Healing through Jesus Christ

Interesting discussion in the Bloggernacle pondering whether we might opt to prevent homosexuality by pre-natal treatment.

I have no answer to offer. But the discussion suggested some instructive parallels with the New Testament incident recorded in John chapter 9. Jesus anointed the eyes of the man who had been blind since birth, and told the man to go and wash in a pool of water. The man followed his instructions, and his eyes were opened.

I cannot say from reading the scriptures that the many acts of "healing" performed by Jesus, during his ministry, imply any particular value judgment by the Savior regarding physiological or mental dysfunction. What we can learn from the scriptural accounts is that Jesus had compassion on the people for whom he provided healing ministrations. He granted the healing that they sought from him, in the form of relief from the problems they felt were afflicting their lives.

From my reading in the ninth chapter, there are many details that seem to open more questions than they answer.

For example, I cannot imagine what to make of the disciples query that apparently prompted the healing.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

When Jesus administered to the man, the story says he made clay with spittle and applied it to the man's eyes, before instructing him to go wash in the pool of Siloam. I am not sure this procedure was common to his healing ministrations, and wonder why he did it this way. Why not just pronounce the man healed, and make it so?

I have afflictions of my own that I suffer with. Jesus has not deigned to relieve me of these burdens. While I would hypothetically like to participate in the process designed to educate me in true appreciation of God's eternal purposes, I suppose the dim hope always lives, somewhere in the back of my mind, that it might not be quite so agonizingly painful.

Impatient soul that I am, yet I wait on Jesus Christ for healing. I know it will come, in the Lord's own time.

Honesty

How does honesty become anti-social and pathological?

Reiterating this question for my not-so-friendly friend, Steve Evans, Bloggernacle blogger.

It cannot be that people like Steve simply cannot be bothered to address such questions. But due to an unfortunate miscommunication, he shut me out of his forum before we finished the dialog.

So, in my forum, it remains an open question. Perhaps for Steve, or maybe for some other soul that values truth and honesty.

"I drew a circle that took him in".

Surviving the Internet

One of the great disappointments I have come to realize over time is that faithful church members have, for the most part, lost a presence on the Internet, betrayed by disaffected and abandoned to the control of the devil's minions.

Long ago this point was driven home when the original "Mormon-L" experiment veered off the tracks and established a permanent camp in the parking lot of the "great and spacious building". In spite of every erstwhile effort to drive a silver stake through the heart of the evil beast, it refuses to die, and even flourishes in its own unique niche of darkness and corruption.

More recently, I came to see this particularly in light of a whole infrastructure of LDS-related blogs that sprang up literally overnight, and with breathtaking evolution, were subsumed into an impressive collective referred to informally as the "Bloggernacle", or perhaps more pretentiously, the "Mormon Archipelago".

Sadly, the Bloggernacle has just as soon evolved into a haven for the same folks that gutted and spitted the original Mormon-L forum. I fear most of the participants there are beyond saving. The downward slide has been all the more ironic, because so many of the prominent players seem to think they are in charge of "saving" the church from its mistakes -- unfortunately, most of this is just ark-steadying or some other flavor of outright apostasy.

However...

More recently, as the morning breaks and the shadows flee, I see some hope on the horizon. The appearance of a new web site encouraging development of consecrated Internet resources -- More Good Foundation.org.

Dramatic growth and development of resources at FamilySearch.org.

Continued expansion of the Church's online web presence at LDS.org and related sites.

The collection of valuable resources at BYU also continues to grow and impress. Particularly the transcripts of speeches and devotionals, and the growing library of streaming media resources.

If you haven't been watching, take a look at these sites and see how they've continued to evolve.

The Prodigal Son

Who is the prodigal son, in the parable Jesus taught in Luke 15?

...wasted his substance with riotous living...

And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,

And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

The mercy and compassion of this forgiving father is overwhelming. And the despondent hopelessness of the lost son is all too familiar.

It is always difficult for me to read the passage where the lost son rehearses his self-denigration and begging for help -- I can never get past it without bitter tears. How many times have I gone to Father in Heaven with the same thoughts.

The lost son plans to beg the father to make him as a servant. Yet the father is so overjoyed to have regained his lost one that he doesn't even seem to hear, and apparently no thoughts of restitution or justice even entered into his mind.

I wonder, on reflection, how can a father ever forgive such wilful wasting of his hard-earned wealth? And then the thought follows -- how could he not?

Heavenly Father has no desire to punish his children. He is not vindictive or capricious. His greatest joy is in bestowing gifts on his children. His work and glory is in bringing them to everlasting rewards.

