Good morning! How is everyone? How was Thanksgiving? I see attendance is light, we must still have many who are traveling or recovering from the proverbial "Fat and Happies."

Hey, Tom, did you want to say something? Oh, very interesting. Your sister-in-law confided in you that she was feeling confined by the one-size-fits-all mold of the church.

How did you respond to that? You just asked her if she thought that is what Jesus Christ would do.

That's pretty good, what did she say? She didn't think Jesus would do that, but she would have to think about it more deeply. I think you done good, man.

Today's lesson is kind of an odd lesson to tackle, but let's give it a shot. The lesson is on taking upon you the whole armor of God. There are many things in life that can cause us problems. The attempt of this lesson is to help us understand how to protect ourselves against these negative influences. The approach to this in the manual is somewhat problematic to me, but we can try to discuss some of the issues in the manual and perhaps some of the real issues. Perhaps we can discuss the various points of view and make clear that what is a real issue for one person may not be an issue at all for another person. There is not a valid one-size-fits-all mold for all members of the church.

Here on our white board is a diagram from the manual which shows a person, to the best of my artistic ability. Paula, perhaps next time, we could have you do a rendition. I have found your paintings to be very inspirational.

Yes, Sam. You particularly like the nudes in oil that Paula has done..., well, okay. I can understand that (cough).

Anyways, the arrows pointing into the lovely stick figure represent the "fiery darts of the wicked," as found in Ephesians 6:16.

I think it is very clear that we have trials in our lives that we can sometimes prepare for and prevent from being problems to us. As I mentioned previously, I have found that the approach in the manual is somewhat problematic for me, but let's give it a try anyways. How do we take on the whole armor of God in a way that is useful to us?

Yes, Jessica. There are several scriptures which point to Satan and his minions being in battle with us on earth today. A short, but representative scripture is D&C 76:29.

Wherefore, he maketh war with the saints of God, and encompasseth them round about.

We could get into a deep conversation about Satan, but let's shelve that for now. When we talk of that armor of God, what does that really mean? Is that our garments, you know, kind of like Kevlar, bullet-proof and fire-proof?

Yes, Fred. You are correct. In D&C 27:15-18, there is a discussion of this concept.

15 Wherefore, lift up your hearts and rejoice, and gird up your loins, and take upon you my whole armor, that ye may be able to withstand the evil day, having done all, that ye may be able to stand.

16 Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, which I have sent mine angels to commit unto you;

17 Taking the shield of faith wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked;

18 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of my Spirit, which I will pour out upon you, and my word which I reveal unto you, and be agreed as touching all things whatsoever ye ask of me, and be faithful until I come, and ye shall be caught up, that where I am ye shall be also. Amen.

This scripture is obviously metaphorical, but many of the potential interpretations are probably more literal than metaphorical. Let's hit on the key things. First let's talk about loins.

Yes, Sally. You like loins? Well thanks for sharing that. Okay, so you think that girting your loins with truth means seeking after truth, complete truth and not partial truth. I like that. Your paraphrasing Todd Compton is important as well, "An authentic testimony can only be built upon authentic truth." We need to seek for truth, including seeking beyond the correlated, sanitized, white-washed material found in the church manuals.

Okay. That is a very good brief summary. Next point, what about the breastplate of righteousness?

Yes, Brent. You feel that the breastplate of righteousness is in adopting the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we adopt this, we will be encompassing the great commandments given by Christ as well as the core teachings given by nearly all great spiritual traditions.

Thank you, I like that summary as well. How about the feet being shod thing?

Yes, Anna. Your Dad was a part-time farrier? That's kind of cool, how does it relate to shodding your feet with the preparation of the gospel peace? That's kind of a vague concept. So horses are shod when they are subject to extreme conditions like asphalt roads, very rocky conditions, or lots of hard riding. That helps to protect the hooves from excessive wear and damage. So metaphorically, you think that being shod means being at peace with yourself in the world around you so that you can deal effectively with the rough spots in life that inevitably affect all of us.

Thanks for your insights Anna. Next let's move onto the shield of faith.

