|
Every time I start to write this, it quickly grows to book proportions, and I don't really have that kind of time or patience, especially for what's supposed to be an epistle. You don't have the kind of time to read an entire book right here, right now, either. So, I'm going to take a different tack, and lead with a concise, bullet-point presentation, followed, maybe later, by a more exhaustive explanation. Scripture's legal nature, and necessarily precise languages out of the books which have/shall be written, shall this people be judged https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/27.23-26?lang=eng#p22 Crucial terms and concepts are precisely defined in legal documents Faith Also misunderstood Read Lectures on Faith = Belief system (whether correct or incorrect) Love (nurturing) Charity (Pure nurturing of Christ) Truth (what was, is, and will be) Repentance (a change of heart/mind) Also a growth process illustrated in … Faith, hope, and charity (bumper sticker) Sermon on the Mount (elevator speech) The Book of Enos (Reader's Digest) Remaining scripture (The missing/dummies manual) Well-known and documented issues with language Paul's mission to counter all these issues Gives us many of our definitions Defines charity through its negative Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. Spiritual gifts are not to be equated with charity though I have the gift of prophecy understand all mysteries have all knowledge have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. Knowledge is not to be equated with charity though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Self-sacrifice is NOT the same as charity And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Generosity is not to be equated with charity And this is a real problem because generosity is still universally understood to be the very definition of charity But Paul says otherwise But Paul doesn't really define charity either. Instead, he gives us the attributes of one's own charity: suffereth long is kind envieth not vaunteth not itself is not puffed up Doth not behave itself unseemly seeketh not her own is not easily provoked thinketh no evil Rejoiceth not in iniquity rejoiceth in the truth Beareth all things believeth all things hopeth all things endureth all things never faileth prophecies shall fail tongues shall cease knowledge shall vanish away Ignorance, arrogance, and pride leading us to think we know more than we actually know Charity is universally believed to be exactly what Paul claim it is not, but with feeling, intent, or a cherry-on-top, or something never quite defined The value of tabulated knowledge Like repentance, love is a process best illustrated with a table Structure (having a plan) Discipline (sticking to the plan) Motivation (a reason to stick to the plan) Love (giving someone a reason to stick to the plan) Charity (giving someone the best reasons to stick to the best plan, the plan of salvation) Reproving betimes [immediately] [justice delayed is justice denied] with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love [engagement NOT distance] toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.43?lang=eng#p42 Every man seeking the interest of his neighbor https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/82.19?lang=eng#p18 This web-site is an act of charity. I've long been obsessed with puzzles, and this has manifested itself in obvious ways, such as my trade as an 'enterprise database developer', but also in less obvious ways, such as my fascination with language. Now, that's not to say that I speak a dozen languages; I don't. What fascinates me about language is how we use and process it, how the written and spoken word evolved, as well as what the ancients themselves had to say about the matter, such as the near universal belief in the tower, and the once common, Adamic language, a concept, which, by the way, modern linguist just can't seem to shake. Out of this obsession grew a fascination with the process by which language changes. And, if you're anywhere near my age, you've probably already noticed some big changes in our language just since we were children, not just through the addition of new (although unnecessary) words, such as bling, the corruption of words, such as how bad came to mean good, and entirely new concepts, such as meme and skeuomorphism. The fact is that most of what we learn is learned the same way we learned to speak. And how was that? Actually, it's a testimony to the brilliance of God's creation that we're able to simply observe others, and mimic their use of language, eventually mastering it. Well, maybe not master, but close enough for all practical purposes. Be sure to read my article on AES for more about this. Anyway, by the time I was attending Institute, it became apparent to me that this method of learning harbored a major flaw, and that flaw was that if those you learn from do not themselves have a firmer grasp on the subject than you, then you will confused, even mislead. This has actually happened to me a few times, to hilarious effect, so it's a subject near and dear to my heart. Furthermore, it became apparent to me that even educated people that I relied on for information were passing along hearsay, mostly unaware that they were doing so. They were, and are, asleep at the wheel. I have to, once again, salute Hugh Nibley here for his frequent complaints that the word, spiritual, is the most abused in the LDS vocabulary. Suddenly, I understood why Paul spilled so much ink: He was trying to more precisely define words and concepts for the saints and for others. We see this perhaps nowhere so obviously as in his famous definition of charity. The first question we must ask ourselves is why Paul was doing this. It seems obvious, he says at the