The Mormon Celestial Kingdom Is Not the Protestant Heaven but with Families

When (the collective) we think of eternal families, and we tend to envision the perfect ideal of our imagination. In practical terms, that means we have adopted, in our own uniquely Mormon way, the Protestant idea of rest and peace and grapes and harps – only with our children gathered around us in an ideal Family Home Evening that lasts forever.

The problem is, that’s not life – either in the here and now or how we read of God’s life. Jacob 5 tells of the Lord of the vineyard getting into the muck and the dung in order to try to save the trees – and not succeeding a lot of the time. Moses 6-7 shows a God who weeps for the iniquity he sees among his children – and eternity shakes while the devil laughs. That image can be shattering emotionally, without a belief that charity really is LONG-suffering and God really does have “all eternity” at their disposal to accomplish their work and glory – but it is the most complete picture we have of what it will be like to be Heavenly Parents. It won’t be rosy in the short term; in fact, it will be painful – but it will be worth it in the end.

In our vision of eternity, my mortal children won’t be sitting around me listening to a lesson; they will be somewhere overseeing, in some way, the growth and development of other spirit children engaged in their own eternal progression. I am a bit heterodox in the sense that I believe in a Council of the Gods arrangement that models how I read the first chapters of Genesis and the PofGP (and that, as part of that creative council, I will work with my mortal children, their spouses and other gods in the eternal Plan of Salvation), but, with or without that paradigm, I will NOT live with my mortal children forever as their actively involved parent, but it is the most common view in the LDS Church, I think. At least, that is the way it is presented most often.

This is deep stuff, but the key for me is quite simple:

Families are important and, in some vital way, eternal.

I believe that with all my heart.

No Way in Hell: The Beauty and Power of Temple Theology

One of the core aspects of my testimony is that "God" is a father and mother who flat-out, no-way-in-Hell are going to condemn any of their children to roast forever just because they didn't place them in a situation where they would know of them and Jesus in this life. That would be sadistic to the highest degree, and I simply don't believe in that kind of God.

If there really is a God, and especially if there really are Heavenly Parents, the Mormon concept of all-encompassing grace and vicarious temple ordinances is an amazing concept - and it is powerful even if it only is figurative. I choose to take it literally because it fills, touches and enlarges my heart in a way I like - and it just feels good and true.

Long-Suffering: How Our Heavenly Parents Must Feel When We Finally "Get It"

When a young man who lived with us for a year (about eight years ago) sent me a message years later saying he finally understood what I had modeled for him about what it really means to be a father, I sat and bawled like a baby. When he left our house, mad at me for not being a man because I wouldn't beat him when I was upset, the only hope I had was that we had saved his life and that it would last. To read what he wrote to me so long after the fact . . .

I got a tiny glimpse of how our Heavenly Parents must feel as they watch us struggle, wanting deeply to make us see but needing to let us learn on our own, and then, seemingly miraculously, suddenly "get it".

 It was a moment I will cherish forever.

Why I Can Say I Know Things I Don't Know Intellectually

I believe in gods, and my absolute favorite aspect of Mormon theology is the concept that "I (and every other person) am a child of God" - that I can be godly - that I can be and become a god.

I believe in God, because I want to believe in God. I believe in Heavenly Parents, because I want to believe in Heavenly Parents.

Do I "know" intellectually that they exist and that what I believe is accurate?

No.

Do I feel deeply that there is great power in the concept and principle and that I have experienced something outside my rational comprehension that I choose to accept and call "God"?

Yes.

Thus, do I feel comfortable in a group of members using the accepted vernacular and saying that, based on my own experiences, I know God lives and loves us?

Yes.

I am comfortable saying it in that setting, even though I explain it differently (more comprehensively) on a site like this where I try to flesh things out and explain in more detail.

I'm fine using shorthand when shorthand is appropriate.

The Literal Foundation of Symbolism and Figurative Teachings

I have come to accept lots of things within the teachings of Mormonism as symbolic and figurative, things that most members see as literal, but, at the heart of it all, my faith is very literal and focused on the concept of the relationship between God, as a real Father, Jesus, as a real Son, and all of us, as real children - that, "I am a child of God, and He has sent me here," and that, "As God is, (hu)man(s) may become." For me, that foundation is literal - even, again, as I have come to view many aspects of our "details" about that foundation as symbolic or best approximations. 

