Earlier today, I had a conversation that included, among other things, an exploration of the concept that no one is "all good" or "all evil." There are a number of places in the scripture that contrast "the wicked" and "the righteous," as if those are two clearly-defined, distinct groups.
They're not.
Every righteous person has some wickedness in them (with a handful of celestial exceptions), and every wicked person has some righteousness in them (with perhaps at least one satanic exception). Of the people who have lived one Earth, live on it now, or will ever live on it, all of those people (except Jesus Christ) fall, will fall, or have fallen somewhere on the spectrum between perfectly good and completely evil.
No one is pure good or pure evil. Not you, not your mother, not your mother-in-law, and not any politician, whether you support them or oppose them. Everyone has redeeming qualities, and everyone has room for improvement.
So, let's remember that in our conversations with each other and not let our assessments of anyone grow out of proportion. Only one person was literally perfect, and only one person was "literally Hitler" (and he wasn't completely evil anyway. No one who was born on this planet ever was). So, let's keep our compliments and criticisms at least semi-moderate, whether we're talking about politicians, relatives, or even (or especially) ourselves.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Finalizing My Temple Dedication Lesson Plan
Most of my Primary lessons start with a recap, partly for the sake of retention, partly to get students who were absent last week mostly caught up, and partly just to give myself a place to start from. Fortunately, the construction of the Kirtland Temple leads perfectly into the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. Instead of starting the lesson by talking about the keys of the Priesthood (which I plan to get to later), I'll start by having the children read at least some of the accounts of the dedication. Between paragraphs, we'll probably discuss the rarity of intense, spiritual experiences and the sacredness of temples.
When we finish talking about the dedication and the spiritual experiences that accompanied it, we can move on to the restoration that took place a week later. That's when we can talk about the Priesthood keys and authority, to the extent that I can explain it. After providing as clear an explanation as I can, we'll spend the remaining lesson time talking about why missionary work and temple work are important, how they're related, and how they bless us and our families.
There are some complex and not-fully-understood concepts in this lesson, but I'll work with them as well as I can. Rather than trying to explain things I don't understand myself, I'll teach what I do know about them and then try to focus mostly on the parts that I understand better. Hopefully, those parts will make sense to my students as well, stay in their memories longer, and be of more benefit to them. Knowing about missionary work and temple work is probably more important than understanding the rules regarding the different types of heavenly beings, anyway. Besides, these are primary kids. It's probably best that we stick to topics that they (and I) can understand.
When we finish talking about the dedication and the spiritual experiences that accompanied it, we can move on to the restoration that took place a week later. That's when we can talk about the Priesthood keys and authority, to the extent that I can explain it. After providing as clear an explanation as I can, we'll spend the remaining lesson time talking about why missionary work and temple work are important, how they're related, and how they bless us and our families.
There are some complex and not-fully-understood concepts in this lesson, but I'll work with them as well as I can. Rather than trying to explain things I don't understand myself, I'll teach what I do know about them and then try to focus mostly on the parts that I understand better. Hopefully, those parts will make sense to my students as well, stay in their memories longer, and be of more benefit to them. Knowing about missionary work and temple work is probably more important than understanding the rules regarding the different types of heavenly beings, anyway. Besides, these are primary kids. It's probably best that we stick to topics that they (and I) can understand.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Keys and Authority
Another part of the lesson I'm having a little bit of trouble with is the "Keys" metaphor. The Priesthood had already been restored by the time the Kirtland Temple was constructed. What was restored therein was the keys, or authority, to use the Priesthood to do missionary and temple work. The keys of the priesthood are essential. As the manual put it: "Priesthood holders may perform priesthood ordinances only as authorized
by those who hold the appropriate priesthood keys. For example, before a
father can baptize his child, he must receive permission from the
bishop." Thus, even when one holds the priesthood, they still need authority to be given to them by those who hold the keys.
The trouble is that holding keys doesn't necessarily give a person authority to use them. I sometimes carry the spare key to Mom's car, but that doesn't give me the authority to drive her car. Perhaps physical keys are more like the Priesthood, in that one can hold it and still not have the authority to use it. Then, what are the Pristhood keys like? Ownership? Mom owns the car, so she has the authority to drive it and to allow other people to drive it. That sort of makes her like the bishop in the manual's example. I may have the ability to drive her car, but I still need her permission, just like a priesthood holder may have the power to baptise, but will still need the permission of the bishop.
