Mormon Christian – JayBall.name

Well Behaved Women and Transgenderism

My prayer is that no matter where our political beliefs tend to draw us, individually we can still choose kindness and tolerance.

Some months ago someone shared with me a video. I couldn’t decide if I agreed with the idea being presented:

“Feminism has been one of the loudest advocates for the transgender minority. Miss magazine which is a U.S.-based feminist publication, has a yearly list of top feminists. Multiple women on this list were added simply for being transgender. As an ideology feminists aim to break the patriarchy and reinforce equality between men and women often citing things like the gender pay gap or tearing down stereotypes. But trans people fight for the exact opposite. They want the stereotype. They want the heels the long styled hair and the dresses. These are two groups that couldn’t be fighting for more opposite goals, but yet feminist groups continue to celebrate trans victories. [It] seems very strange that feminist organizations like Miss magazine, which fought for the eradication of female stereotypes like staying at home, or their place is the kitchen, would accept these stereotypes when it comes to transgender. Feminist movements can’t both support and not support female stereotypes at the same time. Now I will say that unlike the 2021 list of top feminists which had several trans women on it, the Miss magazine 2022 list of top feminists has none. So it appears that the wokeness is starting to wake up to some of its logic fallacies.” (5 Woke Contradictions, The Think Report, Jan 14, 2023)

I paused to reconsider the presenter’s conclusion about female stereotypes. There are harmful stereotypes and less harmful stereotypes. The example of a toddler that I relate below, seems to be a less harmful stereotype. Stereotypes of women, like staying at home, or their place is the kitchen, can be more harmful stereotypes. On the other hand, the stereotype that women are feminine and beautiful could be argued is a less harmful stereotype (acknowledging, of course, that any of these ideas are subject to abuse and can be more or less harmful in given circumstances).

“When I think of, say, a toddler, I think of a toddler as throwing tantrums, not eating what you give them to eat, being demanding and irrational. Those are all stereotypes about toddlers. Individual toddlers may behave differently.

A stereotype is a commonly held mental image, as our definition puts it, that represents an over-simplified opinion, a prejudiced attitude, or an unconsidered judgment about someone or something.” (A Totally Original History of ‘Stereotype’, emphasis mine.)

I can’t say that “an over-simplified opinion” is necessarily a bad thing, but “a prejudiced attitude or unconsidered judgment about someone” seems to approach something more clearly harmful or dangerous.

I wonder if the focus on stereotypes misses the more important point in this discussion.

Consider Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s work. She wrote a book titled Well Behaved Women Don’t Make History, which has since been turned into a slogan. The title was taken from an earlier article she wrote about funerals in the Puritan era and the behavior of women. The article makes this sobering observation:

“In ministerial literature, as in public records, women became legitimately visible in only three ways: they married, they gave birth, they died.”

As demeaning as that sentence sounds, I think we should not be too quick to dismiss the significance of what is sandwiched between ‘they married’ and ‘they died’. Women alone carry within them the power to create life.

The Always ad campaign #LikeAGirl, focused on the female stereotype of ‘running like a girl‘. But the point extends beyond simply a message about the stereotype.

“What advice do you have to young girls who are told they run like a girl, kick like a girl, hit like a girl, swing like a girl?

Keep doing it cuz it’s working. If somebody else says that running like a girl or kicking like a girl or shooting like a girl is something that you shouldn’t be doing, that’s their problem. Because if you’re still scoring and you’re still getting to the ball on time, and you’re still being first, you’re doing it right. Doesn’t matter what they say. I mean yes I kick like a girl and I swim like a girl and I walk like a girl and I wake up in the morning like a girl, because I AM a girl.”

Being aquatinted with some friends and family who describe their experience with being transgender as a struggle, has drawn me to wonder. Whatever words you may use to describe femininity, it must include the kind of things that, if you are a male engaged in this struggle, you feel trapped in a body that is opposite of those traits and attributes. I can’t imagine the contradiction of living inside a body, complete with all the physical paraphernalia that makes up the male, feeling sexually confused and uncomfortable inside my own skin. It would stand to reason how the experience of depression and self loathing (words that have been used by those I know struggling with their transgenderism) would accompany living such a contradiction.

In their book A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century, Brett and Heather make a distinction between ‘hotness’ and ‘beauty’ and the roles these play in the evolutionary process. “Hotness fades fast with reproductive potential. Beauty fades far more slowly.” (See Heying, Heather; Weinstein, Bret. A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century (p. 119). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.) For some, there is little that can be done to create what could be considered attractive ‘hotness’, given the package within which they have to work. Depending on how much physical appearance is a factor in how one identifies and feels, this could additionally contribute to the challenges of depression and self-contempt.