end of the previous chapter that he's going to show us a more excellent way. More excellent than what? A more excellent path to the gifts of the spirit. And what are those gifts? Wisdom. Knowledge. Faith. (And there is a relationship, but more on that another time.) Miracles. Prophecy. Discernment. LANGUAGES! These all come down to knowledge! More importantly, they're given for the benefit of all. Freely. Because we are all of the same body, the body of Christ. And that body can't be complete without all the gifts. And now you know why we're called members. But notice in particular 12:15 - “That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.” No matter your gifts. No matter your calling. You are an equal member, requiring the same care. What care? That is what Paul steps into next. Remember, he's writing to Greeks. The Greeks have their own language, and they're struggling with the translation. Perhaps you've heard of the Greeks' four words for love. Just as today, there was confusion even then about which word was meant, and even what each word really meant. But now, thanks to the occupying Romans, yet another word has crept into the mix: Charity. And here's our problem! We have the proper translation (agape), and even some general definitions of its meaning, such as “divine love”, “the pure love of Christ”, even “Christian love in its highest manifestation”, but that's just circular (il)logic. And therein lies the second reason Paul takes such pains to sort this all out for us: The scriptures are legal documents, the books from which we will be judged. So it's very important that we get this right. And he feels the weight of responsibility for teaching us. After all, it simply won't do for us to destroy ourselves and/or our civilization through lawlessness, mistakenly thinking we're following scripture all the way down, when, in fact, we've deceived only ourselves. There are fine, but clear differences in the words, and they must be understood. As such, scripture must be exceedingly, even pedantically precise in its meaning. And this often requires that scripture define its own terms, just as we see truth defined, in D&C 93:24>, as KNOWLEDGE of things as they are, and as they were, AND AS THEY ARE TO COME. So, the next time you hear someone say that they're ‘looking for truth', give it to them. Hand them that definition, and see how they react. So, that's the introduction. Now for the aware that I could not define the word, love, for an upcoming talk I'd been assigned to deliver. And, given my penchant for puzzles, this just would not do. So I began researching, using the tools we'd been given: First, think it through. Figure out what you do or don't know. Then hit the books. Read church magazines. Then, if you still aren't sure, go to the Lord in prayer and fasting. Guess what! I didn't even get out of the topical guide before I found myself on my knees. None of this made any sense. Given John's assertion that "God is love", along with the thousands of other words of scripture describing that love in action over millennia, one might think lessons on love in church about as rare as yodeling classes in a maternity ward. Still we keep hearing them, and not just about love, but a host of other topics, too. And that should tell us something. Sure, sure, there are always new eyes and ears to train, but weren't they brought up in this tradition? What's it going to take? Shouldn't we be ready to move up to the next level by now? "Perhaps", comes the response, "but certainly all are well-served by reminders, too." And that would be fair enough; the oft-used key remains bright, but is it really a reminder when so wide of the mark? Is it really a reminder if it only adds to the confusion? Or fails to answer the key question? And what would that be? And could this be the real reason we have to keep coming back to this topic? It has not been satisfactorily handled for any of us. It's an open question. Hugh Nibley used to complain frequently in class that the word, spiritual, was the most abused in the LDS vocabulary. I've come to agree. As I listen to many, many members expounding on their faith in church, it becomes clear to me that, while they are using all the right words, they are using the wrong dictionary. It's like they learned their religion from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary. (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/865289-the-cynic-s-word-book) They just don't know what they're talking about, but they think they do. They're actually saying something completely different from what people like me would, at first blush, think that they're saying. And they do this because they've heard so many others do it before them. And they're all wrong together. And the entire problem came from NON-LDS sources saying things like Swedenborg did. And all one need do is look at who some of his disciples were: Johnny Appleseed. Read up about the man. You'll find another example of a lot of people repeating things they think they know, when, in fact, they don't. Johnny Appleseed, if people knew him better, would be no American folk hero. And it's not just Swedenborg. There are a lot of them, like Joel Osteen, Robert Schuller, Norman Vincent Peale, and many others. And I've found the problem as far back as Philo of Alexandria, and traces of the problem all the way back to the beginning. Love just doesn't mean what people think it means. Neither do the words, faith, hope, charity (Paul even spilled a lot of ink over this one, and it did no good at all), spirit, salvation, exaltation, feeling, mercy, grace, redemption, and more. And, not knowing these things, and using modern misinterpretations of those words, members go about deceiving one another into believing the most fantastic things. It's