I believe one of the geniuses of profound prophetic vision is the ability to take the literal and the symbolic and meld them into a cohesive narrative that allows individuals to see either (or even both) within that narrative.  I think Jesus was the Master at that - with the Biblical parables as a great example, but Joseph Smith also was phenomenal at it - with his repositioning of Heaven within the temple, the placing of Eden in his own land, etc.  Literal and/or figurative, those narratives have great power - and they all are centered on the literalness of our intimate relationship as a human family. 

I really don't care all that much about how individuals see the "details", but the literalness of the foundation itself is very important to me.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Student Questions and Answers Regarding the Plan of Salvation

Last Sunday, I wrote on the chalkboard the various elements that get outlined when we draw the classic map of the Plan of Salvation:

Pre-existence, veil of forgetfulness, creation, Garden of Eden, The Fall, birth, mortality, agency, death, The Spirit World, Judgment, Resurrection, Exaltation.

I told the students we had discussed the Plan of Salvation last February and this month in a lot of detail, from multiple angles, so today I had no prepared lesson plan and, instead, was opening up the entire class time to any questions they had about any of the topics on the board. I told them that they had heard "lessons" about this topic all their lives, so today was going to be nothing more than a free-flowing discussion about possible ways to answer any questions they have.

It was good for them to hear how many of their questions were answered first with, "We don't know, but . . ."

I can't recreate all of the conversations we had, but the following is a list of the questions they asked - and a summary of some things I want to highlight for this forum:

1) The veil of forgetfulness = Is it complete immediately at birth, or does it fade gradually?

We also talked about how some people simply are more spiritually inclined than others - like my wife's experience seeing and feeling her recently deceased father in the temple a couple of days ago, while I got no inkling of it whatsoever.

2) Near death experiences = Are they real?

Why can people remember what happened after they "died" but not what happened before they were born - if the veil is allowed to stay open for one experience, why is it still closed to the other experience?

3) Garden of Eden = Why did God create a mortal world and then place immortal Adam and Eve in it? How could immortal beings live in a mortal world?

We talked about multiple interpretations of the Garden narrative. It led to the next four questions.

4) How old is the Earth?

We talked about differing views of the age of the Earth, then we talked about how our teachings on the subject don't need to conflict with settled science. We also talked about how religion too often has been used as a club against science (with specific examples of the shape of the Earth and the rotation pattern of the solar system based on readings of the Bible) and how we can't let ourselves fall into that trap as further light and knowledge is revealed through scientific discovery. I told them that I view scientific discovery as revelation in every important way, since it uncovers what previously was unknown - the classic definition of revelation.

5) Where was the Garden of Eden, and how long were Adam and Eve in it - if it was a literal place on Earth?

The summary: "We don't know, but here are some opinions."

6) How do we view dinosaur bones? (The student had heard the idea of them being transplanted from a different world.)

See the summary of #4.

7) Was the material used to create the Earth already there, or was it brought from somewhere else?

We talked about the nature of matter according to Mormon theology, our rejection of ex nihilo creation and the visual presentation in the temple. ("Here is matter unorganized. Let us take it . . . the other worlds . . .")

8) When we say we can become like God, do we mean that we can become like Heavenly Father - or is Heavenly Father like the ultimate God who is different than and superior to all other Gods?

We only had about two minutes left in the class, so I told the students we would tackle that question and any others they have next week.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Evolution of Judeo-Christian Views of God

Last Sunday we went through a condensed overview of how God has been seen throughout Judeo-Christian history, with a focus on how our view of God, within that tradition, has evolved over time. We read from and discussed the following passages:

1) Genesis 1 and the other chapters describe God exclusively in terms of being the Creator. Thus, the earliest records have no real detail about God - certainly not the kind of detail we now preach. I also told the students that, although I almost never talk about scientific or political stuff in class, I believe it is important to realize that there is absolutely nothing in our scriptural accounts of the creation that would force us to believe God literally created the earth in six days as we measure days now - that "days" don't even get mentioned until the third day - that the Pearl of Great Price talks instead about creative periods (that could have lasted for millions of years or more each) - that there is absolutely no reason why we need to fight or reject scientific discoveries about the age of the earth and insist that it was created in six thousand years (or, for example, that God put dinosaur bones on earth as a test to see if we would have faith despite that type of evidence, as I've heard some evangelical friends claim) - etc. I told them that putting limits like that on God is silly when our theology explicitly says God has "all eternity" to accomplish His work. They all got it, and we moved on

2) Genesis 28 describes Jacob's journey during which he had a vision of a ladder reaching to heaven, with angels descending and ascending, and with God talking to him. We read the verse that relates how surprised Jacob was that God would be in that place and that God would promise to be with him wherever he went, and we discussed the traditional view of that time of territorial, warring Gods (somewhat similar in that regard to the gods of Greek mythology, but tied to specific locations and peoples).