There is a lot of attention given to those who would abuse transgenderism in order to serve a selfish or politicly motivated agenda. One obvious example is Avi Silverberg, the head coach for Team Canada Powerlifting for more than 10 years, entered Hero’s Classic tournament in Lethbridge, Alberta, after identifying as a female, and then winning the women’s competition.

This exemplifies the valid concern I raised recently at work when I posed the following question (directed to the women’s ally resource group):

“I’m honestly confused. How do women feel at the possibility of being taken advantage of by some man capitalizing on a system where he can claim to be a woman for the purpose of exploiting a situation? This is not asked from a perspective with any specific person or situation in mind, but I’m genuinely curious how women may feel at the potentiality of those who might be inclined to take advantage of and manipulate or abuse women in any environment that facilitates such exploitation.”

For those legitimately trying to navigate the complexity of their own trans identity, I believe it only adds tension to the situation they find themselves in when these issues get abused by those with selfish intentions or politically motivated agendas.

Rarely have I encountered someone where it was not evident the person was male or female. In these cases, if they don’t have their pronoun broadcast clearly on a T-shirt they may be wearing, or I have not seen their email signature that identifies it, then, should I choose to engage a conversation where I don’t want to offend, I may find myself in the awkward position of having to carefully navigating the social situation. Perhaps I will listen in on conversations and wait to see how others who know the person address them.

I imagine that if I were a female with enough masculine features that could confuse people as to my gender, and I would prefer not to be identified as a boy, then what I would do is choose more feminine style clothing and accentuate my more feminine characteristics in some way, or do other things that would make it more evident who I am. With this idea in mind, if I’m a transgender woman and I don’t have all the characteristics of a beautiful or ‘hot’ female, then I could understand dressing up to indicate to the outside world and make it evident how I choose to identify. When I encounter someone who appears to be clearly male, dressed in a way so as to broadcast femininity, which is the better approach? Should I assume 1), they are choosing to be a human billboard promoting a woke agenda, or rather should I take the position that 2), the statement they are publishing has no other agenda than their sincere best effort to reflect their own authentic self in the best way they know how? For me, my own personal truth is that to the best that I am able to judge impartially, I choose to take others at their word. I acknowledge that this takes practice, and I don’t always get it right. To the extent that the statement being broadcast by the way someone chooses to present themselves to the world is in essence, their “word,” how is the best way for me to judge? Can I take them at their word without compromising my belief that there are those with harmful agendas that undermine a very real struggle being experienced by those who are simply trying to circumnavigate this otherwise difficult terrain they find themselves in?

My prayer is that no matter where our political beliefs tend to draw us, individually we can still choose kindness and tolerance as we strive for unity in a world that otherwise seems to increasingly be pushing toward polarizing us into camps of “us” vs “them”.

Politically Motivated Agenda?

As a peacemaker at heart, I have some questions in reference to the idea of those with politically motivated agendas.

In their book Three Laws of Performance, the authors layout three laws that I find quite profound. They are worthy of reflection:

First – How people perform correlates to how situations occur to them.
Second – How a situation occurs arises in language.
Third – Future based language transforms how situations occur to people.

(See Zaffron, Steve; Logan, Dave. The Three Laws of Performance (J-B Warren Bennis Series), Wiley, 2009.)

As a peacemaker at heart, I have some questions in reference to the idea of those with politically motivated agendas.

The resourcefulness of the language we use serves us. It is important to understand the role language serves in shaping how things occur to people, and thereby transforming how people perform as a result. The constructive application of the three laws benefits us.

Can these laws be used destructively as well? Movements that seek to re-define the language we use should be carefully examined. Does the agenda and motive behind such causes serve the best interest of humanity? Does the result of such attempts serve to unite or polarize the culture into which the endeavor is being introduced?

Determinism and Free Will

How do we reconcile the idea that there is no strong scientific evidence that supports that we have free will, yet scripture confirms we do?