not for nothing that Satan is called the father of lies. Love I know. I know. I promised to write about idolatry, and we will get there, but I didn't really finish with the word, love, yet. After all, I did say that it would take a lot of time, which I ran out of last time. So, to review, love is not like, not even intense liking. Love is about growing, nurturing, promoting, building, expanding ... perfecting. This is what the parable of the talents is really all about. Love is a process. It's not as simple as just promoting. There are steps involved, and I detailed those: Structure, Discipline, Motivation, Love, and Charity. Notice what words are not inherently a part of that process: Nice, Pleasant, Flattering. These are not necessarily anathema to love, but they are also NOT synonymous with it, just as Paul tried to explain about charity. This is how it is possible, easy even, to do some of those seemingly impossible things that Christ requires of us, like loving our enemies. This difference between the worldly and scriptural meanings of the word were what prompted Brigham Young to explain that 'we can not love hell'. And that makes sense in both senses, doesn't it? Surely no one would 'like' hell. And, hopefully, no one wants to see hell any bigger or more powerful than it already is. So, how does one love an enemy? Well, there's a lot of scriptural and logical support for the idea that, bringing that enemy to repentance is about the best thing that can be done for them. Now, wouldn't that certainly be an act of love? Notice that Ammon went to the Nephites' sworn enemies in order to convert them. That's the example that everyone LIKES to focus on, but what about Captain Moroni? He's the one who got Mormon's greatest praise. How did he handle the Lamanites? He killed them. Was that an act of love? Look to the process! Did the prospect of death motivate the Lamanites to repentance? We see clear evidence that it did. Thus, Captain Moroni loved his enemies. Surgically. This is also how we 'love one another as Christ loved us'. Yes, that would be the same Christ who 'rebuked the evil spirit in the man', the very Christ of whom his own disciples, we are told, so often feared to ask anything, the Christ who dismissed the Canaanite women as a ... little/female dog, the same Christ who beat people, with a weapon, and destroyed their property, in full view of the public. TWICE! And they all grew through this. Peter learned to stop pandering after being rebuked by Christ. Paul learned to open his eyes to the obvious, after being blinded by Christ. Everyone learned to think for themselves after being blinded by Christ. (SORRY! I'm cheating here. I know you don't know what I'm talking about here. We'll come back to this later. But I wanted to start you thinking.) This also helps us to understand Christ's almost allergic aversion to money. When he said that the 'love' of money is the root of all evil, given what I've shown you about the meaning of love, we now can see that he's addressing not only those who want a lot of money, but, more especially those who promote money. Ever heard the phrase, 'the growth of money'? Can you say Wall Street? But what is money? NOT gold. Not necessarily, anyway. What money really is isn't even coins. You see, if we press gold into coins, all we're doing is taking something that has intrinsic value (its 'melt' value) and certifying it. And regulating weights and measures is one of the powers granted our federal government by our Constitution. No, what money really is is something which has only perceived, or 'agreed upon' value. The paper in your pocket is literally not even worth the paper it's printed on. If it weren't for our government's stability and power, that money would be good for nothing more than tinder. And that's what money really is: Fiction. Lies. Government control and power over the interactions among mankind. And that's why Christ said to let Caesar have his filthy lucre. We don't need it. We shouldn't use it. Gold is fine. Trade is fine. But even that can be monitored, metered, and taxed by government. And the whole point of Christ's admonition to love one another instead of money was all, very clearly about depriving government of its ability to divide us. After all, the defining characteristic of Zion is unity. To be of one heart, and one mind. How will we help one another get there if not by 'tough' love? After all, 'soft' love doesn't really seem to be producing any results. Or am I reading it wrong? Ok, continuing with my previous promise to explain the terminology of the scriptures in the context of the scriptures themselves, is the 'word of the day': Love. I would really rather not tackle this word first, simply because some other terms need clarification first before love can be properly understood, but this is the one word which is most pivotal to all other concepts. After all, as John says, God *IS* love. And therein the beginning of our clarifications. Look at what John says: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.", and "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.", as well as others. But what he is saying not really so much what we would call a dictionary definition, but rather reinforcing an association just as I did above with the *IS*. God isn't just the personification of love. God *IS* love. (because he not only exemplifies love, but actually embodies it) But this does NOT DEFINE LOVE! Remember the old thing you learned in school that says that you can't define a word by itself? Well that's a true rule, and a good rule. So, to say that God is love is a tautology, and, thus, a logical fallacy IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A DEFINITION. It is true. But it is NOT a definition. So, what then is love? Let's look