All People Are Children of God

I just rewatched Elder Brian K. Taylor's talk Am I a Child of God?, and while his message was focused on the individual, reminding each of us that we are all children of God, regardless of anything we've done or anything that's going on in our lives, this answer also reflects another important truth that I plan to write about shortly: All human beings are children of God, even the bad ones.

There have been a lot of bad people in the history of the world. There are plenty of bad people alive on the Earth right now. There is a lot of wickedness in the world, all caused by bad people, but even the worst of those people are still children of God. Even the worst people have divine potential. Even the worst people can repent. Even the worst people who have ever lived can, after several major (but still possible) changes, eventually become perfect.

No one is irredeemably evil. In fact, I might go so far as to say that no one is evil at all. Wicked people do evil things, but I would not say that they themselves are evil. People are imperfect, many are wicked, and all make bad choices from time to time (some, frequently), but that does not make them inherently evil. All humans are human, and all of them are children of God.

Let's try to remember that when we have to deal with the "evil" people we encounter in life. Let's remember that they weren't born evil, and they aren't incurably evil now. Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to stop them from doing evil. Of course, we should try to persuade them to do good, and sometimes, force will be necessary to prevent people from harming others, but even when we must use force against others, we must also remember that they are still human and that they are still children of God. Even the worst people can still repent and become better and good people. So let's remember that everyone has divine potential, and let's do what we can to help them repent and try to achieve it.

Focus on the Purpose - Values and Choices

This morning, my mom and I were talking about my lesson and how I wasn't entirely sure how I wanted to teach it. She advised me to consider the lesson's purpose. Each lesson in the Primary manual has a stated purpose, and those purposes are never about learning the history of events and rarely include finding role-models among the characters, two things which I had thought were rather important. Instead, the purpose of this lesson is "To help the children recognize how our values influence our choices." Looking at the story again through this lens, it started to seem a lot easier to teach.

Jacob valued his brother's birthright more than he valued his brother's well-being, so he only offered his brother some food on the condition of exchange, and Esau valued that food more than he valued his birthright, so he made the deal. Later, Jacob valued the birthright more than his integrity, so he used trickery to get his father's blessing. By that time, Esau came to value the birthright more than he valued his brother's life, so he made plans to kill him.

And here, I might add the story of Jacob working for Laban so he could marry Rachel, because that shows how much Jacob valued Rachel, but I probably won't go into detail on this point because it's the primary focus of next week's lesson.

Then, finally, when Jacob and Esau were reunited, Jacob valued his Esau's forgiveness (and his own life) more than he valued his livestock, so he offered Esau lots of animals, but Esau had also had a change of heart, and he now valued his brother more than the livestock, so he let Jacob keep it.

I'll tell the children that, at each major point in the story, each of the characters are driven, to one degree or another, by their desires. I'll probably also share a relevant quote from President Uchtdorf:

For what we love determines what we seek.

What we seek determines what we think and do.

What we think and do determines who we are—and who we will become.

I'll conclude by encouraging the children to value and seek the things that have eternal value, like strong, wholesome, family relationships. My hope is that, as the children learn what Jacob and Esau valued and what they did because of their values, those children will begin to think about what they value and what they ought to do. I'm glad that my mom reminded me to think about the purpose of this lesson. It really helped me figure out how to focus this lesson and pull some valuable moral lessons from it, which I can now share with the children.

A Tale with No Heroes

The tricky part of this lesson I'm going to give this Sunday isn't deciding what parts of the story I want to share or focus on, but deciding what to say about them. Of course, I'm going to cover the birthright-for-pottage trade (and I'll probably have to take a minute to explain what birthrights and pottage are), but what should I say about that exchange? I usually try to teach my Primary kids some moral lessons when I give examples of people in scriptures. I use scriptural figures to demonstrate behavior that they should or should not engage in. The trouble is that neither Jacob or Esau demonstrate exemplary behavior here. Esau was foolish and Jacob was selfish. Maybe they had good reasons for what they did, but it would take rather extraordinary circumstances to justify either of their behavior. I take some solace from the fact that we can learn for either kind of example, good or bad, but it kind of bugs me that there is no "good guy" here.

And the morality of this tale gets even murkier when Jacob actually receives the birthright by tricking his father into thinking that he's Esau. Jacob is being blatantly dishonest here, which is, naturally, very wrong. Perhaps one could say that he only did it so he could claim something that was technically owed to him, but I don't know why Jacob couldn't just tell his father, Isaac, about the deal he and his brother had made. Sure, Isaac would have been confused, and Esau might have lied about the deal they made, but Jacob could have at least tried to be honest.

But Esau wasn't much (if any) better. When he learned of Jacob's deception, he was terribly upset and made plans to kill Jacob. If lying to your father is immoral, planning to murder your brother certainly is. Luckily for Jacob, he was warned about Esau's intentions, and he managed to get away, but I'll want to be careful how I word that because he was warned by his mother, and she wasn't exactly a "good guy" either, since she helped Jacob pull off the deception of Isaac. In fact, it seemed to be her idea. We know that she was a decent person; we learned that last week, but she seems to be showing some favoritism here, and I'd rather not get into that. There's too much questionable morality in this story as it is.