Atheist American philosopher and podcast host, Sam Harris explains the idea of determinism in his book titled “Free Will“. The key principal of Sam Harris’ argument against free will can be found on page 34:

“Decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc., are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes in the world. Human choice, therefore, is as important as fanciers of free will believe. But the next choice you make will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you, the conscious witness of your experience, did not bring into being…
From the perspective of your conscious awareness, you are no more responsible for the next thing you think (and therefore do) than you are for the fact that you were born into this world.” (Sam Harris, Free Will, pg 34-35)

What intrigues me about the idea of determinism is the studies that seem to confirm its validity:

“The physiologist Benjamin Libet famously used EEG to show that activity in the brain’s motor cortex can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move… More recently, direct recordings from the cortex showed that the activity of merely 256 neurons was sufficient to predict with 80 percent accuracy a person’s decision to move 700 milliseconds before he became aware of it.
These findings are difficult to reconcile with the sense that we are the conscious authors of our actions. One fact now seems indisputable: Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next—a time in which you subjectively appear to have complete freedom to behave however you please—your brain has already determined what you will do. You then become conscious of this ‘decision’ and believe that you are in the process of making it.” (Ibid. pg 7-8)

An example from EST training (from the 1970s) demonstrated the idea that we are not as free to choose as we like to think we are. The participant in the exercise was asked, at the count of three, to either raise or lower his hand that had been raised to the level in front of his face. After repeating the exercise the instructor asked the participant:

“’What happened the second time?’
‘The second time was really strange. I decided before you said “three” that I was going to raise my hand because the first time I’d lowered it. You said “one two three” and for about a second nothing happened. Then I said to myself, “I don’t feel like raising it.” Another couple of seconds went by with nothing and then I thought I’m going to raise it anyway. Two more seconds passed and the damn hand went down!’
(Laughter)
‘Okay, Robert, you asked about our having control over our thoughts and decisions we make. Is your question answered?’
Robert stares at Michael and shakes his head slowly. ‘I guess I didn’t have much control then, but… but I must be free to choose … something.’
‘Oh yeah,’ says Michael [somewhat sarcastically]. ‘At the end of the day we go into choice and it’ll be quite clear what you’re free to choose.’” (Luke Rhinehart, The Book of EST, pg. 182)

Evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein (who, incidentally, also does not believe in god), has debated Sam Harris over this subject. Brett argues that the idea of determinism is completely inconsistent with evolution. Commenting on this debate later, Brett elaborated:

“So, my point is, look, I can’t say for sure that we don’t live in a deterministic universe, but I can say that a deterministic universe would be a very bizarre one. … And one of the manifestations of this is free will. In which we are actually able to choose. However, the fact that there, to me, appears to be free will, actual free will at our disposal, does not say that there’s nearly as much of it as people think. We are not very free. So I think Sam Harris has a point. Which is that we are highly, highly constrained. And I agree with him in that. But we are not totally constrained. And that’s the question. Is the amount of free will not very much, or zero? And my answer would be that a universe where its zero would be a very strange place indeed. It would make a mockery of subjective experience. There would be no point in having it. But, that doesn’t nail it down, that just says that, the argument that we have no free will, is a philosophical loser because it makes a more complicated universe, rather than a less complicated universe. It’s an Occam’s razor failure.” (I lost the argument with Sam Harris and still have free will, from Livestream #136)

How much truth is there in the proverb, “As a man thinketh, in his heart, so is he.” (Prov 23:7)? How do we reconcile the idea that there is no strong scientific evidence that supports that we have free will, yet scripture confirms we do? (See for example John 5:30, 2 Ne 2:27; 10:23, Mosiah 2:21, Alma 12:31, Helaman 14:30). Is there some validity to Brett Weinstein’s assessment, there appears to be “actual free will at our disposal,” but that there’s not “nearly as much of it as people think… that we are highly, highly constrained.”?

According to NeuroTray.com:

“The human brain can process up to 11 million bits of information per second. This is the natural processing capacity of the brain, including the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious mind. However, the conscious mind has a very limited capacity and it can handle anything from 40 to 120 bits of information in a second.” (https://neurotray.com/how-many-bits-of-information-can-the-brain-process/)

If free will (or free agency) is a true principal, as scriptures confirm, then there must lie something within the 40 to 120 bits of information in a second that our conscious mind is able to process and yet science is unable to measure, where our free will is exerted. The “80 percent accuracy of a person’s decision to move 700 milliseconds before he became aware of it” that science is able to confirm, still leaves a certain unmeasured percent where free will, if it exists, would have to be being exercised.

Years ago I remember being impressed while listening to an audio recording of Deepak Chopra relating how the human brain is able to digest food, monitor the location of stars, play the piano, and make a baby, all at the same time. While the brain is processing millions of bits of information in any given moment, we remain only conscious of (by some estimates) only seven to nine. And yet in the pride of our hearts we have the audacity to believe in something like, “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.” (Invictus, William E. Henley)?

Despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, we are taught that:

“…the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.” (2 Ne 2:16)

Somewhere in the recesses of our unconscious, the seemingly pre-determined choices that bubble up before we become conscious of them, have their origins in habits formed previously that serve to determine beforehand much of what we find ourselves doing in the present moment. Of course, Sam Harris argues that “there is no way I can influence my desires— for what tools of influence would I use?” (Free Will, pg. 20)

The only way I can explain the conundrum is to accept that what the scriptures teach about agency is true, and therefore, there are hidden instances (Sam Harris actually uses the word “hidden” to describe this behavior on pg 44), outside of moments that science has been able to measure, where we can and do exercise free agency in ways that influence future unconscious intentions that bubble up into present decisions and actions.

I liken it to the process of exercising your heart. You can work on most muscles in your body by working out with them directly, but when it comes to the heart, you can only affect it indirectly through cardiovascular exercise.

Joseph Smith describes the process this way:

“Are you not dependent on your faith, or belief, for the acquisition of all knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence? Would you exert yourselves to obtain wisdom and intelligence unless you did believe that you could obtain them?… Turn your thoughts on your own minds, and see if faith is not the moving cause of all action in yourselves” Lectures on Faith, Lecture 1:11.

Examine the root word for determinism:
de·ter·mine
verb [with object]
1 cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in:
2 [no object] firmly decide:

And the suffix
-ism
1 forming nouns denoting an action or its result:
2 forming nouns denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement:

The only dictionary definition for the word “determinism” is “the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.” However, when we apply the rule of language for the suffix “-ism” to “determine” there’s no reason the word could not as easily mean “the action of determining or firmly deciding”, which implies the exercise of free will. It’s worth reflecting on the juxtaposition of these two conflicting definitions.

Consider the story of the “Fifty-Cent Lesson” from Napoleon Hill’s book Think and Grow Rich:

“Shortly after Mr. Darby received his degree from the ‘University of Hard Knocks,’ and had decided to profit by his experience in the gold mining business, he had the good fortune to be present on an occasion that proved to him that ‘No’ does not necessarily mean no.

One afternoon he was helping his uncle grind wheat in an old fashioned mill. The uncle operated a large farm on which a number of colored sharecrop farmers lived. Quietly, the door was opened, and a small colored child, the daughter of a tenant, walked in and took her place near the door.

The uncle looked up, saw the child, and barked at her roughly, ‘what do you want?’ Meekly, the child replied, ‘My mammy say send her fifty cents.’ ‘I’ll not do it,’ the uncle retorted, ‘Now you run on home.’ ‘Yas sah,’ the child replied. But she did not move. The uncle went ahead with his work, so busily engaged that he did not pay enough attention to the child to observe that she did not leave. When he looked up and saw her still standing there, he yelled at her, ‘I told you to go on home! Now go, or I’ll take a switch to you.’ The little girl said ‘yas sah,’ but she did not budge an inch. The uncle dropped a sack of grain he was about to pour into the mill hopper, picked up a barrel stave, and started toward the child with an expression on his face that indicated trouble.

Darby held his breath. He was certain he was about to witness a murder. He knew his uncle had a fierce temper. He knew that colored children were not supposed to defy white people in that part of the country.

When the uncle reached the spot where the child was standing, she quickly stepped forward one step, looked up into his eyes, and screamed at the top of her shrill voice, ‘MY MAMMY’S GOTTA HAVE THAT FIFTY CENTS!’

The uncle stopped, looked at her for a minute, then slowly laid the barrel stave on the floor, put his hand in his pocket, took out half a dollar, and gave it to her. The child took the money and slowly backed toward the door, never taking her eyes off the man whom she had just conquered.

After she had gone, the uncle sat down on a box and looked out the window into space for more than ten minutes. He was pondering, with awe, over the whipping he had just taken. Mr. Darby, too, was doing some thinking. That was the first time in all his experience that he had seen a colored child deliberately master an adult white person. How did she do it? What happened to his uncle that caused him to lose his fierceness and become as docile as a lamb? What strange power did this child use that made her master over her superior?”
(Think and Grow Rich, pg 12-14)

This story exemplifies the second definition I have applied to the word “determinism,” or perhaps better, “determination” (firmness of purpose; resoluteness). If you could have measured using EEG what was going on in the mind of the child during this confrontation, would you have been able “to predict with 80 percent accuracy” her “decision to move 700 milliseconds” before she became aware of it? Are there moments where we bypass the conditions of what science has been able to measure? Are there moments where we determine “to serve [God] at all hazards” (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 150), that set in motion future actions in ways we are completely unaware?

I firmly believe that at this very moment we are in contact with God through His Spirit. He is giving us life. He is not a distant God. He is an immediate and an intimate God. He knows our thoughts because He gives us the ability and freedom to think. He knows how to judge us because everything we do uses His power. He lends us life and light (see Mosiah 2:21). We have only the illusion of privacy. We have the freedom to act and choose, but our freedom operates inside His creation. Everything is dependent on His power.