Yet the Father's mercy is not unconditional. He does not owe us these favors. We are in the position of the lost son, hopeless to return to Father's house without his undeserved mercy.

How many of us yet vainly continue in hunger, when limitless bounty is within reach? Why fill our bellies with the husks of swine? Perhaps for some, the day of reckoning has not yet arrived, and we are still in the process of wasting our substance. How ironic, for those of us who, through our own willful choice, enter the mire to wallow with the swine.

I have been there myself, many times. As it seems, at the time it was the only alternative. Yet when I come to myself, as the son in the master's parable, I realize once again that the promise of forgiveness and being cleansed is open to all of us.

The fatted calf awaits. There is still time for us. Let us repent and return to the Father's house. He ever receives the prodigal son with open arms.

Reason and accountability

This is a better theme for serious "Father's Day" discussion than the perpetual silliness that goes on here, for example. So many participants in the "Bloggernacle" just seem to love to muse and moon over meaningless questions.

I've wondered for a long time how men could surrender themselves to the bland impotence that so characterizes such discussions, amongst the obsessively politically correct, and elsewhere. To me, it seems to represent a concerted effort to betray most of the meaningful things that distinguish us as men.

We can focus in on the one of the particular points of doctrine that so offends, especially at this weekend event that at least theoretically used to be about celebrating "fatherhood", but is now more commonly used as an opportunity to denigrate.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World proclaims, among others:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.

The Proclamation is dynamic and bold -- and that offends quite a few people. Though it is not politically correct, it should go without saying that men have a unique role that differentiates them from women. This axiomatic premise parallels Melvin Udall's stereotyped thinking, in the film "As Good as it Gets".

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

There are fundamental differences between men and women, males and females. Some institutional implementations are founded upon those ideas, and they function successfully to the degree that those sex differences are recognized and properly accommodated. While Udall's encapsulation may not perfectly characterize the kernel of the fundamental difference, he does far better than most, in this age of unreasoning antipathy toward the male of the species.

Check some earlier comments that relate to this issue, in fascinating and intriguing ways.

(Interspersing some replies from that other blog discussion...)

Melvin Udall was held up in the film as a generally reprehensible (and somewhat insane) human being — that was the point.

Yes, I think I understand why you felt we were intended to regard the character of Udall as “reprehensible” and insane. But in fact, his most offensive trait in the film seemed to be a rather painful and brutal degree of honesty.

How does honesty become anti-social and pathological?

(Other blog reply...)

Jim, let me ask you a yes or no question: do you believe that in order to describe women, you “think of a man… and take away reason and accountability”?

I could discuss this question at some length, but first, you must answer a yes or no question: Do you believe in the “divine design” reflected in the Proclamation?

Your antipathy for this line of thinking makes me uncomfortable to pursue it further. Sorry for disturbing the peace. Please feel free to ignore my comments, if it will make you feel happier.

(Other blog reply...)

Cobabe, don’t confuse antipathy for you with antipathy for the Proclamation. Consider yourself persona non grata until you answer my question, you coward.

And to show you that I’m not a coward, I’ll answer your question, you loathsome wuss: Yes, I believe the “divine design” part. Now what?

(Further quote from "As Good as it Gets"...)

Carol Connelly: Do you have any control over how creepy you allow yourself to get?
Melvin Udall: Yes I do, as a matter of fact. And to prove it, I have not gotten personal, and you have.

Yes, I obviously thought I saw something instructive in Udall’s unusually hyperbolic thinking. Of course it is not correct to so simply characterize differences between men and women — doesn’t do it justice at all. That would be an interesting and complex subject in itself.

Then too, I see this with the understanding that Udall is a fictional character, a sort of composite caricature of someone manifesting psychiatric dysfunction. Udall is not a real person, neither is the thinking reflected in his fictional character an accurate portrayal of o-c disorder. His character is as exaggerated as his statement about how he writes women.

The sad fact is that Udall is able, in his twisted sense, to readily identify an important truth that our politically correct society cannot countenance. Udall is honest about his perceptions. Many of the rest of us have to pretend to deny what is fundamentally true. Those laboring under this bizarre obsession/compulsion are perhaps more seriously mentally afflicted than Udall himself.

Perhaps, when we look at the Family Proclamation, the reductionist approach is somewhat problematic. The initial selection of one phrase in isolation from the rest of the Proclamation may detract from the obviously holistic intent of that instrument. As I read it, the Proclamation intends to advocate for a particular balance. All members of a family are included and to be considered as a unit, notwithstanding the different contributions each member brings to the group. Regarding the individual pieces, particularly from a defensive or antagonistic perspective, probably distracts us enough from the original intent that the real message of the Proclamation is compromised.

