Savior.  That was their paradigm. That was how God "proved" to them what He said was binding.  To them, it wasn't about faith.  It was about "I'll believe it when I see [the sign]."

And God certainly didn't disappoint.  He gave them a sign.. that they would find a baby, wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

Now.  To those of us who have grown up with this story, we wonder what was special about that.  "Big deal.  Everybody knows that Christ was laid in a manger."  But in the days of Christ, this was unheard of.  It was like being told to go to your great-aunt's house, and there you would find an elephant in the living room.  It was that kind of ridiculous.

^"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."  (Luke 2:13-14)

As if the skies had turned into a huge stage, the Greek here describes it as an "army," the number of heavenly host was so large.  And they appeared SHOUTING, not singing... and what they said was very significant.

"Glory to God in the highest."  In the Highest WHAT?   If there were only one heaven, as many today believe, this does not make sense.  There would be no "highest."  There would only be "heaven."  "Highest" is a term of contrast or comparison.  It means "higher than," or "the most high one can go."

For a clue, we look to the New Testament, which teaches us in the epistles of Paul that there are at least 3 "heavens," as he reports being "caught up to the third heaven."  The Savior Himself said that "in my father's house are MANY mansions..." 

Could there be another meaning, though, even from this?  

Scholars now know that the ancient Israelites believed from before the 1st Temple Period through the First Century Christian period, that there were other divine beings than God who had become partakers of the Divine Nature.  

The Old Testament bears this out, as it speaks of the "Sons of God" who shouted for Joy before the foundations of this world were laid.  The writer of Deuteronomy describes God as the "Lord of Lords, the God of Gods, a GREAT God," in keeping with this core Israelite belief in Monolatry or Henotheism.  The ancient Jews believed, as can be seen in the praise of the heavenly host, in a holy council of gods, over which God the Father reigned supreme.

"God in the Highest" is a qualifier which refers, quite simply, to God the Father, our Father in Heaven.  The "Great" God.  The Only True God.  The only God with which we have to do, as we praise His Only Begotten Son, whom He sent into the world to save us from our sins.

The last phrase, as rendered in our scriptures is incorrect as well.  The earliest manuscripts render it as follows,

"And on earth, peace to men of goodwill."  Another way of stating it is "And on earth, peace to men on whom God's favor rests."  Quite a different message than the one we have, and one worth pondering.

The angels disappeared, and with hearts full of unspeakable joy, the shepherds found the baby as promised, and then scattered to announce the Royal Birth.  

^"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb."  (Luke 2:21)

Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to ignore it... and so we see even in his infancy, the Savior obeyed the very law that He gave...

^"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;"  (Luke 2:22)

Under Jewish custom, women were "unclean" for 40 days after giving birth, and could not enter the temple.  Thus, after a little under 6 weeks, Mary was once again "clean," and her purification was complete, and she could present the Christ child at the temple.

^"(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)  And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."  (Luke 2:24-25)

First-born sons were very special in Jewish culture.  By law, they were the Lord's.  They were to serve in the temple all their lives.  Fortunately, Jewish law had designated the Tribe of Levi to be "pinch hitters" for the first-born males, and took on that responsibility to serve in the temple for all of those in Israel.  The condition was that a sacrificial offering be made of two turtledoves, or two young pidgeons.  Once these offerings were made at the temple, the first-born son was relieved of his legal requirement, and the Levites took on that responsibility for him.

And now we arrive at what is, perhaps, the most spiritually significant part of the birth narrative...

^"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.   And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:  For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.  Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."  (Luke 2:26-33) 

Simeon had been waiting for the "consolation of Israel,"   Consolation meant "comfort."  The Savior was to "comfort" Israel in its afflictions.  

Notice who recognized Jesus as the Christ... He was not recognized by the High Priest, or the Pharisees, or the Sadducees, or the Scribes, or the great men of the day...  he was met by a humble servant of God, who labored in the Temple.  Simeon had been promised by none other than Christ Himself through the Holy Ghost that he [Simeon] would not die until he had seen the Christ child.  In obedience to the Spirit's promptings, he made his way, being very old, to the temple, which was most likely a great sacrifice for him.  Simeon was almost surely a Levite, and would have been one of the ones to receive the Christ Child at his presenting, although the narrative seems to indicate that this was not his time to serve.