at how it's used. Abraham loves his son, Isaac. Hmmm... no definition here. "And Isaac ... took Rebekah, ... and he loved her..." Not a definition, but certainly supporting evidence. Data. Assimilation. Isaac loves savory meat. Jacob loved Rachel, and loved her more than Leah. Shechem loved Dinah (a little out of order). Ok. Now it gets serious. We have not only love, but also hate to contrast with it. "... I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Aha! ... love me, and keep my commandments. I've read that somewhere else: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Is that what love is? Obedience to? To what? How does keeping the commandments love God? How does that work? Could it simply be that God is in no need of anything from us, so the only thing remaining for us to do for him is to obey him? That reminds me of another scripture: "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." See? Once again, what could we possibly do for God? NOTHING! BUT ... for his other children ... for them we can do something. But what shall we do for them? Love them? FINE! BUT WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT LOVE IS! Ok, but, all this has skipped us forward to the New Testament, where there's even more talk of love than in the Old Testament. And Christ even commands us there to "... love one another, as I have loved you." Ok, well, that brings us right back to what John said about God *IS* love. So, how did Christ love his disciples? (Since that's whom he was addressing at the time.) Luke 9:45 "But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying." Ok, first of all, this is still fairly early in his ministry, and his own disciples 'feared to ask' him what he meant when he said, "... the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men." Why did they fear to ask him anything? Were they bashful? That doesn't seem to wash with the 'sons of thunder' pretty brazenly asking to walk his road with him. Nor does it wash with Simon brandishing his sword, even cutting off the ear of the soldier. And then there's Peter, who never seems to be bashful about anything, except owning Christ before the Sanhedrin. These guys aren't bashful. They're actually timid about asking Christ to clarify anything he says. Why? Because they have experience with him. Remember when the tax-collector cornered Peter? What did Christ tell Peter? ".. when he was come into the house, Jesus *PREVENTED* [this is a physical act, and not the only one Christ was known for] him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?" This is a pretty blunt correction, and not at all atypical. In fact, when Nicodemus comes to Christ, ***under cover of night*** (in other words, he's up to no good), how does he approach Christ? (And WHERE?) "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." That's blatant flattery. First he comes under cover of night, and he opens with flattery. But how does Christ respond? Does he say something like, "OH! I am so relieved. I was afraid you guys thought I was some dummy!" No. Does he say, "Well, thank you. I really appreciate the recognition." No. Christ responds as if he hadn't heard a thing, totally ignoring what Nicodemus is up to, and changing the topic to something that would do Nicodemus some real good. And, in the process, once again basically points to the mission of his cousin, John the Baptist. And how does it go then? Christ tries to explain, and Nicodemus challenges him. It's not a sincere desire to understand. Nicodemus is dismissing Christ. 'How can a grown man be born again!" (That's ridiculous!) But Christ shuts him down with 'Look! You're salvation is at stake! Stop worrying about what you think makes sense, and accept the facts. After all, you haven't got a clue what the spirit does.' Nicodemus: "GARBAGE!" Christ (echoing Abinadi): "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" This is NOT a friendly confrontation. Nicodemus came for devious reasons, and got into an argument with Christ. And Christ even ended it by exposing Nicodemus' motives for being there in the first place: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen (we know what we're talking about); and ye receive not our witness (but you-all just won't listen). If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world (remember what the Pharisees were all about); but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already (I'm lookin' at you, Nicodemus!), because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and *****MEN LOVED DARKNESS RATHER THAN LIGHT, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL. FOR EVERY ONE THAT DOETH EVIL HATETH THE LIGHT, NEITHER COMETH TO THE LIGHT, LEST HIS DEEDS SHOULD BE REPROVED. BUT HE THAT DOETH TRUTH COMETH TO THE LIGHT, THAT HIS DEEDS MAY BE MADE MANIFEST, THAT THEY ARE WROUGHT IN GOD.*****" And that was that. Ooh. Ouch. That stung. Nicodemus had some repenting to do. And he appears to have. I know. You've NEVER heard it told that way before. Why? Well, that has something to do with the archaic language tricking you into thinking that everyone is speaking eloquently and delicately. But remember, Peter had what amounted to a thick, hillbilly accent. He really stood out, and was generally assumed to be an ignoramus by all who heard him. If you were going to put this on stage, rather than having Anthony Hopkins playing him, you'd be better off casting Larry the Cable Guy instead. And then you might have a better sense of what tones of voice were really in play here. It wasn't pretty. It wasn't fellow doctoral candidates debating a point of nuclear physics. This was an argument between a boorish know-it-all, and someone who had to beat through that obstinate opposition in order to make a point. And this is MY point: THAT POINT WAS