Some strange thing?

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (New Testament Matthew 1:21)

If this is what salvation means, why do so many “saints”¹ feel that one of God’s priorities should be to save them from traumas and heartache? And that it is “some strange thing” that good people² should suffer; or that fervent, worthy petitions should go unanswered; or that misfortune is not always divine punishment?

How often do we lose our way because we misread the meaning of salvation; because we hear of and expect promises and blessings that do not materialize for us; because we forget Job and the myriad other stories of servants,³ saints, sages, and a perfect Savior,⁴ who left this existence without having received the promises⁵; because we fail to remember that life is about enlightenment and transformation which does not come in the status quo:

Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: (New Testament 1 Peter 4:12)

What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him? And that thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment? (Old Testament Job 7:17-18)

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, … (Old Testament Jeremiah 17:10)

And I … will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: (Old Testament Zechariah 13:9)

Behold, … I will try the faith of my people. (Book of Mormon 3 Nephi 26:11)

… God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart. (Old Testament 2 Chronicles 32:31)

For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith. … Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy. (Doctrine and Covenants 98:12, 14)

And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. (Pearl of Great Price Abraham 3:25-26)

Is it worth it? All this enduring? All this confusion? All this heartache and disappointment? I can only say: If there were any better way, I think God would have surely thought of it. (Though sometimes, in the haze of it all, I forget—and so, I write to remember.)

-----/
1. i.e., those (of every faith) who strive to do and be good and who acknowledge and repent when they fail.
2. and those who seeketh so to [be] (Doctrine and Covenants 46:9)
3. “Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.” (New Testament James 5:10)
4. “And he [the Son of God] shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.” (Book of Mormon Alma 7:11)
5. “These [Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc.] all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” (New Testament Hebrews 11:13, see also 39)

The Language of Prayer

If we are going to make a choice in prayer language between “you” and “your” as some advocate and “thee” and “thou” as some instruct, perhaps we should be aware of some background. From my analysis, both the advocates and the instructors are, too often, in error when promoting their position, and thus I resurrect, in part, an old letter to an editor.

Dear Editors:

After reading “The Grammar of Inequity” by [LFA] and now two letters in response, I feel compelled at last to comment.

In considering the language of prayer, LFA acknowledges that the singular pronouns “thou” and “thee” were the intimate pronouns of seventeenth-century England; that “ye” and “you” were the formal, polite, proper, courteous plurals; and that “the attachment of any special reverence of respect to ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ is based on historical ignorance, a reading backward into perfectly ordinary grammatical construction of a magical meaning.” But then, despite this “historical ignorance,” LFA persists in ascribing the word formal to “thee” and “thou.”

Granted, many define these old, singular pronouns as formal, exalted, and special, because they are now used almost exclusively in addressing Deity, but they are, in reality, intimate forms that have become uncommon in modern English—abandoned in favor of the formal, polite “you.”

In LFA’s own quoted reference (in footnote), we read, “A grammatical innovation, of somewhat questionable value … is the polite substitution of the plural for the singular in the second person. … Our language has thus lost whatever advantage it had gained by having a polite as well as a familiar form of address, and unfortunately the form that has survived is ambiguous. … The English language is, in respect of clearness, decidedly the worse for the change …”

So, the surviving, ambiguous form is “you”—ambiguous, because, in assuming the several functions of singular/intimate and plural/polite, “you” has become incapable of referencing any of them—intimacy, formality, politeness, or number.

Thus, modern English is truly lacking. Our intimate form is unfamiliar to us and our common form is ambiguous. Yet, it is this ambiguous form that LFA recommends for seeking intimacy. LFA write, “I suggest that we start praying privately in our own normal speech, using ‘you’ and ‘your.’ It will make these prayers more intimate, more natural, and more loving.”

If there is logic in this conclusion, I do not follow it. How can a pronoun of ambiguous usage be more intimate or loving? It would seem rather that in ambiguity and universality, “you” has lost all value save as a verbal pointer, while “thee” and “thou” yet retain strong underpinnings of original intimacy. It is still possible (though unusual) to use “thee” in speaking to a friend, but to use thee with a stranger or foe would be unthinkable.