Simeon's touching statement, "Now lettest thy servant depart in peace.. for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou prepared before the face of all people" stands as the ultimate synopsis of what the Savior, through His atonement, has done for us.  Because of His atoning sacrifice, we can now "depart in peace" from this world of sorrow, for we have "seen thy salvation" in the Only Begotten Son of Almighty God.  He has conquered death.  He has paved the way for us to return home to that God who gave us life.  Indeed, "Glory to God in the Highest!"

Simeon concludes with a solemn prophesy of the Savior's life, and how it would affect his mother: 

"And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;   (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."  (Luke 2:34-35)

At this point, Mary had no idea what the pinnacle of Christ's life would bring, nor was she aware of the Atoning Sacrifice that He would make for all of mankind.  She had no idea that she would have her very heart ripped out of her chest, as it would seem, in having to watch her first-born son hang on a cross, tortured unto death.  "Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also," a prophetic allusion to the sword that would pierce the battered body of the Son of God.

Finally, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall every word be established." 

 
^"And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;   And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.  And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.  And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."  (Luke 2:36-39)

Allow me the privilege of adding my own personal witness to that of those much more worthy than I... He Lives.  Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of the world.  I know that He is my Savior and Redeemer.  

"Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth, peace to men of goodwill."

Legalizing Polygamy: At Breakneck Speed Down The Slippery Slope

When the screeching LGTB movement began pushing its relentless agenda for "marriage equality," even though their cause was illogical and groundless, observers outside of that tiny minority were quick to point out the "slippery slope" that they felt we, as a nation, would be headed down if we succumbed.

Now that the Domino Effect is fully engaged, and more and more states are joining the "marriage equality" bandwagon under extreme pressure from the Far Left, the blunt-force trauma being inflicted by those Hell-bent on destroying the family is starting to leave marks.

Yet another major bruise was felt this last week, when U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that Utah's anti-polygamy law is "unconstitutional," ironically citing First Amendment "freedom of religion" reasons... the very argument that was rejected when the ban was put into place.

And we all saw this freight train rumbling down the tracks.

The Left's crystal-clear agenda to destroy the family has become obvious to even the most casual observer.  Morals are the enemy.  "Restrictions" and "rules" and "duty" and "responsibility" are crass vulgarities according to the Left's vocabulary.  Those who dared to stand up and state the obvious, even among their own, were instantly despised and cast out of the enlightened midst of The Left.  This included three prominent social scientists (with rock-solid Leftist credentials, no less) in Great Britain in 1992 that published a paper on the devastating effects on children of broken families.

In an article by former Leftist Melanie Phillips titled "Why the Left Hates Families," in The Guardian, she recounts this study;

"From their research, they concluded that children in fractured families tend to suffer more ill-health, do less well at school, are more likely to be unemployed, more prone to criminal behaviour and to repeat as adults the same cycle of unstable parenting." 

The response to the study by her beloved Left was stunning to her as a journalist, and was one of the motivating factors in turning her solidly to the right.

"The defining issue for me — the one that launched me on a personal trajectory of confrontation with the Left and with my colleagues and friends — was the persistent undermining of the family as an institution.
"By the late Eighties, it was glaringly obvious that families were suffering a chronic crisis of identity and self-confidence. 

"There were more and more divorces and single parents — along with mounting evidence that family disintegration and the subsequent creation of step-families or households with no father figure at all did incalculable damage to children."

The Left responded by attacking and bullying anyone who dared to promote the family at all.  No arguments were posed, no logic advanced, no rational reason for their hatred of the family was presented... just unrelenting attacks and bulling in an attempt to drive away opposition by fear.

Amorality has now become the rallying point of the Leftist agenda.  Those who disagree are now labeled "Moralists," with the sneering Left now attempting to redefine that word as societal profanity, and to paint such a position as "anti-society," and "anti-individual rights."  In the Leftist paradigm, one cannot simply be "free" from all sense of morality, but actually needs to be encouraged to abandon all responsibility and duty, or one has no place in Leftist Society.  And of course, without any rational standard of morality, any morality or choice is acceptable, as the recent court's ruling on Utah polygamy law attests.  One only need use the Left's favorite "buzzwords" to bully their way into law.  "Orientation."  "Protected Class."  "Accommodations." 

Commentators who warned that passage of "marriage equality" using the arguments and rationale that the Left was utilizing would lead to a massive re-writing of existing law and societal moral standards turned out to be 100% correct.  Reversing anti-polygamy laws would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago.  Now it has happened.  One can only shudder at what the future... the immediate future... holds.