I'm afraid that the fact that priesthood keys don't work the same way as physical keys may confuse my students. It's certainly somewhat confusing to me. Perhaps it would be best not to use this analogy at all, or maybe to draw some kind of diagram to show how these various concepts and symbols relate to each other. Or maybe I could make the analogy work by saying that Mom lets me borrow her keys, thus giving me temporary permission to use them. That might be simpler than trying to explain how physical and priesthood keys are similar or different. That's something the Primary kids can learn another day.
Saying that priesthood keys are like physical keys may be an oversimplification, but I hope it still works as an analogy. As I've learned before on my blog, no analogy is perfect. Under too much examination, any analogy would fall apart. Physical keys may not be a perfect analogy for priesthood keys, but I hope that, for the sake of my lesson tomorrow, the analogy is close enough.
The trouble is that holding keys doesn't necessarily give a person authority to use them. I sometimes carry the spare key to Mom's car, but that doesn't give me the authority to drive her car. Perhaps physical keys are more like the Priesthood, in that one can hold it and still not have the authority to use it. Then, what are the Pristhood keys like? Ownership? Mom owns the car, so she has the authority to drive it and to allow other people to drive it. That sort of makes her like the bishop in the manual's example. I may have the ability to drive her car, but I still need her permission, just like a priesthood holder may have the power to baptise, but will still need the permission of the bishop.
I'm afraid that the fact that priesthood keys don't work the same way as physical keys may confuse my students. It's certainly somewhat confusing to me. Perhaps it would be best not to use this analogy at all, or maybe to draw some kind of diagram to show how these various concepts and symbols relate to each other. Or maybe I could make the analogy work by saying that Mom lets me borrow her keys, thus giving me temporary permission to use them. That might be simpler than trying to explain how physical and priesthood keys are similar or different. That's something the Primary kids can learn another day.
Saying that priesthood keys are like physical keys may be an oversimplification, but I hope it still works as an analogy. As I've learned before on my blog, no analogy is perfect. Under too much examination, any analogy would fall apart. Physical keys may not be a perfect analogy for priesthood keys, but I hope that, for the sake of my lesson tomorrow, the analogy is close enough.
Friday, July 28, 2017
Why Build the Kirtland Temple?
I'm trying to figure out why the Kirtland Temple needed to be built. Before a few days ago, I assumed that the Kirtland Temple was just like any other temple, a place where sacred, essential, saving ordinances could be performed. However, according to the Primary lesson manual, "the Kirtland Temple was not designed for the ordinances we now perform in temples." Then, what was it designed for?
The manual says that the temple was to be "a sacred place where heavenly beings could come to restore priesthood keys and a meetinghouse where the Saints could gather to worship and to learn the gospel." But there are plenty of places where the Saints could gather to learn and worship, and Peter, James, John, and John the Baptist proved that one does not need to be in a temple to restore priesthood keys. There most have been another reason.
Maybe these priesthood keys were extra special, or maybe there's something special about the translated beings who appeared in the Kirtland Temple that made it so they couldn't appear except in a temple. There are definitely things I don't know about temples and heavenly beings.
Right now, my theory is that the Kirtland Temple was built and dedicated to set up the right conditions for the early saints to have a powerful, religious experience. Up to that point, Joseph Smith had pretty much gotten used to spiritual manifestations, as he had received several, perhaps even dozens, of manifestations by then, but I don't know how many other early saints had had a spiritual experience of that nature. Assuming that they were like the rest of us, I'm guessing that most of them had never seen a vision, but the dedication of the temple provided a unique opportunity for them. According to the manual, "Everyone present felt a holy, joyful feeling. Many people saw angels or heard angels singing, and others saw visions, prophesied, or spoke in tongues. Several people saw a heavenly messenger, whom Joseph Smith said was the Apostle Peter, in the temple."
I don't know if this was the main purpose for the construction of the Kirtland Temple, but I do think it was one of its purposes, and while I may not understand all the reasons why this temple had to be built, I think that this reason alone was enough to make building the temple worth what the early saints went through to make it happen. Spiritual experiences of that nature are rare, and the can have a powerful effect on a person. I would think that being present for the dedication of the Kirtland Temple and the spiritual manifestations that accompanied it strengthened the faith of the early saints and might have helped them gain the faith and courage they would need for the trials they were soon to face. I think that most of the other things that happened in the Kirtland Temple could have happened elsewhere, but allowing the entire congregation to have a spiritual experience of that nature might have been reason enough to build it.
