Pressure Points

(To the man with the trembling voice; et al)

WHAT IF:

▫ you were invited into a quorum?
▫ you were a soul of sensitivity and insight?
▫ your first press-court felt contrary to your nature; scripted by expectation and briefing?
▫ you became enmeshed in conformism and unrelenting contradiction?
▫ you felt compelled against conscience and agency?
▫ you were elevated to staunch your questions?
▫ obligatory loyalty sapped your soul?
▫ perks seemed unseemly?
▫ you could not speak of what you saw, felt, heard?
▫ you yearned to escape but had no precedent, no courage, no adequate “sin,” no place to go?

Has the agony surpassed the ecstasy?
How long the days, nights, years of weeping and wandering?
Can the inner man became more precious than the outer?
What might one finally do with the dissonance to save oneself, et al.?

------------/
See also: http://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2009/07/to-loyalists-everywhere.html

Déjà Vu of the Ages?

~As I see it~
Witnessing the increasingly extreme disparity between rich and poor and the pervasive tyranny of money in these latter days, one is reminded how omnipresent the “natural man”¹ remains—unable, in millennia of “spiritual” evolution, to control his instincts of oppression, excess, and celebrity—the sad tale of every age. An even sadder tale is how susceptible we so-called “believers” are to the persuasions of mammon—to selling our souls for a mess of pottage. Just look at our malls and mansions. Our storage- and tax-shelters. Our celebrities and seekers. Our investments and speculations. Our distractions and laissez-faire dogmas. (Dogmas that counter almost every essential tenet of every faith.)

WHY are we so enamored by the rich and famous? WHY so desirous to become (or be friends of) the rich and famous? If we believe in God’s word, why do we seem so focused on “deserved”² prosperity and so discounting of admonitions to meekness, justice, and moderation? So willfully blind to forewarnings?

Here again, are two from two millennia ago;

And again I [Jesus] say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (New Testament | Matthew 19:24)

Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and killed the just; … (New Testament | James 5:2-6)

Too many of us seem to have fallen into a “mine”-field (“It’s all mine and I deserve it;” or “It’s all theirs and they deserve it.”) that will inevitably maim us unless we awaken from the grip and rapture of Babylon and all her pretensions.

----------------/
1. For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 3:19)
2. What is so “deserved” or earned about usury and dividends? Might this fit within “Moral Hazard”? Just asking!

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.