While Leftists sneer in derision at those who attempt to straighten the deck chairs on the Titanic of societal morality, We, The People are watching with immense dread for the next domino to fall... anti-child-pornography laws, and child sexual abuse laws themselves.

After all, if one cannot "choose" their sexual orientation, and if such can be argued to be an "individual choice" which is sacrosanct over the "rights" of children, what's left to stop those proponents from succeeding, given the court's proclivity to knee-jerk to whatever the Left decides, and make Pedophilia a "protected class"?

At the end of the day, if the mere trajectory of our society's direction doesn't scare the Bejeebers out of you, the sheer speed at which we are arriving there should.

Race and the Priesthood... Again.

Recently, the LDS Church issued a statement on Race and the Priesthood that has arched a lot of eyebrows.  Even faithful members were caught a bit off-guard by the announcement, which has succeeded in inspiring doubt in some, and quiet pondering and confusion among others.  I thought it might be helpful to offer some perspective here for the wannabe "Ark Steadiers" out there who might now be wavering.

First of all, let's review what the statement does, and doesn't actually say.

What the announce did NOT say was the Brigham Young was a racist.  It also did not say why the Priesthood ban was put in place.

What it DOES say is that the issue was complex, and revolved around common cultural practices of the day and the role that racial integration was playing in Utah's bid to achieve Statehood, particularly regarding Southerners who had migrated to Utah... with their slaves.  It also DOES specify that the ban was not the result of theories revolving around "racial inferiority."

That being said, it would be wonderful to have Brigham Young here to fully explain his reasons, but I propose that the reasons might be congruent with what I've always thought was the case, but which, although abundantly attested to in scripture, has never been articulated as "the" reason for the ban.

The answer, I believe, can be found in the declaration by the Lord that He is "the same yesterday, today, and forever." (1 Ne 10:18, Mormon 9:9)   This, at least to me, denotes consistency in doctrine as a divine trait.  To me, this seems to be one such example.

Throughout history, the Lord has withheld certain blessings pertaining to the Priesthood among certain groups of people.  An excellent example is found in the fact that Levites were not permitted to practice their priestly duties while the Israelites were in captivity during the Exile.  Was this racist?  One has to wonder whether those who currently seek to "Steady the Ark" with political correctness would accuse the Lord (or His prophets, most likely) of being "racists" had they lived during ancient times. Was the ban on the Levites due to the "cultural racial attitudes and norms" during that time?  No.  The Lord directed it through His living prophet.  Does the fact that we don't fully understand the reasons for it diminish from the divine nature of that ban, or the reasons God may have had for it?  No.

My thoughts are (and always have been) that the priesthood can only be exercised by those who are not in captivity... either to governments and civil powers, or to sin and cultural apostasy.  It is no surprise to me therefore that the priesthood be withheld from a people who suffered in physical, then cultural and societal, bondage until the 1960's at least... and it is also no surprise that the Lord then released the ban when supplicated by His prophets a short time later... in perfect consistency with His past actions.

The Gentiles in the New Testament world were denied the ministrations of Christ and the Apostles completely.  They were not to receive the gospel until after Christ had ascended.  The ban on the gospel going to the Gentiles was so ingrained in the Apostles paradigm that nothing short of divine revelation could convince Peter otherwise.  The New Testament is silent on the reasons for this, other than the rather cryptic statement that "I am sent but until the lost sheep of the House of Israel." (Matt 15:24)  Of course, this might prompt some rather "tender" questions, if we were to approach this with the same attitude as the "Ark Steadiers" wish to approach the recent article on race and Priesthood;  Was Christ a racist?  Was the ancient Christian Church racist?  Peter, on having this glorious experience seemed genuinely surprised when he exclaimed "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:" (Acts 10:34)   Apparently, this had not been their previous paradigm.

But wait a minute... wasn't this known before the gospel was withheld from the Gentiles?  What about during the Savior's ministry?  Wasn't God "no respecter of persons" then, too?  The surprise in Peter's reply seems to indicate that it was not. 

In fact, the entire racial "norm" among the Israelites was that they were the "chosen people" of the Lord, to the exclusion of others... which sounds remarkably like the racial attitude that permeated the 19th and much of the 20th centuries regarding whites v. blacks, which some Southern Protestant churches still seem to grapple with in 2013.