If we are to achieve a true understanding of modern pronoun usage, we have to be consistent and accurate when discussing origins, meanings, and ascriptions. Intimate words do not become formal words by confining them to a narrower range of original, intimate usage; nor does a formal, polite word become intimate by expanding its usage beyond formal, polite reference.

I do not deny that the narrowed application of words can make their use less natural and comfortable. It was partly for this that I continued to pray in my mission language (Italian) for a long time, because it offered me what English did not. When I address God, it is with strivings toward intimacy—often in the agony of not understanding the course and pain of things. Thee and thou were the most intimate pronouns I had until the Italian ti and tu introduced me to a deeper intimacy. I soon realized that “ti ringrazio,” “ti prego,” “t’amo” had no adequate English rendition. The English translations: “I thank thee,” “I ask thee,” “I love thee” do not convey for me the intimacy of the Italian forms: first, because “ti” has a contemporary usage which “thee” has lost; and second, because the English pronoun “I” precedes and interferes. In Italian (and some other languages), the verb indentifies me in its conjugation placing the one I address foremost. With another’s attention immediately called upon, communication is most personal and compelling.

English, however, is the mother tongue of many and if some, like LFA, cannot find intimacy in the narrowed usage of thee and thou, perhaps alternate usage is a matter left to them and God, though let us not confuse matters further by accusing the Church of inconsistency when the intimate thee and thou and possessives thy and thine are the preferred, counseled forms, whatever (erroneous) attributions some make of formal or special prayer language. Thee and thou were never formal pronouns and should we review Church translation work, we would find the corresponding, intimate, second person singular in place of thee and thou every time.

LFA is not alone in confusing thee and thou as formal and you as intimate. So did those who wrote letters in response. Such erroneous re-definings cannot achieve a trusted conclusion because the problem is not that you has become intimate (which by its history and present universality it cannot become), but that we have removed from common usage the only intimate pronouns we ever had.

It may not be easy to learn uncommon forms, but millions do it—mastering their own and new languages and seemingly endless verbal conjugations. Communication takes effort. It is to use words and meanings that the one addressed understands—not the ones we insist they understand. And though God understands all language, perhaps there is preference for the intimate forms, despite their lack of modern use.
SMS