Men and women do not exist independent of each other. Rather, their different roles complement each other to create a relationship that works to satisfy the specific and individual needs of all its members.

"Unrighteous dominion" is almost an automatic reaction for many liberal-minded LDS Church members in this context. One of the considerations that generally seems to be neglected when we invoke “unrighteous dominion” is that it would seem to imply that “righteous dominion” is also a possibility.

In fact, I would suggest that “righteous dominion” predominates in almost all cases, and “unrighteous dominion” is, for practical purposes, a temporary and transitory state. I suspect most of us wander into that territory from time to time. Thank God we have the opportunity to repent and correct our mistakes.

One more thought — unrighteous dominion. It is not just a man’s territory. Anyone can tread there.

In the church there is a peculiar tendency to become blind to this, perhaps because the scriptures make such a dramatic point in condemning the problem as manifested in the ranks of priesthood. For priesthood-holding men, unrighteous dominion has certain unpleasant implications that do not affect non-priesthood-holders. But abuse of authority is an egregious sin, in any case — whether the offender be a man or a woman.

I further extend my previous comments about “dominion” in general. Under the guiding principles of the gospel, it is our prerogative to have dominion over our individual stewardships. This applies to men and women, fathers and mothers — and children, in a more limited sense. One of the challenges of mortality is to learn to administer our dominion according to righteous principles.

Each of us has a unique assignment that constitutes our stewardship. This principle is taught in the parable of the talents. Dominion over our own stewardship is righteousness inasmuch as it is guided by gospel principles. It is a reflection of the eternal stewardship we look forward to, modelled after Heavenly Father’s eternal kingdoms.

I think it is instructive to compare phrases like

…reinforcing the norm of gender-disparate economic power

against

Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If I were to make it the subject of intensive study, which one of the philosophical approaches these statements epitomize would seem likely to yield the most productive result — e.g. happiness, fairness, prosperity.

I don’t share any grave concerns about catering to the lunatic fringe on either side of the “iron rod”.

Innovative contemporary sociological theories modelling marriage relationships are all just nicey-nice. Gay and lesbian stuff is, well, enticing, I suppose, for a select minority. But the majority — more than 95% of us, I would guess — will be best served by striving for obedience to the correct principles outlined in the Proclamation. Notwithstanding the popular clamor for "diversity", there is no reason for most of us to experiment with any of these distasteful distractions or perversions from the “divine design”.

And, I presume for those who, like me, occasionally come to themselves, and find themselves straying outside of the ideal — if you’re like a happy pig, pleased to be wallowing in mire, well and good for you.

But if you're unhappy, and cannot understand why, perhaps you would be interested to see my further elaboration on this idea. If and when you come to realize how you have been mislead and cheated, and can see how far off the path you have strayed, please make an effort to repent and seek forgiveness, and set your steps to return to the true church.

Prodigal sons, as ever, will be welcomed back to the fold.

The Lord's Way

Dallin H. Oaks, The Lord's Way.

CHAPTER 4

CARE FOR THE POOR

In 1977 President Ezra Taft Benson explained the basic principles governing whether Latter-day Saints should accept government assistance: "Occasionally, we receive questions as to the propriety of Church members receiving government assistance instead of Church assistance. Let me restate what is a fundamental principle. Individuals, to the extent possible, should provide for their own needs. Where the individual is unable to care for himself, his family should assist. Where the family is not able to provide, the Church should render assistance, not the government. We accept the basic principle that 'though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.' "

He then voiced an important distinction between "earned" and "unearned" assistance, explaining its importance in terms of its spiritual impact on the recipient: "Latter-day Saints should not receive unearned welfare assistance from local or national agencies. This includes food stamps. Priesthood and Relief Society leaders should urge members to accept the Church welfare program and earn through the program that which they need, even though they may receive less food and money. By doing so, members will be spiritually strengthened, and they will maintain their dignity and self-respect."

By the 1980s, Latter-day Saints all over the world were being taxed to support a variety of government services not limited to the poor -- ­free hot lunches in grade schools, low tuition in colleges, and counseling services in between, to cite only a few examples. Should they forgo access to such generally available government programs ---­which they were taxed to support -- ­and turn only to the Church for aid?