From this experience, which is most instructive regarding this issue, we learn that the following:

1)  The Savior Himself "discriminated" against the Gentiles, and refused to minister to them as a people, and forbade His disciples from going among them, with very little explanation.
2)  The ban was lifted after He ascended.
3)  The then-prophet, Peter, did not realize that the restriction was no longer in place, and sought to continue the Savior's prohibition.
4)  Direct revelation was needed to help Peter understand that the ban was no longer the Lord's wish.

One could legitimately ask, "Why did Christ allow Peter to lead the Church astray?  What about all those Gentiles who were denied salvation, who died before that ban was lifted?"

Fortunately, we know that the blessings of the gospel are eternal, and no earthly ban can withhold those blessings to them.  They will ultimately receive them in the Lord's due time.  The same principle holds true for all who died without hearing the gospel in general.  Could one not legitimately accuse God of being a "racist" for not providing means to far-flung nations and races to hear and accept or reject the gospel in this life? Or could there be a divine "method to the madness" that God has not seen fit to reveal to us yet?

It is worthy of noting that the separation between the Jews and Gentiles had been long-standing and deeply ingrained.  The Gentiles, to the Jews, were "unclean," specially in NT times when most Gentiles were pagans.  It was only when the gospel started being preached "among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people" that the issue arose, much like in modern times with issues in Brazil.

And, like Peter, it has taken a direct revelation from God to reverse it.  And this is not, by the way, an indictment against the Prophets of God in any way... they were loyal and obedient to what they understood at the time. But just like in the Old World, God has made it abundantly clear that He moves according to His timetable.. not ours.

One could rightfully ask, "What about God loving all of His children and making salvation available to all"?   The reality is that we simply do not know the answer to that... only that, just as in the Bible, He has his purposes for what He does, which we may or may not understand at the time.  The difference between faithful Saints, and the wannabe "Ark Steadiers," I believe, is that to the Saints, absence of understanding of something the Lord does or does not do, does not automatically equate to "that's wrong," or "that couldn't have been inspired" or "the prophet/church has been led astray." 

Did Brigham Young lead the Saints astray because of this ban, the reasons for which we still don't know?  I believe the answer to that is a resounding "No."  Does the Church today embrace doctrines or practices that are in variance with what the Prophet Joseph or the Lord himself revealed in the Restoration?  No.  Do the Saints maintain the keys of the Priesthood?  Yes. 

I believe that the Lord raises up those who have the necessary skills that He needs to lead His Church at specific points in time.  While Brigham Young definitely had some "interesting" ideas, he was also a world-class leader and civic and business manager, which the Saints desperately needed at the time.  His accomplishments are too many to be adequately enumerated.  He truly accomplished the impossible, with nothing.  He has rightfully been remembered as one of the greatest of the prophets of the Restoration behind Joseph Smith. 

Did he make mistakes?  Of course.  We don't believe in Prophetic Infallibility.  I can't recall ever hearing a General Conference address where we were taught that prophets are infallible.  Only that the Lord will not permit them to "lead the saints astray."  And I do not believe that this has occurred, in Brigham Young's case, or in any other LDS leader.  Especially when we STILL do not know the real reason why the Priesthood Ban was extended.

“I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1972, 99; or Ensign, July 1972, 88).

Jesus Christ still stands at the head of this Church, today as in times past. Our doctrines are intact.  The priesthood and its' glorious keys are intact.  The great and eternal truths that we cherish and embrace as part of the Restoration are still intact.  And most importantly, the salvation and exaltation of all of the black Saints from the Restoration until the present is assured, regardless of the color of their skin.  And always has. 

It should be no surprise to the faithful that in the end times, a "winnowing" will occur, which will separate the wheat from the chaff within the Church itself.  Perhaps we are just beginning to feel the shaking of threshing machine.

The Enemy Within

I often get the feeling that I'm watching history unfold right before my eyes.  Not just secular and political history, mind you, but spiritual history as well.

I won't take the time to go into the events preceding the coming of the Lord... that's another blog entry altogether.  I did want to share some feelings on one aspect of the end times, though... that's been on my mind a lot lately;

"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.  And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.  And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.  And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold."  (Matt 24:9-12)

As the Church has grown up and matured, it has ever-increasingly gained the attention of the Adversary, who has waged a very visible and overt war against it.  We saw it in the '70's with the advent of professional anti-Mormons like Walter Martin and Ed Decker, who transformed the ugliness of hatred and religious bigotry into a lucrative cottage industry.  We saw it in the '80's with slick multimedia presentations, "Witnessing to Mormons" seminars and workshops, and a plethora of "ministries" that were formed for no other reason than to persecute the Church.  Finally, we saw the flat-out smear campaign against the Church when Mitt Romney ran for the office of President of the United States.