The manual says that the temple was to be "a sacred place where heavenly beings could come to restore priesthood keys and a meetinghouse where the Saints could gather to worship and to learn the gospel." But there are plenty of places where the Saints could gather to learn and worship, and Peter, James, John, and John the Baptist proved that one does not need to be in a temple to restore priesthood keys. There most have been another reason.
Maybe these priesthood keys were extra special, or maybe there's something special about the translated beings who appeared in the Kirtland Temple that made it so they couldn't appear except in a temple. There are definitely things I don't know about temples and heavenly beings.
Right now, my theory is that the Kirtland Temple was built and dedicated to set up the right conditions for the early saints to have a powerful, religious experience. Up to that point, Joseph Smith had pretty much gotten used to spiritual manifestations, as he had received several, perhaps even dozens, of manifestations by then, but I don't know how many other early saints had had a spiritual experience of that nature. Assuming that they were like the rest of us, I'm guessing that most of them had never seen a vision, but the dedication of the temple provided a unique opportunity for them. According to the manual, "Everyone present felt a holy, joyful feeling. Many people saw angels or heard angels singing, and others saw visions, prophesied, or spoke in tongues. Several people saw a heavenly messenger, whom Joseph Smith said was the Apostle Peter, in the temple."
I don't know if this was the main purpose for the construction of the Kirtland Temple, but I do think it was one of its purposes, and while I may not understand all the reasons why this temple had to be built, I think that this reason alone was enough to make building the temple worth what the early saints went through to make it happen. Spiritual experiences of that nature are rare, and the can have a powerful effect on a person. I would think that being present for the dedication of the Kirtland Temple and the spiritual manifestations that accompanied it strengthened the faith of the early saints and might have helped them gain the faith and courage they would need for the trials they were soon to face. I think that most of the other things that happened in the Kirtland Temple could have happened elsewhere, but allowing the entire congregation to have a spiritual experience of that nature might have been reason enough to build it.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Too Personal to Share
This morning, I ironically overheard a conversation between two of my coworkers, one of which was saying that she doesn't post everything about herself on social media largely because her life isn't anybody else's business. In general, I agree with her assessment. Most of a person's life isn't the general public's business. One's personal information, for example, is just that: personal. The same can be said of one's personal experiences and personal feelings. If a person chooses to share such things, that's their decision, but it can sometimes be inappropriate or unwise to share too much.
For that reason, there are some things that I don't feel comfortable sharing on my blog. I've had some experiences that, while blogworthy, are too personal to blog about. I'd offer you an example of a personal experience I've had that's too personal to blog about, but an example I could think of would, by definition, be too personal to share on my blog. You're just going to have to take my word on this one.
But on the other hand, I'm sure that, even without an example, you know what sort of thing I'm talking about. Almost everyone has something about themselves that's not necessarily intended for the ears of the general public. Many of us have faults and challenges that we'd rather not discuss in public. Some of us have had experiences too sacred to mention in casual conversation. And while I feel that it's important to explore one's innermost thoughts and feelings, the internet may not be the best place in which to do that.
So, occasionally, I have thoughts and experiences that, despite occupying a good deal of my time and thoughts and teaching me valuable lessons, are not fit to share on my blog. At those times, I hope you can be patient with me and forgive me for not sharing any spiritual thoughts. Some thoughts are just too personal to share online.
For that reason, there are some things that I don't feel comfortable sharing on my blog. I've had some experiences that, while blogworthy, are too personal to blog about. I'd offer you an example of a personal experience I've had that's too personal to blog about, but an example I could think of would, by definition, be too personal to share on my blog. You're just going to have to take my word on this one.
But on the other hand, I'm sure that, even without an example, you know what sort of thing I'm talking about. Almost everyone has something about themselves that's not necessarily intended for the ears of the general public. Many of us have faults and challenges that we'd rather not discuss in public. Some of us have had experiences too sacred to mention in casual conversation. And while I feel that it's important to explore one's innermost thoughts and feelings, the internet may not be the best place in which to do that.
So, occasionally, I have thoughts and experiences that, despite occupying a good deal of my time and thoughts and teaching me valuable lessons, are not fit to share on my blog. At those times, I hope you can be patient with me and forgive me for not sharing any spiritual thoughts. Some thoughts are just too personal to share online.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Locks and Keys
This Sunday, I'm teaching a Primary lesson about the dedication of the Kirtland Temple and the restoration of the keys of missionary and temple work.