The Shock of Contrast!

~~~
Shock: 1) extreme surprise; 2) sudden overwhelming dismay or outrage …

Shocking things seem the norm in these days of “reality” TV, bombastic talk-hosts, up-the-anti newscasts, and political Humpties.^[1] But with repetitious exposure, like the torture scenes from Iraq, the shock wears off as pundits assuage conscience and justify cause. Thus we “progress” from shock to benign acceptance to titillating entertainment.^[2]

One wonders if this happened to Isaiah (700s BC) walking naked and barefoot for three years as a symbol and warning to those who looked to Egypt and Ethiopia for security (Old Testament Isaiah 20)? Or to Hosea (also 700s BC) who took an infamous harlot to wife whose subsequent conceptions were the blatant children of whoredoms (Old Testament Hosea 1:2; 2:4). Both prophets acting under specific instruction from God!

But in our day, without the daily visual—with only the written account—we remain too shocked to read with comprehension the word of the LORD to Isaiah, saying:

Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. And they [the misguided people] shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory (Old Testament Isaiah 20:2-5).

We cannot abide even the literary shock of a naked prophet. We prefer to remove only his “upper garment, like a slave or exile” (KJV: LDS footnote at 20:2a). Or more conservative yet, we confine our vision to the removal of “his upper garment …, and to have nothing on but his tunic (cetoneth);” which was “opposed to common custom” (Old Testament Student Manual, Vol. 2: 157).^[3]

But that is not what is written in Holy Scripture. There the shock of contrast is too great. We skip loins and buttocks as if God were above such prophetic imagery. Whether Isaiah was fully naked or more likely draped with a meager loin cloth that exposed his buttocks^[4]—we are not prepared for either scene, and thus miss the shocking vision and transformative power of both his prophecy and his symbolic truth.

Hosea does not fare much better—nor have the depth charges of the symbolic and parabolic that have been stripped from our “sophisticated” culture and consciousness. We seem to have lost, not only the ability to read between the lines, we can’t even read the lines themselves.

Makes one wonder (with all our latter-day excesses and distractions), if there might not be other shocks of contrast in the wings!

-----------/
[1] Unfortunately, too few were Humpty Dumpties as was proven in the latest election. “All the king’s horses and all the king’s men” seem to have retired in favor of all the king’s money.
[2] Just ask Jack Bauer devotees.
[3] See (14-32) at http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ot-in-2/manualindex.asp reproduced here:
(14-32) Isaiah 20:2. What Was Meant by Isaiah Walking “Naked and Barefoot”?
“With the great importance attached to the clothing in the East, where the feelings upon this point are peculiarly sensitive and modest, a person was looked upon as stripped and naked if he had only taken off his upper garment. What Isaiah was directed to do, therefore, was simply opposed to common custom, and not to moral decency. He was to lay aside the dress of a mourner and preacher of repentance, and to have nothing on but his tunic (cetoneth); and in this, as well as barefooted, he was to show himself in public.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 7:1:372.)” [Relevant questions: Were sensitivity and modesty the norm imposed on slaves and exiles whom Isaiah was symbolizing? And can we ever, with our limited vision, impose our “moral decency” upon the God of Abraham (who was commanded to sacrifice his son); or upon the God of Hosea; or the God of Nephi¹ (who slew Laban); or the God of Moses/Joshua/David/Elijah/Elisha, and so forth (and their participation in the deaths of countless numbers)? The shock of contrast and contradiction keeps us, too often, from reading, let alone acknowledging, what is written. Or admitting that we shall never understand God with the rational mind alone.]
[4] –the common lot of many slaves—

What are we attracting?

Our present world seems consumed with theories of attracting (accumulating?) wealth, fame, power, prestige, etc., etc.,—in short, the things of this world. Are these things not the substance of LoA^[1] pitches and promotions? Finding favor with the Universe? Tuning in to energies that will materialize our material desires—grant our wills and wishes? But do we ever ask what the Divine Mentor attracted? What His Will and Desire was?

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you (New Testament John 15:18-19).

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work (New Testament John 4:34).

Consider also the words of Isha Schwaller de Lubicz:

Many are those who project their imaginings outside themselves and create gods “in their own image and likeness.” The powers they would adore are those that can grant them all the boons they yearn for in this world and the next. They are answered by Christ’s word: “Ye know not what ye ask” (Mark 10:38).

Their wish is for an idol to protect and favor them, or else for a divine being who can be loved possessively. But paradises, like gods, are made by men according to their desires, and their misfortune will be that they will often find what they have imagined. But what we can imagine is no part of the inexpressible Divine.

An omnipotent desire is one which animates the very cells of your being and makes you able to seize and grasp the object of your affinity. Such a desire has magic power, and, like the sorcerer’s apprentice, man uses it imprudently. For the god, or power, which answers him is of the same nature as his desire. The money-grubber invokes the powers of money, the social climber the powers of the social order, and the thinker invokes intellectual powers. Thus the seeker is ruled and restricted by his affinity. This is his hell, or purgatory, in which he is already confined in this present life.