But something is changing.

The Church has achieved a level of prominence and credibility that, while galling to the anti-Mormon crowd, has succeeded in eroding and invalidating much of the more spurious and sensationalistic accusations against the Church.  This has led, in my humble opinion, to a greater societal acceptance of the LDS Church than at any other period in the Church's history.  Great news, right?

Never underestimate the Adversary.

The battle is not over... it has merely changed fronts.  What used to be played out center stage from outside is now quietly being waged within the Church itself.  This cancer is called "New Order Mormonism." Instead of attacking the Church from without, as he has always done, Satan is now attacking the Church from within... attempting to poison the roots, and to eat out the heart of the Church from the inside.

In the "good old days," if one became disaffected with the Church, they would simply leave.  Some became bitter, caustic voices of criticism, but it was criticism from OUTSIDE the Church.  Apostates were just that... apostates, and FORMER members of the Church.  Easily dismissed.  Easily ignored.  The Few, the Crazy, the Terminally-Disaffected.  The Eternally Bitter.

Today, however, those who would have otherwise clenched their fists and stomped noisily out of the Church are choosing instead to stay... and attempt to destroy the Church from within.  They quietly maintain their membership for the purpose of sedition and actively advancing their agendas... acceptance of homosexuality, gay marriage, and ordaining women to the priesthood being just a few.

These wolves in sheep's clothing gleefully brag that they do not believe that the Church is true... in fact, they actively promote the idea that the Brethren have led the Church astray, and that the Church is nothing more than a "corporation" whose bureaucracy should be run democratically by the membership.  

When asked why they would belong to a Church that they don't believe in, they smile and respond with "Because I can."  They call themselves "Cultural Mormons," and have decided that maintaining appearances and assuaging family pressures while openly opposing the Church and the gospel are justifiable behaviors.  But they're not content with just that.

They interject their agenda in every forum they can... while teaching Gospel Doctrine or the Sunbeams.  They WANT to stay "active" in order to "reach" as many members as they can.  They are, in many cases, openly defiant.  They brag about how their Bishops "know how [they] feel" and chortle at the naive efforts of their leaders to "love them back" into the straight and narrow.

This kind of insidious "attack from within" is devastating.  I once lived in a ward where a sitting Bishop apostatized and took half the ward with him.  It's been over 20 years, and the ward has never recovered. 

I believe that this is how many of the "very elect" will be deceived in the last days... through other smiling members of the Church who are dedicated to destroying testimonies, instilling doubt, and spreading the cancer of "calling evil good, and good evil."

It will certainly be interesting to see how the Church reacts.

Churchies v. The Rest Of Us

For those who know me, this might be a real departure.  I hope that I don't shock and disillusion anyone too badly as I pen a few lines about what, for me, has become a serious issue.

Now.  Having said that, don't get all alarmed and concerned that the founder of the largest Apologetics organization in the LDS Church is "going rogue."  Or "apostate."  I've always been a bit "rogue," as every Gospel Doctrine class I've ever taught can readily attest.  But I'm not going anywhere... especially ApostateLand... I promise.  :)

Guys, it's the Churchies.  My teenage daughter calls them "The Plastics."  Churchies have always been an extreme irritant to me.  When I say "Churchie," I'm referring to the culture of Mormonism... to those who believe that the Church is the Gospel, and that green jello with carrot shavings is Celestial Food.  I'm referring to those who behave as if talking with the "Primary Voice" makes one more pure and sanctified.  Churchies are those who have deeply converted... not to the gospel, per se... but to the culture of Mormonism. And as much as our dear General Authorities recoil in righteous indignation at the suggestion that the culture of Mormonism is different between the "Intermountain Best" and everywhere else (and sometimes desperately seek to outright deny it), we all know that Churchies are very real.