3) We read in Alma 18 the account of Ammon teaching King Lamoni - with a focus on how Ammon approached teaching about God and what their view was at the time. We talked about asking first what others believe and about using their terminology, whenever appropriate, to highlight similarities and shared beliefs. We talked about the time frame of the discussion (about 90BC) and how that would be considered the Old Testament period if it was in the Bible (although it was in the time of silence between Malachi and Matthew). Within Mormon theology, that would mean the God they were discussing was Jehovah (the pre-mortal Jesus), so "the Great Spirit" would be a perfectly accurate description of their God at that time.

4) We read the verses in Luke 24 that describe Jesus' post-resurrection appearance to his apostles and talked about how this was the first time in our religious heritage that God having a physical, tangible body enters the picture. We talked about the story of Jesus' walk with the disciples on the road to Emmaus, and I mentioned the explanation I have heard from other Christian friends that says Jesus merely took a physical body temporarily so his disciples could see him - and how that view doesn't work for me, given how much care Jesus took in Luke 24 to say he wasn't a spirit and then to prove it to them. I mentioned that the belief that Heavenly Father has a tangible body is derived from the account in Luke 24, since Jesus said he was and would be the express image of his father - meaning that if Jesus' resurrected body was tangible and capable of eating with his disciples, Heavenly Father's body must be tangible, as well. There really isn't any account in all of our scriptures that demonstrates Heavenly Father having a tangible, physical body without the connection to Jesus and the resurrection.

5) I then asked the students when in our modern Mormon history we can point to an event that showed us Heavenly Father and Jesus have physical bodies, "as tangible as man's". I was proud of them for not saying the First Vision (and I mentioned specifically that there was nothing physical about that vision). Instead, they mentioned the Priesthood ordinations by John, the Baptist, and by Peter, James and John - since a "laying on of hands" was recorded as part of that process. Again, the inference is that if Jesus, John (the Baptist), Peter, James and John had physical, tangible bodies, so must Heavenly Father.

[As an aside, the Priesthood lesson included a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith about how the Fist Vision teaches us that God, the Father, and Jesus have physical, tangible bodies. I didn't challenge that openly, but I did mention it in a whisper to the man sitting next to me(who is a wonderful scriptural scholar), and we both kind of shrugged and smiled at that assertion.]

Tomorrow,  we will be talking about Jesus and his status as part of the Godhead.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Unique Concepts of the Restoration

Last Sunday was the last lesson on Revelation and Prophets. We had a purely discussion-oriented conversation about the following concepts that I believe are some of the more central, important, unique aspects of the Restoration. I wrote them on the board and told the students we would talk about any of them they wanted to discuss or about which they had questions, without a formal lesson structure.

In order of discussion:

1) Heavenly Parents: One of the students asked why we don't have much written about Heavenly Mother. I asked them what they think, figuring they probably would repeat some of the common answers I don't accept. Two of them mentioned the idea of shielding her from blasphemy and (another idea I can't remember right now). I stressed that we don't have anything official recorded in our scriptures, so any answer is speculative in nature - the best people can do to think of something that makes sense to them. I told them that I think the biggest reason is that our scriptures were written by men - and that those men related well to Heavenly Father and didn't have any motivation to even think about a Heavenly Mother.

We then talked about what we do have that teaches explicitly about Heavenly Mother and about what our reasoning is for that belief. We read the 3rd and 4th verses of "Oh, My Father". They saw that Eliza R. Snow's wording says, essentially, that she learned to use the term "Heavenly Father" before she joined the Church but didn't know why until she gained further light and knowledge - and that it was "reason" that testifies of Heavenly Mother. We talked about our overall theology of men and women being sealed and sharing the same potential - how "marital sealing" is the foundation for this belief.

I told them that there are some really interesting beliefs about Heavenly Mother within the church membership, but the lesson wasn't the right place to get into those unorthodox beliefs. 