As in President Benson's message quoted above, the Church has continued to counsel its members not to accept traditional government support of the poor, such as food stamps. But where a government-supported program is generally available to all citizens and where it can be squared with self-reliance and the other principles of church welfare, church leaders now raise no objection to their members' participation. For example, no objection is raised when a member makes a significant personal contribution in order to realize the benefits of a program (such as a student who must study in order to realize the benefit of the tax subsidy inherent in a low-tuition college education).

The principle of self-reliance and its relationship to government assistance is described in this key passage in the Leader's Guide to Welfare:

"Latter-day Saints have the responsibility to provide for themselves and their families. Individual members, however, may find it necessary to receive assistance beyond that which the family can provide, in which case they may turn to the Church for help. In some instances, individual members may decide to receive assistance from other sources, including government. In all such cases, members should avoid becoming dependent upon these sources and strive to become self-reliant. Where possible, they should work in return for assistance rendered."

In his testimony before the House Committee, Welfare Managing Director McMullin gave public expression to the new approach: "Where community resources are available that are compatible with our approach, we are happy to use them. Our overarching aim, however, is always to help people help themselves."

There is a large and perhaps widening gap between government's way and the Church's way of caring for the poor and the needy. The gap is inevitable because the Church's purposes, dictated by the commandments of God, are to serve spiritual as well as temporal goals.

Increasing urbanization and the diversities encountered in a worldwide church pose many challenges for those who are responsible to use the Lord's resources to help the poor and the needy. Recent changes in church organization and procedures facilitate this sacred mission, but the most important variables are still the attitude of the potential recipient and the inspired direction of the bishop. Neither of those fundamentals has changed. The Lord's way of welfare will continue unchanged, so long as the members are determined to support themselves to the best of their ability and then to participate in assisting others less fortunate, and so long as bishops continue to administer assistance in the Lord's way.

Wickedness never was happiness

In discussion elsewhere, someone asserted that acts of sexual transgression bring them a measure of joy. In reply, it was responded that this "free love" argument is invalid, as there are acts we agree bring some people "joy", yet are unequivocally wrong.

This is such an obvious point that it is pointless to belabor. Those who are offended by the idea that "wickedness never was happiness" cannot allow themselves to see this vital point without accepting that they are responsible and accountable for their own acts, and their own reconciliation with God. So often, they seek to find someone or something else to blame for their unhappiness. Thus the popular claim from these "victims" that the church excludes or punishes those guilty of sexual transgression.

It is also obvious that only overtly sexual behavior is proscribed by commandment, and that such behavior is largely irrelevant to the most significant acts of true love. We are not compelled to copulate with everyone or everything we have real feelings of love for -- everyone recognizes that this would be simply a ridiculous caricature of real love. By divine commandment, the biological components of sexual behavior are only appropriate within narrow boundaries. Otherwise they become a vehicle for the perversion and betrayal of real love.

This is not specific to advocates for normalizing perverted behavior -- it applies to everyone. God is truly no respecter of persons. Those of us who don't fit the cookie-cutter Mormon stereotype know this from personal experience, and we bear our own burdens in this regard. It is entirely specious to argue that the rules are unfair simply because some feel strongly compelled to break them.

Testing Legality

In my view, the restoration has a poor record of success when it comes to testing the laws of the land in court. For more than 150 years it has been a dismal and discouraging effort for the saints of God to importune the courts for redress. In legal matters regarding everything from trivial personal harassment lawsuits against Joseph Smith, on up to the testing of the constitutionality of federal anti-polygamy laws, the church has waged and consistently lost many important legal battles through the courts at every level.

Having personally sustained my own significant trauma at the handling of the courts, I shrink from the very suggestion that we might obtain any kind of satisfying judgement in the several legal matters currently concerning the general body of the church. But, notwithstanding my own reticence, and even in the face of confusion within the ranks regarding these matters, we are clearly obligated to follow the consistent counsel of the brethren in this matter. The saints have always been instructed to make every effort to work within the law. We believe in honoring and sustaining the law of the land. In many instances throughout church history, church members have been horribly abused at the hands of the system which should have protected them. Yet they always continued to press for justice and sound judgment.

I can see no other alternative. In the case of the assault on marriage laws, I honestly believe it may be a futile effort. But we ought to follow the example set by our stalwart predecessors, in exhausting every recourse to obtain legal settlement of the current issues.

President Hinckley: A Call to Commitment

In the June 2007 Ensign, President Hinckley's First Presidency message addresses common concerns about war and peace. He reiterates his earlier address on issues relating to the war currently taking place.

President Hinckley focuses his primary interest on another war, one that has been waging since the foundation of the world.