Churchies are more or less ambivalent, at best, about the Gospel.. if not downright apathetic about it.  It's always there, like the proverbial elephant in the foyer, and they are quite eager to affirm how "true" it is... but heaven help them if someone actually asks what "The Gospel" really consists of.  Churchies don't give The Gospel much thought outside of Church.  Or during Church, for that matter... other than mustering the same, tired, requisite canned-answer-to-standard-Mormon-questions during 2nd and 3rd block.  Don't believe me?  Ask a Churchie to explain The Gospel in 10 words or less.

Churchies plod dutifully through the Sunday block, attend their leadership meetings, and do the bare minimum required to fulfill their callings.  They look down disapprovingly on the non-Churchies in the ward who are obviously not nearly as righteous as they are, or who have the rather embarrassing bad form of having personal issues, which have been dutifully made very public by the Ward Gossips.  Churchies are very... dutiful.  Churchies can often be identified by the old, beat up Spinnett piano in the living room, the required cheesy home decor from Deseret Book on their walls, and Family Home Evening/Family Job Charts hanging in the kitchen, along with dusty "pass-along cards" clinging to the refrigerator with the help of "CTR" magnets.

Churchies sit respectfully during classes in Sunday School and Old Women and Old Men (Relief Society and Priesthood Meeting), pretending to pay attention to the lessons, and dutifully reading the canned reading assignments off of little slips of paper that the Churchie instructor has dutifully prepared 45 minutes before Church, when they skimmed over the lesson for the first time all week.

Some Churchies are often the ones who might as well have their names engraved on brass nameplates over the comfy chairs outside the Bishop's Office, as they begin their weekly wait yet again for a "cleansing confession" for their chronic, uncontrolled pornography/spousal abuse/gambling-drug-alcohol addiction,adultery/fornication/secretive homosexuality that they're hoping no one else in the ward knows about.. forgetting that the Ward Gossip Infernal News Network is alive and well.

Churchies generally obey the Word of Wisdom.  Some better than others.  Those that have no real interest in adhering to it strictly are said to "struggle" with it.  Not much struggle for most.  They simply enjoy their occasional coffee, or glass of wine... or beer... or cigarette...  they just make sure they keep it well hidden, so that they can maintain appearances.  Indulging in such would be a serious social no-no to other Churchies.

Churchie wives and mothers are shiny clean and smiling while they coo lovingly at their toddlers and enthusiastically share the latest faith-promoting rumor or Gospel Gossip tidbit in the hall under hushed tones during and/or after Sacrament Meeting.

On the inside, however, many of the Churchie wives are haggard, chronically depressed, bitter and exhausted.  The self-esteem of many of them has been desperately and sometimes irreparably damaged by the constant nagging feeling that they will never measure up, or be "enough." They're weary of the constant burden of maintaining appearances and pretending that they're not... human.

Churchies get up dutifully in Fast & Testimony Meeting, and bear their Feelimony.  They weep pitifully, as if on cue,, then urge all 23 of their "under 8 year old" brood to "bear their testimonies" in turn, even though the Church has repeatedly asked that they not do that.  Then they all return to their pew, where their hyper-active "missionaries-in-training" suck down Cheerios and race up and down the row... loudly... as the parents strain to hear the next speaker over the din.

Churchies believe that the fact that they smilingly plod dutifully through their long-ingrained routine every week will assure them a seat at the Celestial Table... even though they couldn't tell you anything more about the atonement than that it somehow involved Jesus and the Garden... somehow.

I actually asked a Bishop (several wards ago) why we don't actually teach The Gospel in Gospel Doctrine... why we didn't dig deeper than the 2 inches mandated by the manual.  I asked why the Church insists on teaching to the lowest common denominator, when most members have been there their whole lives... his answer floored me.  "Oh, well, if THAT'S what you want (as if I had asked for a illustrated tutorial on how to make a porno), you'll have to do THAT on your own, in your PERSONAL study."  I remember my jaw almost hitting his desktop.  The Bishop is invariably the Mayor of ChurchieTown.

Churchies apparently believe that "too much" information leads one to apostasy as certainly as watching an "R"-rated movie leads one to become an adulterous serial killer with a serious Dr. Pepper addiction.

For example, learning Koine Greek to understand the NT better is not "righteous," but is "looking beyond the mark."  It's not in the Church Curriculum, so therefore, it's "Not Approved," and therefore it's "Evil" and "Unrighteous."

Studying Christian History, hermeneutics, textual criticism, etc. is "a waste of time, since there's been a Restoration."   Gospel study that goes beyond the approved manual is viewed with the same contempt and disdain that one would exhibit gazing at a Hefty Cinch-Sack full of rotten meat. 