2) The scope of the Atonement: A student asked what I meant by that. We talked about how everyone (except a few Sons of Perdition who are the exception that proves the rule) is "saved" and everyone has the chance for exaltation - and how radically different that is than the dominant philosophies within Protestantism and many other religions.

3) Prophets and Apostles: One of the students asked if there have ever been more than one prophet on the earth at the same time. We talked about the difference between a "Prophet" (the head prophet in an organization) and a "prophet" (anyone who speaks the word of God, especially about consequences of actions). They zeroed in on the example of the New Testament and the Book of Mormon following the death of Jesus - of Peter and Nephi living simultaneously in different parts of the world as "The Prophet" of their people; we also talked about the wise men at the time of Jesus' birth and how they easily might have been "Prophets" or "prophets" - giving us at least three simultaneous locations. We talked about Lehi being a prophet but not a "Prophet" and how there were multiple prophets at various times in the Old Testament.

4) Eternal Progression: We talked about what it means to progress eternally - to become like God. We talked about how our perception of God is very different than within other Christian denominations. We talked again a little about how godhood includes pain and long-suffering and watching one's "children" hurt and kill each other. I mentioned at the end how I believe we must emphasize the importance of this life so we take it seriously and actually focus on personal growth and repentance, but I told them I believe "eternal progression" is exactly that - growth throughout all eternity until we are "perfect" (complete, whole, fully developed), which, as Joseph Smith said means we will be learning and growing and progressing long after we die. I told them that I see the judgment as occurring whenever we are done growing - that our reward will be whatever type of person we become (telestial, terrestrial or celestial) - no matter when that completion happens.

We didn't get to pre-mortal life or the nature of the Godhead vs. the Trinity.

This was the first time I have used that specific format (completely discussion-based, according to what the students wanted to discuss), and I loved it. Now that they are used to it, I hope it will affect future lessons - both the more traditional ones and more like this one.

Heaven Is Not a Place or Destination

One of the things about the concept of eternity in Mormonism that is radically different than any other Christian theology - and is one of my favorite aspects, frankly - is the idea that "there must needs be opposition in ALL things".

I know that can be discouraging to some people who just want to rest from all their cares and troubles, but I just can't accept eternal laziness with no opposition or personal growth and effort. (the sitting around on a cloud forever playing a harp and telling GOD how wonderful he is - pardon the snark, but I just don't like that image) To me, that would be Hell. Thus, I believe we become "heavenly" by being able to create "an internal heaven" no matter our external circumstances. Iow, we become Celestial Beings - to put it into more traditional Mormon verbiage. Ioow (in other, other words - *grin*), "heaven" is not a place or destination; it's a condition - just like "God" is not a person or Being; it's a condition.

Please, nobody take that as a beating stick to add guilt if you aren't heavenly inside. I don't mean that at all. I just believe it can be an empowering goal and process - as long as it's understood upfront that not being there is FINE. Again, it's the effort and the journey, not the current situation.

It's much like the Elizabeth Edwards quote I posted recently, which I would recommend reading if you haven't already.

Why Do We Have So Much Scripturally about Heavenly Father and So Little about Heavenly Mother?

For what it's worth, I think we talk of Heavenly Father so much more than Heavenly Mother because our scriptures were written by men. Period. Full stop.  If we had more scriptures written by women in matriarchal societies . . .

I really like the concept of Heavenly Mother, at the very least just to state explicitly that women can become like God just as well as men. There's so much cultural and historical crap wrapped up in seeing God as exclusively male that I'm glad Mormonism makes the claim that such a construct is wrong - even if we have next no nothing in our actual scriptural canon to talk about her in anything more than broad, generic terms.

A Personal Example of Why I Believe in Inspiration

I was visiting one of the branches in our stake a few years ago and had a really neat experience. For the full picture:

My daughter had to return to college after the Thanksgiving break, and, given the timing of her available ride, I thought I might not be able to attend the branch I normally visited each fourth Sunday. At the last minute, she told me that her friend who would be driving wasn't going to be ready until after our ward's meetings were over (completely unexpectedly) - so I had time to visit the branch and make it back in time to take her to her friend's house.

When I arrived at the branch, the counselor who was conducting told me that one of the speakers probably wouldn't be able to make it - so he asked if I would be willing to speak, if necessary. I agreed - and told him to put me last so I could take whatever time was left.