In the October conference of 1896, President Wilford Woodruff (1807–98), then an aged man, stood in the Tabernacle on Temple Square and said:

There are two powers on the earth and in the midst of the inhabitants of the earth—the power of God and the power of the devil. In our history we have had some very peculiar experiences. When God has had a people on the earth, it matters not in what age, Lucifer, the son of the morning, and the millions of fallen spirits that were cast out of heaven, have warred against God, against Christ, against the work of God, and against the people of God. And they are not backward in doing it in our day and generation. Whenever the Lord set His hand to perform any work, those powers labored to overthrow it.

President Woodruff knew whereof he spoke. He had then only recently passed through those difficult and perilous days when the government of the nation had come against our people, determined to destroy this Church as an organization. Despite the difficulties of those days, the Saints did not give up. In faith they moved forward. They put their trust in the Almighty, and He revealed unto them the path they should follow. In faith they accepted that revelation and walked in obedience.

President Hinckley calls for continued commitment from the Saints.

In this work there must be commitment. There must be devotion. We are engaged in a great eternal struggle that concerns the very souls of the sons and daughters of God. We are not losing. We are winning. We will continue to win if we will be faithful and true. We can do it. We must do it. We will do it. There is nothing the Lord has asked of us that in faith we cannot accomplish.

There is no equivocation. We face continuing serious challenges in this war.

The men of this Church cannot be unfaithful or untrue to their wives, to their families, to their priesthood responsibilities if they are to be valiant in moving the work of the Lord forward in this great battle for truth and salvation. They cannot be dishonest and unscrupulous in temporal affairs without tarnishing their armor. The women of this Church, be they wives, mothers, or sisters who have not found companions, cannot be unfaithful or untrue to their covenants and blessings and serve as the bulwark in the kingdom that they are meant to be.

President Hinckley then recites the stirring words of a traditional LDS hymn:

Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
Now is the time to show.
We ask it fearlessly:
Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?

We wage no common war,
Cope with no common foe.
The enemy’s awake;
Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?

He closes with this fervent prayer:

May our God bless us in the work that is so clearly laid out before us. May we be faithful. May we be valiant. May we have the courage to be true to the trust God has placed in each of us. May we be unafraid. “For [to quote the words of Paul to Timothy] God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord” (2 Timothy 1:7–8).

How to Forgive -- revisited

President Faust's conference address magnified this topic into bold letters (James E. Faust, “The Healing Power of Forgiveness,” Ensign, May 2007, 67–69).

If we can find forgiveness in our hearts for those who have caused us hurt and injury, we will rise to a higher level of self-esteem and well-being.

We revisited the issue in President Kimball's teachings last Sunday in Elder's quorum.

This passage of scripture stands out --

Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. (Doctrine and Covenants 64:9-10).

President Kimball's counsel --

To be in the right we must forgive, and we must do so without regard to whether or not our antagonist repents, or how sincere is his transformation, or whether or not he asks our forgiveness.

...and further --

Many people, when brought to a reconciliation with others, say that they forgive, but they continue to hold malice, continue to suspect the other party, continue to disbelieve the other’s sincerity. This is sin, for when a reconciliation has been effected and when repentance is claimed, each should forgive and forget, build immediately the fences which have been breached, and restore the former compatibility.

The early disciples evidently expressed words of forgiveness, and on the surface made the required adjustment, but “forgave not one another in their hearts.” This was not a forgiveness, but savored of hypocrisy and deceit and subterfuge. As implied in Christ’s model prayer, it must be a heart action and a purging of one’s mind [see Matthew 6:12; see also verses 14–15]. Forgiveness means forgetfulness.

The phrase in their hearts has deep meaning. It must be a purging of feelings and thoughts and bitternesses. Mere words avail nothing.

"For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.” (Moro. 7:8.)

Henry Ward Beecher expressed the thought this way: “I can forgive but I cannot forget is another way of saying I cannot forgive.”

I may add that unless a person forgives his brother his trespasses with all his heart he is unfit to partake of the sacrament. (Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball, Chapter 9: “ Forgiving Others with All Our Hearts,”.(2006),89–101)

Sobering thoughts to ponder.

On personal reflection, I see that I am not very good at living these principles. How hard it is to be honest about forgiving those who have hurt or offended. I cannot see how it is done.

Very easy to forgive and forget trivialities. They really don't matter anyway. The big things are the ones that seem unreasonable or impossible to forgive.

How can I ever forgive those complicit in causing my brother's death? I want to kill them myself, with my bare hands. How am I supposed to forget what they did?

Yet, as Section 64, if I forgive them not, I am guilty of greater sin than they.