I'm really not making this stuff up.  Churchies are allergic to intelligence, they honestly believe that additional "light and knowledge" will surely land you promptly in Colorado City with 5 truly hideously ugly wives and 36 children.

Callings are everything to Churchies.  If you haven't been called into the Bishopric (preferably as the Bishop) by the time you're 40, you're obviously a loser, and are immediately delegated to 2nd or 3rd Class Citizens in the Kingdom of God on Earth.  You obvious have a "problem."  And all the other Churchies in the ward know it.  Callings are directly proportional to one's worthiness and righteousness to a Churchie... therefore, if one is called to be the ward magazine rep, or on the activities committee, it is the same thing as coming down with terminal spiritual leprosy, and/or is on the verge of inactivity or apostasy, which to a Churchie are one and the same thing.

Churchies seem to be heavily concentrated in Utah, Arizona, and Idaho, The Intermountain Best, much to the chagrin and annoyance to the heathen populations of those states, as well as all the other non-Churchie members of the Church.  Fortunately, the condition seems to be limited to those geographical areas, as the influence of the Churchies rapidly dissipates the farther you get from any of those locales.

Churchies love good theater.  They are unbearably friendly and cheerful to newcomers and investigators, until after the hapless new members or investigators either move in or get baptized.  After that, things go back to normal, and the newbies basically become invisible except to accept a calling as the ward magazine rep or member of the activities committee. All of the leadership positions are already occupied by Churchies, and are rotated only among the Core Clique.

I have a confession to make.

I hate Churchies.  There.  I said it.  I can't stand them.  I loathe them.  They make my flesh crawl.  I want to run screaming from the room whenever I'm around them.  Seriously, if the Celestial Kingdom is composed of Churchies, I'm going to take a harder look at the Great and Spacious Building.

Don't get me wrong.  I love the gospel.  I love the Savior.  I have a deep, abiding testimony of the Restoration, of the Book of Mormon, and of the redeeming sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of Almighty God.  I have experienced bona fide miracles in my life, and have had many profound spiritual experiences too sacred to relate.  And I hate Churchies.

This is becoming a problem for me.  It's gotten so bad that I can't stand the thought anymore of even going to Church.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with not wanting to obey the commandments, not wanting to partake of the sacrament, or not wanting to worship my Heavenly Father.  It has everything to do with feeling tangibly uncomfortable while at church.

It's because I want to stand up in the middle of Sacrament Meeting from sitting in our usual spot in the 3rd row, and turning around and screaming "SERIOUSLY?" at the semi-dozing parents of over 125 primary children who are SO loud that I can't even remotely hear the speaker.

It's because I can't stand the thought of yet one more poorly prepared, poorly presented lesson on the same passages of scripture using the same "faith-promoting" stories.


It's because the active member of my High Priest's group that regularly slaps me jovially on the back is the same guy who rips people off with unscrupulous business practices during the rest of the week.

It's because the guy sitting next to the dishonest businessman regularly beats his wife, and then intones about how much of a "heaven on earth" his home is.

It's because no one really gives a crap about the Gospel if it doesn't involve refreshments.

It's because everyone looks forward to conference weekend... because they can sleep all weekend and "read the talks when they come out in the Ensign," which they never do.

It's because the Stake President has to bribe Priesthood Holders to come to General Priesthood Meeting with BBQ and ice cream socials beforehand.

It's because the Churchies have forced the Church to water down the curriculum so badly that all it winds being is mindless pablum.

It's because the Churchies actually refer to anyone who has more than a shallow acquaintance with the scriptures, or who still remembers some of their Scripture Mastery passages as a "scriptorian."  Churchies refer (in hushed, reverent tones) to anyone who has actually read the lesson materials as an "intellectual."

Many Sundays, I have a nagging feeling of emptiness, restlessness and unsettledness that lingers after church, and agonize over how to deal with the spiritual hunger that seems to trudge on from week to week chronically unsatisfied.  I'm not being spiritually fed at Church.  I don't feel uplifted.  By the time it's time to go home, I'm exhausted and angry.  I feel the chilling breath of bitterness creeping down the back of my neck.

Oh, wait, that was just the Relief Society President.  Nevermind.