Side note: How weird is it that the keys of missionary work weren't restored until 1836? Given all that we've covered in church history so far, I was sure they'd've sent out some missionaries by then. But no, the first official missionaries weren't sent out until 1837, though I'm sure people still told their friends and neighbors about the church well before then even without an official calling to preach the gospel full time.
What struck me most about the restoration of the keys of temple work was that, even after sacrificing so much to build a temple, which they were going to lose before too long, the early saints still did not have the opportunity to perform all of the temple ordinances. I think they could get their endowments, but according to the lesson manual, the Kirtland Temple "had no baptismal font in which to perform baptisms for the dead and no altars for temple marriages," and I only think they could perform endowments there. I could easily be wrong about that, especially since the lesson manual also says that "the Kirtland Temple was not designed for the ordinances we now perform in temples," the ordinances whose keys were restored just a week after the temple was dedicated. The early saints were given the keys to temple work; they just didn't have a temple in which they could do it.
The beginning of the lesson emphasizes the importance of keys, but what this lesson really taught me was the importance of locks. Having keys is practically pointless without access to the things the keys unlock. Without the locks they unlock, keys are basically worthless. This makes me curious as to why the Lord would restore the keys of temple work before the saints had built a temple in which they could perform it, and that makes me think that maybe there were some ordinances the early saints could perform in the Kirtland Temple, even though the manual doesn't mention any and specifically mentions the absence of fonts and altars.
Of course, these questions and curiosities are purely academic. We now have the keys to temple ordinances and temples in which we can do them. We have both the keys and the locks, so we should use them. As for the early saints, I'm sure God had a good reason to give them the keys to temple work then, even if they didn't have the opportunity to use them yet. As always, God knows what He's doing. Perhaps there were some ordinances they could perform even if they couldn't yet perform others, or perhaps they were given the keys early in order to prove that they could hold on to this sacred responsibility for a while before they were given the opportunity to use that power. God does seem fairly fond of preparation and tests.
At any rate, whether I share any of this in my Primary lesson or not, the main takeaway for me is that it's not enough to have the key to a lock. In order to benefit from that key, we have to actually go to its lock and open it. This applies to temple work, the gift of the Holy Ghost, or any other blessing we have access to that's contingent on our actions. It's not enough to just have the scriptures, for example; we also have to read them. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we have access to a great deal of blessings, but it's up to us obtain them and make use of them. I wonder what all keys we've been given and what locks they could help us open.
Side note: How weird is it that the keys of missionary work weren't restored until 1836? Given all that we've covered in church history so far, I was sure they'd've sent out some missionaries by then. But no, the first official missionaries weren't sent out until 1837, though I'm sure people still told their friends and neighbors about the church well before then even without an official calling to preach the gospel full time.
What struck me most about the restoration of the keys of temple work was that, even after sacrificing so much to build a temple, which they were going to lose before too long, the early saints still did not have the opportunity to perform all of the temple ordinances. I think they could get their endowments, but according to the lesson manual, the Kirtland Temple "had no baptismal font in which to perform baptisms for the dead and no altars for temple marriages," and I only think they could perform endowments there. I could easily be wrong about that, especially since the lesson manual also says that "the Kirtland Temple was not designed for the ordinances we now perform in temples," the ordinances whose keys were restored just a week after the temple was dedicated. The early saints were given the keys to temple work; they just didn't have a temple in which they could do it.
The beginning of the lesson emphasizes the importance of keys, but what this lesson really taught me was the importance of locks. Having keys is practically pointless without access to the things the keys unlock. Without the locks they unlock, keys are basically worthless. This makes me curious as to why the Lord would restore the keys of temple work before the saints had built a temple in which they could perform it, and that makes me think that maybe there were some ordinances the early saints could perform in the Kirtland Temple, even though the manual doesn't mention any and specifically mentions the absence of fonts and altars.
Of course, these questions and curiosities are purely academic. We now have the keys to temple ordinances and temples in which we can do them. We have both the keys and the locks, so we should use them. As for the early saints, I'm sure God had a good reason to give them the keys to temple work then, even if they didn't have the opportunity to use them yet. As always, God knows what He's doing. Perhaps there were some ordinances they could perform even if they couldn't yet perform others, or perhaps they were given the keys early in order to prove that they could hold on to this sacred responsibility for a while before they were given the opportunity to use that power. God does seem fairly fond of preparation and tests.