Yes, Penny. Very interesting. You think that this concept of a shield of faith is often used as an excuse for not accepting reality. Okay, but how could it be useful? Is there an interpretation that may make this useful? You are suggesting that many people view the world from a negative perspective, or glass half-empty viewpoint and that is not having faith in the best of man and nature. Others view life from a glass half-full viewpoint, and that is having faith in the best of man and nature.

I think your thoughts here may have some merit. A person can go through life with a negative viewpoint or a positive viewpoint. In your mind, one interpretation of the shield of faith is the viewpoint that people have on life. I can accept that as valid. What about the helmet of salvation. That seems a little odd to me. Any takers on this concept?

Tom, how about you? No?

What about you Liz? No?

Okay, let me propose a thought, and this is nothing more than a thought. A helmet is used to protect our heads from being damaged and potentially to protect us from being killed. Perhaps in the metaphorical sense, this is to protect us from despair. Often people feel despair when they think of the possibility of this life being a finite existence. Salvation can give us hope of continuity. It also seems to make sense. We see someone who is alive, full of ideas, communicative, active. When they die, something is gone. What is it that is gone and where did it go? This is difficult to grasp. The current explanations from science leave many of us feeling empty. The helmet of salvation may very well be a personal belief or mythology of what happens after death? Do we go to heaven? Are we reincarnated? Some early church leaders believed in reincarnation. What happens? This idea of an afterlife or continuity of spirit can very well be that helmet of salvation that gives us hope and prevents despair on a very personal level. This helmet is the personal belief or mythology that makes sense to us and gives us hope. How's that for a corny interpretation?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Quit making fun of me Sally. I wouldn't make fun of you, except..., well you are right, I deserve it. I'll go stand in a corner.... Okay, lastly the sword of God's spirit, what about that?

Yes, Helen. So the sword is a phallic symbol from the angel that threatened to kill Joseph if he didn't take plural wives who were young teenagers or who were already married? Uhhhh..., any other thoughts? Okay, I like that. The sword can help us to make decisions that are best for us and our families and protect and give us strength to avoid decisions that lead to self-destruction or destruction of our families. I like that better.

Okay, I have to admit, getting through that section of the lesson was kind of a mental stretch for me. I like dealing in metaphors, but sometimes dealing with metaphors that are often portrayed as having one true interpretation that supports a dogmatic position is hard for me. I think we put some favorable spin on potential alternative interpretations. That shows that we are at least thinking for ourselves. Thanks for helping get us through that discussion.

So the first part of the lesson was about this whole armor concept. The rest of the lesson is about using the armor relative to specific things in our lives, like being chaste, being honest, and using good language. Let's touch on these briefly. Let's start with chastity. What is that all about? We tend not to discuss chastity and sexuality other than in vague cryptic terms at church. Let's try to address this in an open, healthy fashion, but no potty-mouth, okay?

Yes, Sally. So your concept of chastity has evolved over time as you matured and as you came to understand more about the full concepts of the church. As a teenager, you learned that it essentially meant that you should be asexual, and not have any sexual thoughts or feelings.

How did that concept affect you? You felt miserable and guilty because of the innate, god-given desires that were part of your makeup. What about now?

You feel that chastity is avoidance of sexual relations between non-married people and avoiding situations that could potentially cause you to lose your sexual inhibitions and potentially lead to sexual relations with someone other than your spouse. What about masturbation?

You think that it is a healthy outlet for our innate sexuality for people who are not in a position to have sexual relations with a spouse. Okay, thanks for your thoughts here.

What about you Sam?

Okay, so you feel that from an adult perspective, chastity is really living the golden rule, taking into account yourself, potential partners, spouse, and potential children. You think chastity includes a perspective relative to understanding the potential consequences of actions and making informed decisions. So that can mean a lot of different things. Does that mean you think it's okay to have relations with someone other than your spouse?

Okay, so in your specific situation, you have made a commitment to your spouse and would never have relations outside of your marriage. You also think that generally that would apply to most people in our specific culture. Okay.

One of the key questions is about teenagers or pre-marriage chastity. What do you think about that?