Thankfully, the story has a happy ending. Jacob and Esau reconcile as brothers and they start to live in the same area again, non-murderously. There could be a lesson in forgiveness there. Plus, since both of the brothers are generous with each other at this point, that might be an indicator of character growth, which could contribute to a lesson on overcoming one's vices by learning from one's mistakes. Still, even with a happy and blogworthy ending, this lesson is going to be difficult to teach. There's a lot of behavior in this lesson that's not necessarily good, and I don't want to give my children the impression that such behavior is okay. I have to cover the events of the story, and I will, but but I'm not entirely sure how I want to portray them.

How Hungry Was Esau?

I read the scriptural account of Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for some food, and I have to ask: What Esau really THAT hungry? Because if he was, Jacob was pretty horrible for demanding his birthright in exchange, and if he wasn't, he was terribly short-sighted.

Here is the whole exchange, taken from Genesis 25:

29 ¶ And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint:

30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.

31 And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.

32 And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.

34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

So, the Bible tells us that Esau was "faint," and Esau says as much and then goes one step further, claiming that he is "at the point to die." If this is an accurate portrayal of Esau's condition, Jacob probably should have just given Esau the food. In fact, he probably should have just given him the food, even if he wasn't that hungry. We have a moral obligation to feed the hungry, but beside this, these two are brothers! Isn't it typical for most families to share with each other? I can honestly say that if one of my siblings asked for a meal, I would make them one, and I wouldn't ask them for much, if anything, in return.

But let's say that Jacob had some reason to believe that the birthright would be safer with him. After all, Esau clearly isn't a good steward of the birthright if he was willing to give it up so easily. Unless, of course, he was actually starving. Very few things are worth dying for, and a birthright you aren't going to live long enough to enjoy probably isn't one of them. If Esau truly was starving, he might have been justified in giving up the birthright in exchange for a life-saving meal.

But if Esau wasn't actually starving, he was a very poor judge of value. Not many people have traded something of that much value for something of so little value. And if Esau valued his birthright so little, he probably didn't deserve it.

So the morality of this situation hinges on how hungry Esau was. Was he starving, or was he exaggerating? What does it mean that he was "faint"? However hungry Esau was, Jacob probably should have fed him, and it's good that he did, but Esau's selling of his birthright for a single meal indicates either tremendous foolishness or great desperation. I wish I knew which condition convinced him that he should sell his birthright for a little bit of food.

Ethical Obligations

One thing that interests me particularly about ethics is the idea of obligation. We are, some would argue, obligated to act ethically, or at least to not act unethically, but what does "obligated" really mean in this context? If we're "obligated" to do something (or to not do something), and we don't do it (or we do it anyway), what happens?

Clearly, obligation does not imply a lack of options. One may have a lack of valid options if one is obligated to do something, but they remain able to choose an invalid option. For example, I may be morally obligated to help someone, but I could still choose not to. People break moral obligations all the time, which begs the question: if obligations don't literally force people to behave a certain way, what do they do?

Obligations like these may impose penalties. Arguably, certain severe infractions of moral obligations warrant some kind of punishment. For example, a person who breaks the moral obligation to not murder people is likely to be punished by long incarceration and/or death.

Yet, there are other moral obligations the breaking of which carry little in temporal punishment. Looking back at my example of not helping someone, I highly doubt that I'd be criminally punished for an infraction of such a minor moral law.

However, even minor infractions carry some penalties, such as restriction from the blessings and privileges we might otherwise have qualified for. In one sense, this is all capital punishment and incarceration are: restrictions from privileges, manly the privilege to live among normal society, or to live at all.

For the most part, I see the justice in this. God and society offer blessings to those who qualify for them by obeying their rules. Yet, I'm not sure that people necessarily give up their "inalienable" rights of life and liberty when they disregard their moral obligations. They certainly don't deserve all the privileges of a law-abiding citizen, but I'm not sure I'd count being allowed to live as a revocable "privilege."

Clearly, I need to do some more thinking on this topic, since I'm not one-hundred percent sure what moral obligations are and what we ethically can and should do to those who break them.

Now or Later

This Sunday, I'm teaching a lesson about Jacob and Esau, and this lesson is somewhat pertinent to me personally. The attention activity and much of the lesson focus on the contrast between temporary and eternal value. I struggle with this sometimes. I frequently make choices based on what I want at the moment rather than what I'll want later. I eat unhealthily. I stay up late. I watch too many Youtube videos before blogging. Too often, I neglect things of lasting value because I'm too busy seeking things of immediate value. This is, of course, unwise, as Esau eventually learned. As I prepare this lesson, I want to learn from Esau's mistake. I want to learn to look ahead and think about the big picture before I make decisions of potentially lasting consequence. I want to develop the wisdom to choose things of eternal value over the things I want in the moment.

Encouraging our Students

I have the best coworkers. This afternoon, I heard one of them being super-positive and encouraging, saying things like "You've got this," "I have faith in you," and "I'm excited to see the final draft." (I work at a writing tutoring center, in case you didn't know.) I should be more like that. I sometimes admit when things might be challenging, but that's not always what a person needs to hear, even when it's true. Knowing that they're in for a challenge might help them prepare to face it, but making them believe that it won't actually be a challenge for them might be exactly what gives them the courage to face it. I shouldn't misrepresent the difficulties that lie ahead of them, but I shouldn't underestimate them, either. I should have more confidence in my students, and I should encourage them to have confidence in themselves as well.