I was impressed by something that was shared with me over a year ago on what it means to be “added upon”. If you’ve ever engaged in an internal debate in which you were tempted to do something and you held yourself back from doing so, you have (every one of us has) been added upon. The more we do that over the course of a lifetime and the more we connect to the Record of Heaven, the more we are able to understand and see and comprehend the truth of all things. It’s what we are here to experience. It’s what we are here to do. And every time we make a move in that direction, we are “added upon.” (see Abraham 3:26)

The Book of Job – My Final Lesson

“Anyone who complains about how hard it is to understand Isaiah, hasn’t read Job.”

I have been pouring over the Book of Job for the last couple of weeks, trying to gather a train of thought on the direction for the gospel doctrine lesson to be given over a week from now. I had taken many notes and my mind felt scattered in a variety of different directions.

Weekends provide an opportunity for me to commit more time to focus on study, so on Saturday I found myself praying for clarity on what message the class most needed to learn from Job.

After my prayer, I sat down and in only a few minutes I was given the direction for the lesson and where the main focus needed to be. This was a completely different trajectory from where I had previously been centering my attention.

The next day (Sunday), before having the opportunity to give the lesson the following week, I was released from my calling as Gospel Doctrine teacher.

Perhaps the lesson I prepared was more for me than the class. Nevertheless, I have decided to post it here in the event these insights may benefit others as well.

I identified with this comment from a co-worker when I mentioned to him I had been studying the Book of Job. He said, “Anyone who complains about how hard it is to understand Isaiah, hasn’t read Job.”

Job is the oldest book in the Bible. By some estimates it dates “to a period of time between 1900 and 1700 B.C.“

Job is classified/categorized as belonging to the genre of wisdom literature or poetic books of the Bible.

Despair, Doubt, and Trust

From the lesson material we read:
While Job had times when he struggled with doubt and despair, ultimately his trust in the Lord sustained him in his suffering.

Despair, yes. But did Job doubt?

Job 19:25-26
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Does this sound like the words of someone who doubts? Take a look at Job 13:15

Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.

We are told that it was Job’s “trust in the Lord” that “sustained him in his suffering.” Is it trust alone that we can give us assurance to sustain us in our own suffering? What is meant by “trust”?

In response to this question, let’s take a look at Lectures on Faith, Lecture 6. I’m going to read paragraphs 1 through 8. Remember, this is the curriculum used in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio. I refer to this material because of how eloquently it addresses the question of how Job’s trust in the Lord “sustained him in his suffering.”

Having treated, in the preceding lectures, of the ideas of the character, perfections, and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of the knowledge which persons must have that the course of life which they pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation.

This knowledge supplies an important place in revealed religion, for it was by reason of it that the ancients were enabled to endure as seeing him who is invisible. An actual knowledge to any person that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God, without which no person can obtain eternal life. It was this that enabled the ancient saints to endure all their afflictions and persecutions and to take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing (not believing merely) that they had a more enduring substance. Hebrews 10:34.

Having the assurance that they were pursuing a course which was agreeable to the will of God, they were enabled to take not only the spoiling of their goods and the wasting of their substance joyfully, but also to suffer death in its most horrid forms, knowing (not merely believing) that when this earthly house of their tabernacle was dissolved, they had a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens. 2 Corinthians 5:1.

Such was and always will be the situation of the saints of God: that unless they have an actual knowledge that the course that they are pursuing is according to the will of God, they will grow weary in their minds and faint, … nothing short of an actual knowledge of their being the favorites of Heaven, and of their having embraced that order of things which God has established for the redemption of man, will enable them to exercise that confidence in him necessary for them to overcome the world and obtain that crown of glory which is laid up for them that fear God.

For a man to lay down his all, his character and reputation, his honor and applause, his good name among men, his houses, his lands, his brothers and sisters, his wife and children, and even his own life also, counting all things but filth and dross [worthless slag] for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ, requires more than mere belief, or supposition that he is doing the will of God, but actual knowledge, realizing that when these sufferings are ended he will enter into Eternal rest and be a partaker of the glory of God.

For unless a person does know that he is walking according to the will of God, it would be offering an insult to the dignity of the Creator were he to say that he would be a partaker of his glory when he should be done with the things of this life. But when he has this knowledge, and most assuredly knows that he is doing the will of God, his confidence can be equally strong that he will be a partaker of the glory of God.

Let us here observe that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation. For from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life, and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain…

But now I ask, what is vain? Continuing…

It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they in like manner offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him.