At any rate, whether I share any of this in my Primary lesson or not, the main takeaway for me is that it's not enough to have the key to a lock. In order to benefit from that key, we have to actually go to its lock and open it. This applies to temple work, the gift of the Holy Ghost, or any other blessing we have access to that's contingent on our actions. It's not enough to just have the scriptures, for example; we also have to read them. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we have access to a great deal of blessings, but it's up to us obtain them and make use of them. I wonder what all keys we've been given and what locks they could help us open.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Conflicting Ideologies
I recently watched a video defending Avatar: The Legend of Korra. For those of you who don't know, which should be just about all of you, The Legend of Korra is a sequel series of Avatar: The Last Airbender, arguably one of the best cartoon/anime series I've ever seen. The Last Airbender had a plethora of memorable characters (and a few forgettable ones, but we can forget about them), deep character development, and a single story arc that spanned its three seasons. In my opinion, The Legend of Korra didn't live up to its predecessor. I had a hard time relating to the main character, and the side characters mostly seemed pretty flat. Not knowing how many seasons they were going to get, the writers wrapped up all loose ends at the end of each season, meaning that there wasn't a continuing story. There wasn't even a recurring villain, since each villain was defeated by the end of the season in which they were introduced. But it was the many villains that Youtuber "Just Write" praised.
While Avatar: The Last Airbender focussed mostly on the characters, Avatar: The Legend of Korra focussed mostly on the world, as explored through the actions and opinions of the characters. Notably, the villains possessed strong, conflicting ideologies, none of which were bad in moderation, but the villains became villains by taking their ideologies to the extreme. By the end of the series, Korra learns to find a balance between the extremes, learning something of value from each of the villains she defeats, or so I've been told.
And it's this "learning from others" and "finding balance and harmony by avoiding extremes" that I really want to blog about.
In our society, particularly in our political society, there doesn't seem to be much interest in listening to other people's points of view. Instead, our politics seem to be polarized and polarizing, with each side going farther and farther into the extremes that they espouse, while decrying the "extremism" of those on the other side of the debate. This needs to stop. We can't afford to listen only to those who agree with us and vilify those who don't. There are good points on both sides of the debate on any issue, and we'll become better-informed, wiser people by listening to them.
I'm not saying that we all have to agree with each other or always let each other get their way. What I'm saying is that we should listen to each other and keep our minds open to the valid opinions and perspectives we may hear. No one (besides deity) is completely right or completely wrong. (And no one, besides maybe the prophets, are or were completely right about God's opinions of things, so we can't claim that we're right about everything just because we're on God's side. Many other people also think they're on God's side, and yet, we still disagree.) It's important to be humble, willing to share our opinions courteously, and most importantly, willing to consider other people's points of view, even and especially when their ideologies conflict with our own.
While Avatar: The Last Airbender focussed mostly on the characters, Avatar: The Legend of Korra focussed mostly on the world, as explored through the actions and opinions of the characters. Notably, the villains possessed strong, conflicting ideologies, none of which were bad in moderation, but the villains became villains by taking their ideologies to the extreme. By the end of the series, Korra learns to find a balance between the extremes, learning something of value from each of the villains she defeats, or so I've been told.
And it's this "learning from others" and "finding balance and harmony by avoiding extremes" that I really want to blog about.
In our society, particularly in our political society, there doesn't seem to be much interest in listening to other people's points of view. Instead, our politics seem to be polarized and polarizing, with each side going farther and farther into the extremes that they espouse, while decrying the "extremism" of those on the other side of the debate. This needs to stop. We can't afford to listen only to those who agree with us and vilify those who don't. There are good points on both sides of the debate on any issue, and we'll become better-informed, wiser people by listening to them.
I'm not saying that we all have to agree with each other or always let each other get their way. What I'm saying is that we should listen to each other and keep our minds open to the valid opinions and perspectives we may hear. No one (besides deity) is completely right or completely wrong. (And no one, besides maybe the prophets, are or were completely right about God's opinions of things, so we can't claim that we're right about everything just because we're on God's side. Many other people also think they're on God's side, and yet, we still disagree.) It's important to be humble, willing to share our opinions courteously, and most importantly, willing to consider other people's points of view, even and especially when their ideologies conflict with our own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)