Yes, Liz. You think the golden rule is the key. Teens need to avoid sex before they are mature, or perhaps married. They need to be ready to deal with the potential consequences. Sexual relationships can lead to pregnancy, disease, emotional problems, loss of self, etc. Passion and lust can cause reason to be thrown into the wind, changing a life course easily. You believe that teens should be counseled to avoid sexual relationships until they are emotionally mature, and ready to deal with all of the potential consequences of sexuality. You also think that masturbation is a way for teens to learn about their own sexuality and understand their bodies and how they work. You think that human sexuality is god-given and inherently wonderful. It should not be treated as evil, but respected. We should teach our children about its wonderment, but also be clear about the potential consequences associated with it. You also think that homosexuality is a natural, god-given state of being for some people. You think that the homophobic approach that the church takes is very detrimental to many people and that everyone should have the chance to be with someone that they can love and to whom they can express love completely. Wow, thanks for all of those thoughts.

Yes, Brent. You feel that model laid out by the church is still best. You think avoidance of sexuality until marriage is the best approach. You think masturbation increased the likelihood of premarital sexual relations and should be avoided. Okay, thanks for your thoughts.

Okay, we can see that there are a variety of perspectives here, which I think is great. I think there is an underlying theme that chastity should help provide a framework or construct to deal with the powerful god-given forces of sexuality and help us funnel these wonderful forces into a positive, constructive role in our lives. I think we have talked ourselves out about this one.

Moving on, let's discuss honesty. I have a plaque hanging in our living room that discusses "The Other Ten Commandment." Commandment #2 says, "Thou shalt not lie, fib, exaggerate, or omit important parts of the story." I think this is a better representation of honesty than we often get. What is honesty to you?

Yes, Tom. You think that honesty includes being truthful in terms of what you say, what you don't say, and about your intentions. Okay, that seems pretty good.

Yes, Brenda. One of your biggest struggles with the church is the fact that accurate historical information is not presented in church situations. You feel that the church is not being honest in its dealings with members and potential members.

Well, no history can contain all relevant facts, and all history is subject to some level of interpretation. Doesn't this excuse the church from presenting a comprehensive history?

Yes, Sam. So you think that there are so many points that could be covered easily and efficiently that the comprehensive argument is totally flawed. The example of the first vision is compelling. We tell the story of one version of the vision, but we could very briefly cover that there are multiple versions of the vision and that we are not sure how to interpret the differences. What does that mean?

You mean that we can't be sure if the different versions represent the same thing but told in incomplete form or if the story evolved over time to fit the particular need to convince others, or any other number of potential explanations.

I recognize this is but one of many, many examples of discrepancies in the correlated church history vs. the more objective and thoroughly documented church history. Why would the church simply not just give a brief, accurate representation of the foundational events of the church instead of taking one specific version and using it as the one and only version of the history?

Yes, Penny. You think it is because that from a corporate PR perspective, there needs to be consistency in the message that is communicated. Inconsistency will cause people to question the validity of the message. Where do you get the idea that this actually occurs?

You are weird! Why in the world do you carry around that talk in your scriptures? Okay folks, Penny carries around a copy of a talk given by Boyd Packer, called, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." She is going to quote a few selections that point out that Boyd thinks that it is more important to keep people believing the consistent, faith-promoting stories that to be forthright, accurate, and honest.

You seminary teachers and some of the institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.

The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment.[1]

I find that to be very interesting. I also have a quote here from Dallin Oaks here regarding the priority of preserving the story about Joseph Smith, in spite of more accurate information.

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."[2]

Okay, so honesty in our lives is important. We need to be honest with others. We expect that others will be honest with us. We also expect the church to be honest with us. That view of honesty includes not omitting important facts and details from what we are taught. There is clearly an element of the time constraints that limits the scope of material to be in any given lesson, but the idea that "everything may be sacrificed," in order to maintain the perceived integrity of a sanitized, whitewashed story seems to really step over the line of honesty into public relations and consistency in advertising. This concept steps over the line. It seems as though the church is starting to open up about some of the more accurate history as of the last few months, but how far will they go and is the goal to be honest or is it damage control?

Folks, we are way over time. We don't have time to cover using good language. Sorry for keeping you so late. See you next week.

[1] Brigham Young University Studies, Summer, 1981

[2] Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii f28