The topic for the day was "happiness" - so I started thinking about it as soon as I sat down, which was about five minutes before the meeting was to start. I immediately had a thought that I suppressed, since it just didn't seem like something someone normally would say in Sacrament Meeting - especially with the Stake President visiting and sitting on the stand. You see, it was, in a nutshell:

"Not everyone can be happy just by keeping the commandments, praying, attending church and reading the scriptures."

Instead, I looked through the scriptures and started crafting a more traditional talk.

As the first speaker began, I realized she was giving a good but quite predictable talk about happiness - and focusing on the benefits of the things I mentioned above. It really was a very well-organized, thoughtful talk. The second speaker spoke similarly - with different verses and different focal areas, but also stressing the things I mentioned above. It also really was a very good talk. In the middle of both talks, the same basic thought hit me - each time progressively stronger. So, I changed focus and looked for a way to teach the idea that hit me and still make it inspiring and not dismissive in any way of the other talks.

I started by mentioning my struggle to accept my first impression, then I read Psalms 46:10 and focused on the injunction, "Be still, and know that I am God." I mentioned that having a mother with schizophrenia had taught me a lot about happiness. I said that my father did two things for her to help her be happy: 1) He sought professional help and found medication that controlled her schizophrenia; 2) He shouldered ALL the responsibilities for the family in order to shield her from worry and anxiety. I said that my father's example was an extreme one due to my mother's condition, but I stressed that the same basic approach was important for many people.

I then mentioned that I had really enjoyed the previous two talks and that their advice was excellent for the vast majority of us - but that there are some members who struggle with depression or bi-polar disorder or other issues who feel crushing weight when they translate what someone says about happiness as:

"If you only tried harder, you wouldn't be unhappy. It's all your fault. You're useless and hopeless."

I mentioned that I believe those people must: 1) find out if there are medicines and/or coping mechanisms that can help control their debilitating tendencies; 2) find a way to "Be still, and know that I am God." They need to understand and accept the idea that the Atonement redeems us from things that we didn't choose, like the chemical imbalances that cause depression and other issues - that they are not "guilty" of those feelings and the attendant struggles they cause.

I then quoted Matthew 11:28-30 and focused on the part that says, "Take my yoke upon you, and I shall give you rest." I said that many people are so busy in their everyday lives that they fail to find time simply to pray, contemplate, meditate, ponder and rest. I asked everyone in the congregation to try to find ways to "be still" and "receive rest" - so that they could have time and energy to "count their blessings" and "see what God has done" in their lives. I finished by explaining how my wife has kept a blessings list (through her blog) each weekend and what that has done to her daily perspective over the last three years.

Now, to address the title of this post:

A woman came up to the stand after the meeting and told me that she had woken up that morning and almost decided not to come to church. She said she has been battling depression for a long time and that it has been worse the past few months since her father died. She told me the Branch President has been very supportive and "wonderful", but that she almost stayed home. She said she felt a strong impression to go anyway - at least to Sacrament Meeting. She then said that the moment I started speaking (before I had even addressed the issue of depression), she had felt an incredible peace flow through her and the thought entered her mind:

"See, someone understands what you are going through. I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING THROUGH. It's OK; I love you just as you are."

 
  I don't know the mechanics of inspiration, and I have no idea why things like this happen for some and not for others. I just know I really do believe in inspiration - and that there is someone out there who really does know us as individuals.

A Testimony of the Scope of Mormon Theology, the Atonement and Valuing Differences

I bore a very short testimony a couple of years ago and said the following:

1) I am the oldest son in my family, and I’ve never wanted nor related to the concept of an elder brother – hence, I have a really hard time “feeling” the power of that analogy for Jesus. I don’t know how to feel about an older brother, and I just don’t care much about it intellectually.

2) I had a wonderful, caring, humble, loving father – hence, I have no problem “feeling” the power of that title for Jesus’ God. I know how it feels to have a “heavenly father”, but I don’t care much about it intellectually.

3) I LOVE the intellectual / philosophical / theological concept of an atonement – but I have had to work out my own intellectual understanding of it. I love how I think about the Atonement, and I care deeply about it intellectually.

4) I’m glad our theology and my ward allows people who think and feel differently to be accepted regardless of those differences – and I’m glad I have the chance to learn things I normally wouldn’t think or feel on my own from people who think and feel differently than I do.