A More Excellent Hope

As it relates to trust, and being sustained by the Lord in suffering, let’s turn out attention to Job 8:11-14

Can the rush grow up without mire? can the flag [reeds] grow without water? Whilst it is yet in his greenness, and not cut down, it withereth before any other herb. So are the paths of all that forget God; and the hypocrite’s hope shall perish: Whose hope shall be cut off, and whose trust shall be a spider’s web.

Bildad’s words here indicate how empty and void is hope for the unrighteous. Continuing on the theme of hope, Zophar elaborates:

Job 11:15,18
For then shalt thou lift up thy face without spot; yea, thou shalt be steadfast, and shalt not fear: … And thou shalt be secure, because there is hope; yea, thou shalt dig about thee, and thou shalt take thy rest in safety.

In the Book of Mormon we are given a key to the significance of what is meant by “hope“.

Ether 12:32
And I also remember that thou hast said that thou hast prepared a house for man, yea, even among the mansions of thy Father, in which man might have a more excellent hope; wherefore man must hope, or he cannot receive an inheritance in the place which thou hast prepared.

This verse includes this wonderful phrase on hope: “man must hope, or he cannot receive.” What a delightful link between something within us, to something without. It is a link between our future inheritance, and a present expectation. It is a link between looking forward now, to a reality to come. We see the wonderful intangibility of a present-day thought linked to what is to become concrete in the future.

“Hope,” particularly as it is used here, is not well understood. We sometimes view it as a weak virtue; something of a wisp, a phantom. But in this context, it is much more. It is a concrete assurance, based upon a promise or covenant.

“Hope” comes from knowing the Lord has promised a person something. As the Lord has assured us, He does not make and then break promises. When He promises something, He will deliver it. As He has said in D&C 1:38: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled.” Anyone who receives a promise from Him has an absolute certainty. However, the promises of the Lord are invariably about the future, even if the immediate future. To Abraham, the promise of a son (Gen 18:10) preceded Isaac’s birth by many years (Gen 21:1-2). To Joseph the promise of his brothers and father bowing to him (Gen 37:5-11) was given in a dream many years before he was actually sitting in power in Egypt (Gen 45:7-10). From the time of the promise to Moses that Israel would be delivered by his hand (Exo 8:10), to the time Israel was delivered out of Egypt (Exo 12:31), there were many months, trials, confrontations and difficulties. Between the promise given, and the realization of the promise, there was only “hope.” It was “hope” linked to faith, but hope, nonetheless. This is the kind of “hope” spoken of here. It is not a vague notion, or whimsical possibility. It was trust and confidence springing from a promise given to a person by God. It is something far greater, more profound, more strongly felt, more firmly based than just expectancy from vague desire.

Promise of Eternal Life

In a letter to his uncle, Silas Smith, written in Kirtland Mills, Ohio, 26 September 1833, Joseph Smith writes:

I admit that by reading the scriptures, of truth, the saints in the days of Paul could learn, beyond the power of contradiction, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had the promise of eternal life confirmed to them by an oath of the Lord; but that promise or oath was no assurance to them of their salvation, but they could, by walking in the footsteps and continuing in the faith of their fathers, obtain for themselves an oath for confirmation that they were meet to be partakers of the inheritance with the saints in light.

If the saints in the days of the apostles were privileged to take the ancients for examples, and lay hold of the same promises, and attain to the same exalted privilege of knowing that their names were written in the Lamb’s Book of Life and that they were sealed there as a perpetual memorial before the face of the Most High, will not the same faithfulness, the same purity of heart and the same faith bring the same assurance of eternal life, and that in the same manner, to the children of men now in this age of the world?

I have no doubt but that the holy prophets and apostles and saints in ancient days were saved in the kingdom of God; neither do I doubt but that they held converse and communion with him while they were in the flesh, as Paul said to his Corinthian brethren that the Lord Jesus showed himself to above five hundred saints at one time after his resurrection. Job said that he knew that his Redeemer lived and that he should see him in the flesh in the latter days. I may believe that Enoch walked with God and by faith was translated. I may believe that Noah was a perfect man in his generation and also walked with God. I may believe that Abraham communed with God and conversed with angels. I may believe that Isaac obtained a renewal of the covenant made to Abraham by the direct voice of the Lord. I may believe that Jacob conversed with holy angels, and heard the voice of his Maker, that he wrestled with the angel until he prevailed and obtained the blessing. I may believe that Elijah was taken to Heaven in a chariot of fire with fiery horses. I may believe that the saints saw the Lord and conversed with him face to face after his resurrection. I may believe that the Hebrew church came to Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels. I may believe that they looked into eternity and saw the Judge of all, and Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant. But will all this purchase an assurance for me, and waft me to the regions of eternal day, and seat me down in the presence of the King of kings with my garments spotless, pure, and white?