NICODEMUS' BENEFIT. Christ was trying to save someone he knew (as only Christ could) was worth saving, and willing to be saved, with a little application of TOUGH LOVE. (Herod, on the other hand, is an example of someone who was so beyond hope that Christ wouldn't even respond to him.) (It's getting late, and I have to get up early tomorrow, so I'm going to gloss over a bunch of stuff here, but I'm sure you all know what scriptures I'm referring to.) When Christ cast Legion out of the young man, what did that look like? It says that Christ rebuked the spirit within him. How does one do that? How does one 'love the sinner, but hate the sin'? I'm going to propose here that they are one in the same. Imagine what the witnesses saw. Christ is rebuking (and NOT gently, you can bet) the spirits within the young man, who are, for all practical purposes at this point, THE YOUNG MAN HIMSELF. So Christ is essentially chewing out this poor, afflicted young man in full public view. But, it worked. That may be why he got away with it. Had it not worked, he may have incurred the wrath of the witnesses for so maligning this obviously tormented youth. But, instead, Christ taught them all a lesson about how such things work. Consider the woman who touched the hem of his garment. She's trembling at having been found out. Why? Because she knows she's doomed. But, upon hearing her honest confession, Christ lets her off. Before that, though, she was doomed. Didn't he just tell Nicodemus that he didn't come to condemn? Sure. But he's a rabbi, and the law must be obeyed. HEY! Where've I read that before? So THIS is love?! Yes. Actually, this is love. James Dobson wrote a book called, Tough Love, a few decades ago, and I encourage everyone to read it. In fact I'll go as far as to say that tough love *IS* love. And that nothing else is. Love, as I tell my kids, is about driving growth. It's a process that I explain this way: Structure ... is having a plan of action. Discipline ... is sticking to that plan. Motivation ... is a reason to stick to that plan. Love ... is giving someone a reason to stick to that plan. Charity ... is giving someone the best reasons to stick to the best plan, the plan of salvation. Your typical military drill sergeant loves more people more perfectly than most Christians ever do, and his love is feigned. It's just his job. But he takes largely unstructured, undisciplined, and unmotivated youths, and turns them into men. And he doesn't do it with 'nice', 'pleasant', or flattery. He doesn't do it with kumbaya Christianity. Now, imagine what could be achieved when someone, undeterred by what others might think, were to take everyone around them, and apply the same tough love Christ used, to make them all they can be? How great would all of society be? But that would require commitment, resilience, fortitude, a determination to 'stick to the plan', and not give up, leaving ones' 'students' hanging. As Joseph Smith said, 'reproving immediately (and always) with sharpness, but showing an INCREASE in love (over and above the love that lead you to reprove with sharpness), lest they think you an enemy.' And therein we have hate. The proof of what I'm saying. Christ said to hate mother and father and follow him. Really?! Christ wants us to hate those the 5th commandment demands we 'honor'?! That makes no sense at all ... given our modern, English understanding of the words love and hate. But, given my definition above, you can see that love requires engagement, immediacy, intimacy, constancy, and permanency. But Christ wants SOME of us (Seventies and above) to 'cut the apron strings' (Missionaries, too), and leave home. Turn your backs on them. Leave them in the care of others. And go perform your mission. Distance. Neglect. Absence. That is hate. Anger is NOT hate. Anger is love. If you didn't love someone, you wouldn't get angry with them. You wouldn't care what they did. But you do. And when they do wrong, you get angry. Just as God and Christ do. No. Hate is the absence of all caring. Hate is distance. If you hate someone, you disengage, remove yourself from the equation, and abandon them. THAT ... is hate. If you love them, you engage, you work for their betterment, or, as the D&C puts it, "Every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God." Got it? If you don't love someone, then your reputation with the world is more important to you than their welfare. You fear man more than God. So you disengage. You say, 'Whatever'. Do as you want. I can't control you. You have your agency. Or, the worst I've ever heard, "I can't do anything about their behavior because that would infringe upon their agency." Don't you ever let yourself be guilty of that kind of hate and idolatry. IDOLATRY?! Yes! And THAT is our next word. Love I know. I know. I promised to write about idolatry, and we will get there, but I didn't really finish with the word, love, yet. After all, I did say that it would take a lot of time, which I ran out of last time. So, to review, love is not like, not even intense liking. Love is about growing, nurturing, promoting, building, expanding ... perfecting. This is what the parable of the talents is really all about. Love is a process. It's not as simple as just promoting. There are steps involved, and I detailed those: Structure, Discipline, Motivation, Love, and Charity. Notice what words are not inherently a part of that process: Nice, Pleasant, Flattering. These are not necessarily anathema to love, but they are also NOT synonymous with it, just as Paul tried to explain about charity. This is how it is possible, easy even, to do some of those seemingly impossible things that Christ requires of us, like loving our enemies. This difference between the worldly and scriptural meanings of the word were