As for the so-called “spiritual desires,” the potency of “the Desire” must not be confused with these anemic wishes for spirituality, or emotional longings toward some God or other who is expected to reciprocate, to show good intentions, and to provide all the scenic effects which lull the pious into an illusion of beatitude.

… When the illusory vanishes, reality appears. The necessary experience is to recognize the real in the midst of the world of illusion.

To do this I must clear my own ground, eliminate all that is not my true self, and create in myself the milieu which can attract the Spirit …^[2]

--------------/
[1] Law of Attraction
[2] The Opening of the Way: A Practical Guide to the Wisdom of Ancient Egypt by Isha Schwaller de Lubicz (Trans. from the French by Rupert Gleadow), © 1981, Inner Traditions International, New York, p. 78.

Lesson from an Old Prophet*

(*with an assist from the JST)

In the Old Testament (I Kings 13) we have a somewhat disturbing story of a man of God who under strict instructions delivers a dire warning to Jeroboam, king of Israel. After a furious, then humbling and miraculous encounter, the king mellows and invites the man of God home (to the palace?) for refreshment and a reward.

The man of God replies:

If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place: For so was it charged me by the word of the LORD, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest. So he went another way, and returned not by the way that he came to Beth-el (1 Kings 13:8-10).

Shortly thereafter, upon hearing the dramatic events related by his sons, “an old prophet in Beth-el” rides off after the man of God and extends another invitation to return to Beth-el and eat bread. The man of God again refuses, repeating the strict instructions of his errand. Whereupon the old prophet says (as corrected in the Joseph Smith Translation):

I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water, [that I may prove him; and he lied not] unto him. So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water. And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back: And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee, But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the LORD did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers (JST: 1 Kings 13:18-22, JST correction in bold).

What is the lesson? What is the warning? Here, an old prophet counsels a younger one to disregard a personal directive from God and follow his [the older prophet’s] contrary counsel. Joseph Smith tells us that the contrary counsel was to prove the man of God. If we read the rest of the story, we see how dire the consequences were.

So what is the lesson? Perhaps it is this: that personal directives from God—including personal directives of the Holy Spirit— are NEVER to be over-ridden—not by a spouse, not by a good friend, not by a bishop, not by a stake president, not even by an apostle or prophet.

And might not a corollary of this be: that we never act upon anyone’s word (or inspiration), no matter who they are or what position they hold, unless we have our own personal confirming witness?

Have we not been warned about trusting in the arm of flesh? And been advised that the wise are those who “have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived” (D&C 45:57)?

Consider these:

Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house. Therefore I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me (Old Testament Micah 7:5-7).

O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm (Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 4:34).

The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world (Doctrine and Covenants Section 1:19-20);

Again, a quote from George Q. Cannon^[1]:

It is indeed our right and privilege to have the companionship of the Holy Spirit of the Lord, and we need it.

Even children may have it if they will, and need not be left to walk alone on earth. Every woman should win and keep it for herself, and never try to walk by another's light. If she puts her whole trust in another, even if he be her husband and a good man, he will surely some time fail her. Let her learn to stand alone so far as human aid is concerned, depending only on God and the Holy Ghost.

Do not, brethren [and sisters], put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him.

Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men.

Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and His unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand to redeem Israel, and prepare a people for His coming.

If any present have it not, let me advise you to begin seeking for it this very night. Pray, fast, study, and open the doors of your hearts that wisdom may enter; and you shall know when you have received the Holy Ghost by a great increase of faith, courage, strength, understanding, and all good gifts. This is indeed a precious gift, the source and fountain of all other gifts. Ask for it, therefore, until you receive it, because we should have it.^[2]

In short, even this blogger’s thoughts and questions should not be blindly accepted or rejected. I raise these matters because it seems in these latter-days that we too often neglect (maybe are even counseled at times to disregard) the Holy Spirit as our guide in favor of the easier path of trusting and following leaders and pundits without sufficient thought, assessment, and confirmation.

-----------------/
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Q._Cannon
[2] “Need for Personal Testimonies” discourse delivered by President George Q. Cannon, in Manti, Sanpete County, on the Evening of Feb. 15, 1891. Reported by L. L. Dalton. (Collected Discourses, 1886-1898, Vol. 2; Brian H. Stuy, ed.; see also Millennial Star, 53:674.

PEF or PIF?