That’s why I go to church – to connect with people I really do love and learn from them in some way. It works most weeks, even on days when I hear lots of things with which I disagree intellectually (and that last situation occurs quite frequently). I’ve learned not to care as much as I used to care – and I’ve learned to accept that other people think and feel in certain ways because it works for them.

I want them to accept that I follow what works for me, so I need to accept that they will follow what works for them.

“We love him, because he first loved us.”

At church, I try really hard to be the “he” in that construct – and the proof of whether or not I’m succeeding is when I disagree the most.

I acknowledge that it’s easier for me than for lots of other people (for example, gay members) – but all I have is my own life and expereinces, so it’s up to me to the best I can within those experiences.

Who Gave Birth to God's Spirit Children?

The following is a question I received from someone who is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My answer follows: 

Question: Who gave birth to God's spirit children, and if it wasn’t God, the Father, where did the women come from?

Answer: "Gave birth to" is something we don't say with regard to spirit children, since it is not taught that way in any of our scriptures. In my decades as a Mormon, I have never once heard it phrased that way; rather, we speak of spirit children being "created". We have no idea whatsoever how we were created as spirit children, again since that is not explained to us in any detail, at all.

"Created" does not necessarily mean anything remotely related to "giving birth" - and there is no official doctrine of sexual relationships (in the way that they occur here in mortality) in heaven - either prior to the creation of this world or after the resurrection. Unfortunately, that is a common misapplication - among some members (including prior leaders) and nearly all critics, but it is not doctrine. There is no doctrine whatsoever on the process of spiritual creation. This is one case where the proper answer, in my mind, is, "We don't know."

Having said that, I will speculate here.  (*grin*)

Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." We aren't told what that means or how God created male and female in "His" image. Given the totality of the imagery and the familial terminology that is used throughout the Bible to describe our relationships (before our birth, during mortality and after death), we speak of a Heavenly Mother - but there is no obvious, canonized scriptural, unmistakable basis for that belief. (For example, the hymn, "Oh, My Father", includes the following statement: "Truth is reason; truth eternal tells me I've a mother there.")

Personally, I believe that women are created in the image of God, the Mother (my own phrasing and not a title I've heard used in the LDS Church - ever), mostly because of what the Bible says about marriage and our intended end as "one" - as well as statements by our prophets and apostles. Frankly, I believe it is the only way to stay within the Biblical concept of heavenly family and validate women as women - to believe that sex / gender identity has eternal meaning and that women are not simply bastardized, sub-standard men (as has been implied or stated blatantly in many statements by Christian leaders throughout history and as is the natural interpretation of many when the only reference to God is in masculine form). However, I personally do not believe that Heavenly Mother "gave birth" to spirit children, and I personally do not believe that the creation of spirit children involves anything like pregnancy and gestation - in ANY way, shape or form as we know it here on earth. 


So, in summary, my own response is that I believe nobody "gave birth to God's spirit children" - that our Heavenly Parents created us in some way, but that it was not in the way children are created here on earth.

Holiday Season Hiatus

My family and I are visiting family out-of-state, so I am taking a hiatus from blogging here until the new year. I will post my 2011 New Year's Resolution on . . . you guessed it . . . New Year's Day.  The regular daily posts will begin again on Monday, January 3rd.

I will try to handle the withdrawal symptoms properly and not give in to the urge to write from now until I write the New Year's post.  (*grin*)

May the next few days be blessed days for all of you - and may we all grow closer to our Heavenly parents this upcoming year than we are on this date.

God bless all of you.  You have enriched my life immeasurably.

Why I Don't Like to Say that God Is "Embodied"

"Embodied" is a word we use sometimes when talking of God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ. I personally don't like to use it - specifically because of the baggage that surrounds defining the term as people struggle to explain exactly what it means. Let me try to explain.

1) The most concise statement is the one in D&C 130:22, which states:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit."

2) That appears to be a straightforward statement of "embodiment" - until you consider that we believe Spirits are "embodied" in a very real and "tangible" way.

D&C 131:7-8 says:

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

3) We speak generally of "flesh" as the outward surface of our bodies (the flexible structure "within" which we are organized) and "bones" as the inward, skeletal structure of our bodies (the "calcified" structure "around" which we are organized). Each of these aspects of our physical bodies is corruptible and subject to decay. The question then becomes, what does it mean to have a resurrected "body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's"?

By the way, we use the term "body of flesh and bones" because that was the way Jesus described His resurrected body to the disciples to whom He appeared, with whom he spoke and for whom He ate in Luke 24:37-39:

" But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not "flesh and bones", as ye see me have."