Or must I not rather obtain for myself, by my own faith and diligence in keeping the commandments of the Lord, an assurance of salvation for myself? And have I not an equal privilege with the ancient saints? And will not the Lord hear my prayers and listen to my cries as soon as he ever did to theirs, if I come to him in the manner they did? Or, is he a respecter of persons?

In Conclusion – The Horse

The problem we must overcome to obtain salvation is our profound ignorance. And what the gospel offers defies ignorance, subdues it, challenges it, destroys it, and leaves it in the dark. So let’s try and search into, and obtain some illumination.

I want to read a passage from Job and misapply it, if you will. I want you to imagine that what I am reading is not merely a description of a mortal horse. What I am reading is a description of those horses which pull the chariot upon which Elijah ascended to heaven. This is the horse you need to ride in your quest for heaven. This is the way you to are to mount up:

Job 39:19-25
Hast thou given the horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible. He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength: he goeth on to meet the armed men. He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither turneth he back from the sword. The quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield. He swalloweth the ground with fierceness and rage: neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet. He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting.

As the battle engages, ride the horse. Not away, but toward the sound.

Zion’s Camp: Part 2

It’s interesting to me God’s use of aggressive language in this parable. Why has God illustrated these things using vocabulary that conjures up imagery of war and destruction?

If we are to make sense of the events surrounding Zion’s camp, we need to understand the parable given in D&C 101:44-62.

According to the account in Matthew, the reason the Lord taught in parables was because the people were not open to truth in its plainness (see Matt 13:10-17). Therefore, that the saints were given this parable can be seen as an indication of the stiffneckedness of the people to whom the parable was given. In the account in Matthew, the disciples were blessed with an explanation of the parable of the sower by the Lord. Fortunately for us, the Lord has also give a few keys to help us interpret meaning from this parable of the nobleman in D&C 101.

Keys to Understanding the Parable of the Nobleman

In this parable we read of a tower that was commanded to be built, watchmen to be set round about olive trees in the vineyard, as well as a watchman upon the tower. The parable also speaks of one servant to whom additional commandments were given. In D&C 97:20 we are given a definition of who the tower represents:

And he hath sworn by the power of his might to be her salvation and her high tower.

Later, in D&C 103:21, we are told plainly that Joseph Smith is the servant in the parable. By this I think it is safe to infer that he is also the watchman who was to be on the tower.

Additionally, in verse 12, before we arrive at the parable itself, we read:

And in that day all who are found upon the watch-tower, or in other words, all mine Israel, shall be saved.

Here we have “all who are found upon the watch-tower” equated with “all mine Israel“. It is apparent that the intent is that there be more than one watchman upon the tower.

Remember the account of Eldad and Medad:

And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!
(Num 11:27-29)

That “all mine Israel” are to be found upon the watch-tower should remind us of the day referred to by Jeremiah:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them
(Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Parable of the Nobleman

Now I would like to take a look at the parable, starting at verse 43:

And now, I will show unto you a parable, that you may know my will concerning the redemption of Zion.

A certain nobleman had a spot of land, very choice; and he said unto his servants: Go ye unto my vineyard, even upon this very choice piece of land, and plant twelve olive trees; And set watchmen round about them, and build a tower, that one may overlook the land round about, to be a watchman upon the tower, that mine olive trees may not be broken down when the enemy shall come to spoil and take upon themselves the fruit of my vineyard.
Now, the servants of the nobleman went and did as their lord commanded them, and planted the olive trees, and built a hedge round about, and set watchmen, and began to build a tower. And while they were yet laying the foundation thereof, they began to say among themselves: And what need hath my lord of this tower? And consulted for a long time, saying among themselves: What need hath my lord of this tower, seeing this is a time of peace? Might not this money be given to the exchangers? For there is no need of these things. (v. 44-49)

Here take note how these servants twist words from an earlier parable to justify their neglect to do what has been asked of them. In the parable of the talents (found in Matthew 25:24-30), it was the Lord who told the slothful servant he should have put his money to the exchangers. Here, in this parable of the nobleman however, these slothful servants justify their actions by quoting something the Lord said in the earlier parable. Does quoting the Lord or using scripture to justify wrong actions make one any less slothful of a servant? It is obedience to the Lord only that matters.

Also take note how the reference to “seeing this is a time of peace” relates to the words earlier in this revelation, “In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel” (v. 8).