Some years ago at a BYU alumni leadership meeting, Elder JKC spoke about the Perpetual Education Fund (PEF) initiated in April 2001. He said, in essence, “I will not tell you the amount of the fund, but church members have been exceedingly generous and the fund is very, very, very substantial.” Then he explained that all PEF donations were invested and that only the interest earned was used for educational loans.^[1]

I was somewhat amazed to hear that this enormous fund was locked away to earn interest when the immediate need for educational opportunity was so enormous—not only in “3rd world” and developing nations, but even in industrial and advanced ones where there are poor and needy in every town, city, and rural community. I could not understand this investment in banks (etc.) rather than immediate investment in people’s educational needs and dreams. It reminded me of several years ago when many, many Wards also invested their local budget monies in banks instead of adequately funding their programs. When the authorities announced a centralization of finance, where all funds were to be turned to the Church (for centralized reallocation), many wards went on buying sprees (often for scouting equipment) to use up their excess surpluses before centralization deprived them of their investments.

In 2010, with many members unaware of the “investment” strategy of their PEF contributions, the ENSIGN announced the success of the fund for “38,000 participants in 42 countries.”^[2] In nine years, that amounts to about 4,200 educational assists per year—a huge blessing, of course, for those assisted—BUT how much more could have been done with this enormous fund? How many languish without hope when the huge fund is administered sparingly (when compared to its size) by a few, including volunteers?

What could Greg Mortenson^[3] have accomplished with PEF monies? How many children, adults, and communities have been blessed by the initiative of one man, his supporters, and his local recruits?

Why can’t we trust the members to continually replenish the PEF? Aren’t they doing so? This is not a frozen fund, so WHY do we resort to business school strategies of BIG finance? Why do we trust in the vagaries, excesses, and volatility of financial markets? How much did PEF lose in the downturn? Why do we read the parable of the talents as if it were a treatise on increasing the money supply? Why do we pretend that the Perpetual Education Fund is like the Perpetual Emigrating Fund, when in size and administration it is not?^[4] Why is there so little transparency? Why, if education is so important, do we not seek out every possible educational need (regardless of age) and invest more in people than in financial instruments? Why do we, in déjà vu of other times, places, and peoples seem so easily distracted by the business of business and the promise of profits? Is our capital fund the priority or our brothers and sisters?

Why do I raise these questions? Because even the wisest of the wise, as in King Solomon, could not maintain his balance and divine perspective when surrounded by wealth and power! Are we any different? Or do we need persistent Socratic questioners of every stripe who annoy, and perhaps even infuriate and displease, those who walk in the corridors of power and wealth? Jesus himself was one of those “offenders.” Just take a look at the number of ?-marks amongst his words. Perhaps He would have us all asked a few more questions.

In the words of Brother Brigham and Brother George Q. Cannon:

Brigham Young: Some may say, Brethren, you who lead the Church, we have all confidence in you, we are not in the least afraid but what everything will go right under your superintendence; all the business matters will be transacted right; and if brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am. I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are, this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord. ¶ Every man and woman in this kingdom ought to be satisfied with what we do, but they never should be satisfied without asking the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, whether what we do is right. (Brigham Young, October 6, 1855, Journal of Discourses, 3:45)

George Q. Cannon: Do not brethren [and sisters], put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support is gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him, and not in any man or men. (George Q. Cannon, Millennial Star, 53:674)

--------------------/
[1] See “The Perpetual Education Fund: A Bright Ray of Hope” by Elder John K. Carmack, Ensign, Jan 2004, p. 37+ which confirms this at: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=d20774536cf0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
[2] Perpetual Education Fund Thriving Nine Years Later, Ensign, February 2010 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=f2e8b3d7e4b66210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortenson (May 10, 2011: Recent news has clouded his reputation. What have been his accomplishments is still uncertain.)
[4] As a revolving fund, emigrating loans were made out of donations, not the interest on donations. “How shall I Gather?” by William G. Hartley, Ensign, Oct. 1997
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=53be57b60090c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD . See also “They Came by Handcart” by Paul H. Peterson, Ensign, August 1997 (at subheading: Gathering to Zion) http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=86ec57b60090c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Skimmed Milk?

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:9-10)

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14)^[1]

In these statements, prophets of old speak of progressing from milk to meat. In these latter days, are we progressing? Sometimes, I wonder if we’re not regressing—preferring skimmed milk in order to rationalize more enthralling things. Does God not warn us in Jeremiah that He will even allow false prophets and priests if that is what we love to have^[2]—in déjà vu of other times and peoples?

But what is the meat and where is it to be found?