So, the D&C makes it clear that spirits are "tangible" and "embodied" just as our physical bodies are - only to a different degree and "discernibility". Given these statements, it becomes very difficult to say with certainty exactly what it means for God to be "tangible" with a body of "flesh and bones" and to be "embodied".

That is a long-winded way of saying that I hesitate to use the term "embodied" specifically I believe it does not describe the condition of the Father (and the Son) in any meaningful way - given our belief that spirits also are "embodied" in a very real way. I prefer to use a description that focuses more on our relation, and I think it is accurate to say that literally "becoming perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" - literally becoming god-like in the fullest sense by reaching a state of godhood similar to that of the Father - literally "growing up to be like Father" - is something that is not found in the orthodox Christian theology of our day. In fact, if there is one thing that gets us labeled as a heretical, damnable cult, that probably is it - even though it is taught MUCH more clearly in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon.

Given all of that, rather than saying that God is "embodied", I generally say something like, "God is our actual Father" - meaning a creator whose offspring can grow to become like Him - whose children can grow up and approximate Him - who is actually a Father in every sense of the word, not just the "spiritual" (or allegorical or symbolic or figurative) ones.

Godhood as the Goal of Existence for Men and Women

I believe that the great and fundamental heresy of the apostasy is the removal of the Father as an actual Father from Christian theology - someone His children can emulate and grow to approximate. I believe the great correction of the Restoration, imo, is the reinstatement of the Father as our ultimate, eternal objective. I believe the great addition of the Restoration is the inclusion of women in this eternal vision - by positing the existence of a Mother.

No matter the actual nature of Godhood, I believe strongly that the belief in individual exaltation and the effort required to reach perfection (completion of growth) is critical to the Atonement of Jesus as taught in the Gospels. Explicitly including women in that construct by juxtaposing a Mother at the side of a Father is deeply profound, in my humble opinion, regardless of whether it is an "accurate" depiction of the afterlife. The temple (and now "A Family: The Proclamation to the World") is a good example of how our ideal differs from the modification that is practiced in the fallen world, and too many people (even members) don't understand the power of our truly unique theology as it relates to men and women.

Pres. Hinckley's Interview with Mike Wallace: He Never Lied

(Thanks to one of the readers who pointed out to me that I have conflated two interviews with Pres. Hinckley. The quote I remembered and referenced here is from an interview with TIME Magazine - not the Mike Wallace interview. Just shows that age is a terrible taskmaster - and that I'm not as mentally spry as Pres. Hinckley was at a much more advanced age - although, in my defense, I did remember it word-for-word. lol)

In an interview published in TIME Magazine a few years ago, President Hinckley said something that others have classified as a lie. Pres. Hinckley was an incredibly intelligent man (as everyone who interviewed him attested - including Mike Wallace), so even those who don't accept him as a prophet have to consider his answers as carefully constructed - even if they don't accept them as inspired.

I will quote the response, sentence by sentence, with commentary. First, however, I need to highlight something about the question Pres. Hinckley was asked:

The interviewer asked,

"Is this [as man is, God once was"] the teaching of **the church** today . . .?"

This does NOT ask if many or most members believe it; it asks only if "the church" teaches it TODAY. That is a critical distinction.

With that background, here is my response to those who accuse President Hinckley of having lied:

"I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know."

First, I was raised in Utah. My own father and father-in-law are from the same basic generation as Pres. Hinckley, as were many of my teachers when I was a youth - most of whom were raised in Utah. I heard almost all of them use the phrase "I don't know that . . ." my entire life as a child and adolescent. Sometimes it meant "I'm not sure that . . .", but it also meant "I wouldn't say it that way." It was a "polite" way of disagreeing - a way to do so without saying, "No, you are wrong." I literally heard it at least hundreds of times in my youth.

(For example, my dad often said, "I don't know that your mother said that" - meaning, "I'm not sure that your mother said that." Another example: "I don't know that Grandma is stubborn" - meaning, "I wouldn't say that Grandma is stubborn." He never told me that Grandma wasn't stubborn [because she was], but he told me more than once that he wouldn't call Grandma stubborn - that he wouldn't say it that way.)

When I heard Pres. Hinckley's interview, I automatically heard what I had heard constantly growing up and understood his words in that usage with that meaning. So, the quote can be rendered more accurately for those unfamiliar with that particular usage thus:

"I wouldn't say that we ("the church") *teach* it. I wouldn't say that we *EMPHASIZE* it."