It feels like there is no "fellowship" in the Church anymore.  There is no sense of "family."  There is no closeness... no camaradery.  No espirit-de-corps.  As a ward family, we seem to put the "fun" in "dysfunctional."  And this pains my soul.

Oh, I know... I can strike up a conversation... a shallow conversation... with various people at church who will try to respond politely, but none of us (other than the Core Clique) associate with each other outside of church.  My sweet wife and I are desperately lonely, and don't know what to do about it.  We don't feel wanted, included, or valued.  We feel perpetually like outcasts and like we're constantly being assigned to sit at "Table 9," if you ever watched The Wedding Singer.

When we arrived in the Tragic Valley after living in Virginia, we were eager to get involved, to immerse ourselves in our new home ward, and to get acquainted with our new Ward Family.  That eagerness and excitement was very short-lived.  My first call to our new Bishop, upon signing the lease on our new home, began with "How'd you get this number?!"  And it went downhill from there.  Four months passed after moving in, and neither one of us had a calling.  Other families moved in, and were immediately called to positions in Young Mens, or Young Womens, or Relief Society... some wound up with multiple callings.  After 4 months, I was finally called to teach High Priest's group on the 2nd Sunday of the month.  My wife was called to be the Visiting Teaching coordinator for Relief Society.  Not really believing that this would be my "real" calling, I asked our Bishop when I would receive a calling, he acted incredulous... for a moment I felt a close kinship with Oliver Twist asking for more gruel... "Well, weren't you called as the instructor for the High Priest's Group on the 2nd Sunday?"  He was clearly appalled that I actually wanted to do MORE.  There is nothing more deflating and disheartening than to be rebuffed and rejected by a volunteer leader at a volunteer organization for being a volunteer who wants to volunteer MORE. 

Like I said earlier, don't get me wrong.  I love the gospel, and I love the idea of Church.  And yes, I know... we all get out of Sacrament Meeting what we bring into it... I've heard all the trite phrases and scoldings... none of which impresses me much.  Sometimes there really is a problem.

At the end of a trying week, I want to come and worship my Heavenly Father in humility, take the Sacrament and renew my covenants, and be spiritually fed... and fellowship with my brothers and sisters.  After all, isn't that the purpose of it all?   Yet week after week, I find myself making excuses to flee after the closing prayer in Sacrament Meeting.  The Core Clique refuses to acknowledge that there's even a problem... and clearly wishes that non-Churchies would quiety move out or go discover Scientology.  Meanwhile, the number of socially isolated, discouraged, frustrated non-Churchies grows to epidemic proportions.

And now the disappointing part.  I'm not writing this to reveal any great revelations or "inspirational lessons" that I've learned through this painful process... I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with how I feel, to be perfectly honest.

I confided these feelings to a good friend recently... a former Bishop... who was surprisingly candid.  When I told him that my current Bishop, upon reading this blog, would almost certainly haul my sorry butt into his office for a strong "Come-To-Jesus" about not being an "ark-steadier," he asked me a thought-provoking question... "What would you LIKE your Bishop to say to you?"  I had to munge on that for a bit.  He then added on another one. "What would make a difference to you?"

I'm still munging.

Life is sadistically hard sometimes.  For some, most of the time.  There are so many stresses, tragedies, and challenges during the week.  Life happens, and sometimes it's just damned ugly.  Many of us are in pain... either physically, spiritually, or emotionally... or all three at once.  We approach church each week with a quiet desperation... a deeply passionate hope for solace... yearning for our bucket to be filled... for there to be someone else who we can talk to and just... vent.   A true Brother or Sister In The Gospel is not just a generic title for someone who occupies the same general space once a week.  It should be someone who understands us, who shares our paradigm and values, and who either hurts, too, or has been there and done that.  Someone who is aching for precisely the same thing.

Too many in the Lord's Kingdom on Earth are yearning for true fellowship.  I'm certainly not finding any.  I'm finding smiling, plastic Churchies instead, to whom I will never "measure up."  And it's getting old.

Maybe we should lower our pride level a bit and take some tips from some of the other churches in our neighborhoods... who seem to have discovered this issue early on, and attempted to address it by instituting weekly get-togethers after their regular church meetings... strictly for fellowship... giving Church members the ability to relax a bit, talk to each other, and form friendships.  You have to admit it is an awfully appealing idea.  I'd even whip up on of my famous pot-roasts for a Sunday post-block pot luck if asked.

Or maybe it's just time for another "Mental Health Sunday."  Or two.