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (New Testament John 4:34)

President David O. Mackay said:

I think we pay too little attention to the value of meditation, a principle of devotion. In our worship there are two elements: One is spiritual communion arising from our own meditation; the other, instruction from others, particularly from those who have authority to guide and instruct us. Of the two, the more profitable introspectively is meditation. Meditation is the language of the soul. It is defined as "a form of private devotion or spiritual exercise, consisting in deep, continued reflection on some religious theme [or truth]. … Meditation is one of the most secret, most sacred doors through which we pass into the presence of the Lord. Jesus set the example for us.^[3]

The example? He sought solitude; He sought it in nature; He allowed for extensive periods of time.^[4] Others too^[5], when given to pondering, mediation, and contemplation have seen beyond the veil into the meat and mysteries of God. Are not the mysteries clearly sanctioned by the counsel of Jesus himself and many others?^[6] Or have we been instructed in more recent times to be afraid of the mysteries? Or have we become too preoccupied? Or is it just easier to endure repetitive translations of “milk” rather than the meditation and meat of transformation.

In our consuming labors for money, security, fame, power, possessions, homes, amenities, entertainments, etc.^[7]—and even in our commitments to family, community, and church service—where is the time and solitude for contemplation, pondering, mediation?^[8] Where is the emphasis? When was the last time we heard a sermon or lesson devoted to this “most secret, most sacred door”? And where are the peaceful, quiet, undisturbed places for extended solitude?^[9]

Isha Schwaller de Lubicz, in The Opening of the Way, sums up our modern world (and our propensity for skimmed milk):

Nerves trained to excitement feel an unhealthy craving for it, and when the life of brain and senses has been accustomed to be fed continually from without by an unending flow of secondhand thoughts and images, of catchy tunes and twitching rhythms, it calls for these things because they render individual effort superfluous, and shake to pieces any notion of values. That is our modern world, dancing the infernal roundelay of haste, ever more deeply involved in the quest for variety and novelty.
A mind trained to these frantic gymnastics will clearly show two characteristics: It will be insatiable, always preferring quantity to quality, and it will suffer from the need for speed. …
But the worst effect of all these new impulses has been the nervous imbalance which cannot tolerate silence or inactivity—these two pillars of meditation, without which one can have no true intuition or spiritual experience [emphasis mine].^[10]

If the arm of flesh cannot be trusted,^[11] and if milk is not the be-all-and-end-all, then our progression and security reside in 1) cultivating individual recognition of and obedience to the spirit of God; and 2) personally seeking the meat and mysteries of God, ever keeping in mind:

... there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God; Therefore let the church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation; Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also. (Doctrine and Covenants Section 20:32-34)

----------------------/
[1] See also: New Testament 1 Corinthians 3:1-3: AND I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
[2] Old Testament Jeremiah 5:31 - The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?; Jeremiah 6:13 - For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.; Jeremiah 2:8 The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.; See also Isaiah 30:10; Jeremiah 23:16 and many other references against trusting blindly in the arm of flesh, even prophetic flesh, for the counsel is: Doctrine and Covenants Section 46:7-8 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils. Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;
[3] David O. McKay, Man May Know for Himself: Teachings of President David O. McKay, compiled by Clare Middlemiss, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1967, 22-23.
[4] For example: Matthew 4; Matthew 14:23. And yes, he might have sought it in the temple, too, had the House of God not been corrupted. However, it cannot be known, in His day, if the requisite solitude and privacy would have been available to one who was not in the hierarchy.
[5] See the search results for the following words (and their derivations): ponder, meditation, contemplation in a scripture concordance or computer search.
[6] The words (mystery and mysteries) are worth reviewing in their 75 scriptural references!
[7] Is the perfect contrast between laboring for Zion and laboring for Babylon to be seen in the environs of the Daper Utah temple?
[8] Some may find sufficient privacy and solitude for meditation in LDS temples, but the experience of others is to feel too conspicuous, too intruded upon, too constrained in their emotional needs, and too misjudged, as was Hannah, mother of Samuel (see 1 Samuel 1:12-16).
[9] Do we imagine that fifteen minutes, once a week, during the sacrament service—if we can manage even that—is enough? And how do we properly divide our attention while in temple sessions between our personal mediations and our proxy work? Isn’t that a large measure of Babylon‘s ploy—to distract and divide our attention from the thing to which we should be paying most attention?
[10] Isha Schwaller de Lubicz in The Opening of the Way: A Practical Guide to the Wisdom of Ancient Egypt © 1979. (Translation 1981, Inner Traditions International Ltd. New York, NY., pp. 1-2)
[11] Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 4:34 - O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.; Doctrine and Covenants Section 1:19-20 - The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;