(In the actual interview, Pres. Hinckley paused slightly then added "EMPHASIZE it". It was very clear, and he actually emphasized the word "emphasize". He said the concept isn't "taught" by "the church", then he defined that even more specifically by saying the concept isn't "emphasized" by "the church".)

"I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse."

(I personally have never heard it discussed in "public discourse" by "the Church" - and rarely in private discourse. Pres. Hinckley had, but he hadn't for "a long time" - at least from before my memory.)

"I wouldn't say it that way."

Next:

"I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made."

(None of us do. The only transcripts we have are from records of four members who heard it, and what we have is the summary combination of their records. We know very little about the background of the sermon - the "circumstances under which [it] was made", since they were never recorded and Joseph never addressed it. It literally came out of the blue and was truly unique in many ways.)

"I understand the philosophical background behind it."

(True for many of us.)

"But I don’t know a lot about it"

(Joseph never elaborated on it, since he died only two months after giving the speech.)

"and I wouldn't say that others know a lot about it.”

(Perfectly accurate statement, given how debated it has been over the years.)

Finally, the concept is included in the Joseph Smith manual **as one sentence in a 7 page lesson**. Further, not one of the follow-up questions at the end addresses that sentence. There is absolutely no "teaching of it" and certainly no "EMPHASIS on it" in the lesson, while other things are emphasized.

What Pres. Hinckley actually said is perfectly consistent with the way the concept is handled by "the Church" (as an institution) - included in materials (not hidden) as something Joseph Smith said, but not emphasized in any way. Individual teachers might emphasize it over other things in the lesson that "the church" emphasizes, but "the church" certainly doesn't emphasize it - not even close.

There is no lie in this quote - none whatsoever.

A Testimony for My Birthday

My birthday is this week, and I want to share something I wrote early a while ago in response to an evangelical gentleman with whom I was discussing religion and God. The following was part of my testimony (my witness) to him:

"If I tell you I have done and am doing exactly what you ask of me, can you accept that I am not just sincere, but that I might be "correct" - even if you personally don’t think it could be true of you within my own denomination? Your words seem to indicate that you could accept that, but I’m not quite sure.

For background purposes only, I have gone through what you describe. I have read the Bible countless times; I study it regularly; my “favorite” reading text is not the Book of Mormon, but the New Testament; I have attended Master’s and Doctorate level Comparative Religion classes; I pray regularly and try to have a prayer in my heart always; I have had spiritual experiences that simply are undeniable - not touchy-feely emotionalism, but real communion with the Spirit of God; I have see the hand of God in very real and undeniable ways - again, not emotion-based, but actually tangible evidences of His majesty and might; I have participated in the truly miraculous, through no merit of my own; I could go on and on and on, but the central point is that I have experienced and continue to experience God in my life as a follower of Christ who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I choose to be a member of that church because it matches what I have come to believe about the nature of God and Jesus, the Christ, and salvation and grace and fruit and the atonement and spirituality and revelation and so much more. All of that “understanding”, however, is not what makes me Christian; rather, what makes me Christian is my poor attempt to model my life after the admonitions and counsel and command and encouragement of my Lord and Redeemer - my attempt to accept the Good News of the Gospel - to have faith enough to believe and follow what He asks of me - to strive to repent and turn my life to Him, so that my spirit can be regenerated by His Spirit and I can do His works (pure fruit of the vine) rather than mine - to allow Him to make of me what He desires me to be. My denomination does not make me a Christian, but it does help me reach for Him and try to place my life in His hands - to accept His invitation to “Come, follow me” - to cast my burdens at His feet and take His yoke upon me - etc."

Most importantly, it helps me understand my relationship to my Father in Heaven, and I am eternally grateful for that understanding.

Proper Incentives

The Father's eternal plan is based on an incentive - the opportunity to become like our Heavenly Parents. Of course, we hope we are pursuing that objective because of our love for Him, but the foundation is an incentive, nonetheless.

Just something to consider when raising children.

A Short but Deeply Profound Statement

In lieu of a longer weekend post, I am going to share something that a commenter said this Tuesday on a different post, "Spiritual Prescriptions".

"Nobody can fix me quite as well as he who created me."

Thanks, Jami. I'm not sure I have ever read anything, anywhere, that is more profound than this.