what prompted Brigham Young to explain that 'we can not love hell'. And that makes sense in both senses, doesn't it? Surely no one would 'like' hell. And, hopefully, no one wants to see hell any bigger or more powerful than it already is. So, how does one love an enemy? Well, there's a lot of scriptural and logical support for the idea that, bringing that enemy to repentance is about the best thing that can be done for them. Now, wouldn't that certainly be an act of love? Notice that Ammon went to the Nephites' sworn enemies in order to convert them. That's the example that everyone LIKES to focus on, but what about Captain Moroni? He's the one who got Mormon's greatest praise. How did he handle the Lamanites? He killed them. Was that an act of love? Look to the process! Did the prospect of death motivate the Lamanites to repentance? We see clear evidence that it did. Thus, Captain Moroni loved his enemies. Surgically. This is also how we 'love one another as Christ loved us'. Yes, that would be the same Christ who 'rebuked the evil spirit in the man', the very Christ of whom his own disciples, we are told, so often feared to ask anything, the Christ who dismissed the Canaanite women as a ... little/female dog, the same Christ who beat people, with a weapon, and destroyed their property, in full view of the public. TWICE! And they all grew through this. Peter learned to stop pandering after being rebuked by Christ. Paul learned to open his eyes to the obvious, after being blinded by Christ. Everyone learned to think for themselves after being blinded by Christ. (SORRY! I'm cheating here. I know you don't know what I'm talking about here. We'll come back to this later. But I wanted to start you thinking.) This also helps us to understand Christ's almost allergic aversion to money. When he said that the 'love' of money is the root of all evil, given what I've shown you about the meaning of love, we now can see that he's addressing not only those who want a lot of money, but, more especially those who promote money. Ever heard the phrase, 'the growth of money'? Can you say Wall Street? But what is money? NOT gold. Not necessarily, anyway. What money really is isn't even coins. You see, if we press gold into coins, all we're doing is taking something that has intrinsic value (its 'melt' value) and certifying it. And regulating weights and measures is one of the powers granted our federal government by our Constitution. No, what money really is is something which has only perceived, or 'agreed upon' value. The paper in your pocket is literally not even worth the paper it's printed on. If it weren't for our government's stability and power, that money would be good for nothing more than tinder. And that's what money really is: Fiction. Lies. Government control and power over the interactions among mankind. And that's why Christ said to let Caesar have his filthy lucre. We don't need it. We shouldn't use it. Gold is fine. Trade is fine. But even that can be monitored, metered, and taxed by government. And the whole point of Christ's admonition to love one another instead of money was all, very clearly about depriving government of its ability to divide us. After all, the defining characteristic of Zion is unity. To be of one heart, and one mind. How will we help one another get there if not by 'tough' love? After all, 'soft' love doesn't really seem to be producing any results. Or am I reading it wrong? Closing thoughts on love Christ refused to support money any more than necessary. He's made it clear that he gives Satan his due (and requires us to do the same), and money is what Satan uses, wants, but also all the reward he'll get. A mess of pottage compared with the rest of the world and all that Christ will inherit, and share with his joint heirs, his fellow children of God. Judas was all about the money. Judas (the way they pronounced the name, Judah, in Christ's time, just as Isaiah became Isaias, Elijah became Elias, etc.) was all about maximizing profit, and converting everything possible into its monetary equivalent, including Christ himself. Truly, Judas was a lover of money. Judas was not a lover of God. Christ, however, as willing, even insistent as he is to grant Satan his pittance, isn't interested in those skills. Why? Because he can get all the money Satan could ever demand of him. The very fish of the sea will cough it up for him. Christ has no need to worry about haggling over the price. Christ has no need to worry about investments, interest rates, market capitalization, hurdles, etc. What Christ wants is for us to love God, to love him. And how do we do that? We sure don't do it by loving money. We do it by obeying Christ, by loving God's other children as Christ showed us by the way he loved his disciples. And that wasn't often actually the most pleasant of experiences. He himself explained it like this (paraphrasing): If you're my children, or want to become children (because that's NOT a 'given') (you must earn it), then you'll stand there and take what the world would tell you is verbal abuse, insults, rebukes, chastisement, like the Canaanite woman you saw come to me on her daughter's behalf, like the young man I cast a legion of evil spirits out of, like Mary whom I cast 7 evil spirits out of. And notice that Mary still has to endure scorn not only from me, but even from some of you, but she takes it, she endures to the end. She's still with me today. So you'll take it and like it because you know that I'll stay there with you. I'm no hit-and-run punisher. The punishment isn't the end, it's just the means to that end. And I'll keep working on you as long as you stay with me, enduring unto that end. And you'll stay with me because you know that I'm not really scolding you anyway, but rather a spirit