And while they were at variance one with another they became very slothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord. (v. 50)

Again, note how these words relate to what we read earlier in this revelation, “there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them; therefore by these things they polluted their inheritances.” (v. 6)

And the enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive trees. (v. 51)

What is the significance that “the enemy came by night“? Why does the Lord come “as a thief in the night?” (1 Thes 5:2) What is it about night that we need to be aware of as it relates to being ready for when the enemy or the Lord appears?

Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause of this great evil? Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, and set a watchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you? (v. 52-53)

“… and not have fallen asleep” What’s wrong with falling asleep? Should we not sleep? Isn’t needed rest and sleep a good thing? What is it about being “watchful” that suggests we be willing and ready at a moment’s notice to be inconvenienced in our sleeping hours to “awake and arise”?

And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar off; and then ye could have made ready and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and saved my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer.
And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house, save those only whom I have appointed to tarry; And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money. Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen. And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land. (v. 54-58)

If Christ is the tower of our vineyard, and Joseph Smith is the watchman there, then what is the enemy’s tower and who/what are their watchmen?

If the enemy’s tower is the devil or the devil’s kingdom, then how do you throw that down?

It is a misnomer to speak of the “kingdom of the devil,” because the description presumes something more organized than is the case. It is difficult to organize when fear, hatred, and anger are the primary motivations. Love is a far more cohesive, creative, and loyalty-producing motivation. All that Satan does is designed to destroy itself, as well as all those who follow him.

Satan’s aim is to cause division and create contention and anger and keep us in fear. So how do you scatter those watchmen and break down that tower? Can you do it with the same tools of anger, accusation, and contention that Satan uses? Will that work?

What if the tools you employ included persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned? (see D&C 121:41-42) Could that be effective in breaking down the enemy’s tower?

How would having a prophet on the tower help the situation? Do messengers of God shed light on things? Do they reveal the truth? What affect does that have on lies and deceit?

When truth is revealed, and people turn their attention to it, then what is untrue dissolves. Then that kingdom simply fades, it can’t stand, because you’ve revealed its motive. You’ve shown it for what it is, and when people see that and recognize it, and respond to the truth of it, then it just goes away. Darkness flees from light, not the other way around.

So how does this approach relate to the call for Zion’s camp to arm themselves and march forth to rescue their bretheren in Missouri?

It’s interesting to me God’s use of aggressive language in this parable. Why has God illustrated these things using vocabulary that conjures up imagery of war and destruction? Will God give us what we ask for? (See D&C 50:29-30)

Recall that by virtue of the fact that these teachings are being presented in the form of a parable is an indication of the stiffneckdness of those to whom it is being given. Take a look at the Lord’s explanation:

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
(Matt 13:10-15)

Consider the example of John Whitmer’s response to what is now section 84:

Some readers may have missed the implications of the priesthood revelation. John Whitmer was most excited by the verse warning Boston, New York, and Albany of coming desolation. Those verses reflected the millenarian thinking of the gathering to Zion and constructing the New Jerusalem, which had occupied the Saints for the last two years. The part about “exaltation” – the preparation to stand in God’s presence and commune with Him – did not register with Whitmer. Eager as the Saints were for spiritual gifts, not all were ready for the mysticism of the priesthood revelation.
Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 204-205

Continuing with the parable:

And the servant said unto his lord: When shall these things be? And he said unto his servant: When I will; go ye straightway, and do all things whatsoever I have commanded you; And this shall be my seal and blessing upon you—a faithful and wise steward in the midst of mine house, a ruler in my kingdom. And his servant went straightway, and did all things whatsoever his lord commanded him; and after many days all things were fulfilled. (v. 59-62)

In a scriptural sense, a ruler is a teacher of truth. We were spirits before we were born. We were all there when some were chosen to be rulers, or in other words, teachers. (see Abraham 3:22-28). To rule is to be responsible to teach all those in one’s dominion. A ruler is a teacher responsible for instructing others (see 1 Nephi 2:22).

If, on the other hand, we view the term “ruler” in a modern day gentile sense, we get an image of one who rules with a fierce strong hand, tearing down walls, taking the offensive, and aggressively conquering an enemy.

If you are more like John Whitmer, focused on the condemnation of New York over the beauty and light of exaltation … if that’s the mindset from which you approach things, then this parable has all the elements in it that would justify an aggressive offensive approach.

In fact we see this was the case for some, in response to the revelation disbanding the camp:

Others protested, feeling that it denied them a chance to do more for the Missouri Saints. A few people were angry and ashamed that they had to return home without a fight.
Saints Vol 1, p. 205

By using the kind of imagery in this parable that He did, God exposed their hearts. If we are to do better in our day, then we need to have different hearts.