in you, a hitchhiker, an invader, a thief who wants your house, your temple, your body. But remember the resurrection. If that invader gets your body, and it is absolutely possible. Never think that it isn't. If he gets your body, then the resurrection will restore your spirit to its home, but your spirit will be as powerless to fight the invader then as it is now. He'll tie you up, throw you into a closet, and take your whole soul into hell with him, because that's where he's going. And God can't let him use you as a human shield to get into heaven, or there will be no heaven, so you can't get into heaven either. You'll both go to hell. And for that reason, you must always remember that, while rebukes don't particularly feel good at the time, they cast out evil spirits. Don't go with them. Stay here with me. Chastisement heals. And that's a father's true healing touch, like a sculptor creating a beautiful statue, with a lot of noise and dust, he cuts and hammers away whatever doesn't belong to that statue. A father doesn't waste that kind of time and effort on anyone but his own children because the world, moved by Satan, tries to call such good work evil. The world wants to punish such good work, the healing of the sick, the saving of the souls, the gathering of the children. The world is a tool in Satan's hand to stop love, to stop such healing, because misery loves company. The world wants everyone to be like Satan, the very opposite of all that is good. And so Satan will lead you down to hell with a satin ribbon, flattering you, speaking nicely to you, letting you off easy, never demanding anything of you, always agreeing with you, letting you fail, making excuses for you, rewarding mediocrity and even debauchery, and, above all, rallying his minions to persecute, punish, even kill anyone who tries to love correctly, anyone who works to expose his methods for the crippling and enslaving poisons they really are, anyone who shows, proves, just how effective love, true love, my love, charity, really is, the most powerful force in the universe. Thus, a father restricts himself to working on his own children, trying to grow them, to make them all they can be, cutting out the deadwood one day, watering the next. But his aim is that the tree grows, that his kingdom grows. And, if you want to grow, if you want to be a part of that kingdom, then you'll learn to accept and even appreciate the process. You'll learn to share in the vision. You'll learn to do the same thing yourself with the talents entrusted you. (By the way, a 'talent' is NOT money! A talent is a weight, a measure. Money takes that measure and certifies it, pressing the claimed weight, and value, and certifying individual's name and credentials into it.) You do, after all, have your agency. And God will force no man to heaven. You can use your agency to escape his love, so use it wisely. A FATHER ... does all this. A (true) CHILD ... accepts all this, grows from it, and learns to do the same. And charity is the pure love of Christ. And this is why ... Charity begins at home. It's time it was answered. Look up magnetism almost anywhere. Wikipedia will do. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism) You could spend hours, maybe days reading all this, and all the related articles, too, and you'd still lack the single most important thing about magnetism, the one thing never explicitly declared anywhere: No one knows what it is. Oh, sure, it's a force, but what's that? No one knows. It is known, for example, that an electric current can create a magnetic field, but no one can precisely, and convincingly, explain just how the one results in the other, only that it does. (Although, I suspect that someone somewhere in the bowels of our network of national labs understands this far better than can be gleaned from any publicly accessible textbook today.) (And I strongly suspect this has to do with the rashly dismissed theory of spiri... I mean aether, but that's a topic for another day.) (But they're not allowed to tell anyone. Just look what happened to Anthony Perratt.) And magnetism isn't the only thing that science, so-called, still fails to accurately define. Describe, yes, define, no. Gravity, electricity, and light are also all still well beyond the best scientific minds. (Even the Rutheford model of the atom is now being scrutinized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model) Not that this stops (far too) many of them from asserting, very convincingly, I might add, exactly what each of these is, always cleverly omitting the all-important qualifier, "according to theory", or, in other words, "we think", not "we know". (A lesson many who bear testimonies might bear in mind.) So, if generations of our best scientists, splashing about in swimming-pools of mandatory tax-payer largesse can't figure out magnetism, then it shouldn't be too radical a conclusion that generations of lay ministers can't quite nail down love, and, since God is love, God himself. So, as with magnetism, we're working at the disadvantage of a clear definition. Unlike magnetism, the definition has been under our noses all along. The real problem has been with pride, honesty, a willingness to accept truth as it is, a desire, as the prophet wrote, to shut the mouths of the prophets, to soften the tone, soothe the nerves, flatter the ego, absolve one's self by absolving others. So, I could just tell you, but, as I've said (or written) before, as with first principles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle), our language requires us to laboriously lay the groundwork of such fundamentals lest they be too easily confused and/or dismissed. And this is too far important for that because it lies at the core of many other concepts in scripture, such as Christ's claim than the love of money is the root of all evil, and that the rich hate the poor because of their money. We'll eventually have to cover the meanings of the words evil, root, money, and hate, as well as the need to so carefully catalog all of this information, but today we're focusing on love. As I've also written before, when you can structure a concept, such as Mendeleev did with his Periodic Table of the Elements, then you know that you've got it right even if, as with Mendeleev's original table, you don't have it all. You can formulate it, structure it, identify the hits and the misses. It will make sense. This is why humans are natural table-makers and interpreters. So here's the table: Structure = having a plan Discipline = sticking to the plan Motivation = a reason to stick to the plan Love = giving someone a reason to stick to the plan Charity = giving someone the best reasons to stick to the best plan, the plan of salvation By the way, this isn't the only table that will help you with gospel principles. We could also arrange the terms Faith, Hope, and Charity into tabular form that would quite suddenly (for many, I'm sure) clarify their relationship to the also oft-repeated Faith, Repentance, and Baptism. And the relationship becomes one of columns vs. rows, placing martyrdom in a rather uncomfortable position, which, for me, at least, only further cements Joseph's importance, and Christ's authority. But more on that another day. Just know that structuring and tabulating words and concepts can be sheer revelatory. You should look for it everywhere in scripture. So, coming back to our table defining ... Love? No. Not quite. This defines love in much the same way as a thesaurus does. This table actually defines God, but we'll come back to that. Anyway, this table immediately makes a few things clear. First is that love is just a part of, a higher level step in, a much larger process, a process designed to achieve a goal, a goal which Paul laboriously attempted to clarify for us. Second is that many, in fact almost all of the things we've long heard associated with love, or, indeed, proclaimed to be the very definition of love, are nowhere to be found. Just look for any of the words/concepts you've always been taught either are love, or are at least suggestive of love: Tenderness, kindness, politeness, softness, tolerance, sweetness, sensitivity, ... Finally, many of these words will be familiar to you, but you will have almost certainly heard them all misapplied, too. The word, love, is not the only one. You will certainly have heard someone say that structure is needed when, given this table, what they clearly meant was that motivation was needed. And you will also certainly have heard someone diagnose a need for motivation when they more correctly should have suggested love. Finally, Paul's description of charity becomes clearer, too. Recall that he defined charity as the opposite of what we so often hear charity described as today. And why is this? For the very reasons we're defining love here, now: no one really knows any more. If people really loved children as much as they claim to, they wouldn't try so hard to turn them into adults, but they do, and for good reason: Becoming an adult is growth, and we grow our children. To do anything less is neglect, abandonment, hate. (You've gotta be cruel to be kind.) Now, you will find just a few places in scripture where the word, love, is not used in this context. This has to do with translation, and with the specific languages' word-treasury. And by that, I mean that, English, for instance, provides us with multiple words for a covering over our heads: Canopy, ceiling, roof, sky, stars, ... heaven. This alone causes us considerable confusion. Imagine what struggles the Greeks suffered, sometimes also using multiple words for essentially the same thing, and sometimes, just as in English, stretching a single word over multiple, usually related, but sometimes even opposite meanings. I'm sure you've heard of the Eskimos' many words for snow (https://www.princeton.edu/~browning/snow.html), but do you recall when the adjective, bad, became good in the 1980s. But, for the most part, and especially when used by Christ and the Book of Mormon, we can count on this word, love, to essentially mean to grow, to nurture, to develop, like a father training his sons, a farmer growing his crops, or a prophet enlightening his people. But this is done for a couple of deliberate and premeditated reasons, neither of which have anything at all to do with knowledge, inquisitiveness, or even science, but rather with winning your confidence (as in con-artist and con-game), and both of which come down to the twin devils of money and power, because, after all, especially in this era of the fire-hose of government funding, science and scientists rise and fall on their ability to persuade you and/or your government representatives to fund them. It's no longer like the days of ... well ... now that I think of it, we haven't really seen a time where academia wasn't wholly dependent on, and perpetually pandering to, government, be it democracy or monarchy, for its support since Nimrod seized the temples, turned out the original (although arguably already corrupt) priests, and replaced them with his own cadre of professional (where we get the word professor from, by the way) shamans, inventing our modern university system. (So called because one studies the universe there.) (Because that's what all real religion is.) (Don't believe me? Look it up! All ancient temples were astronomy laboratories. Even Hugh Nibley taught that the temple was a model of the cosmos. But why?) What once was taught only the most worthy was now available to anyone, so long as they paid the price of admission. |