Imagery

I feel like I need to press "pause" on the "There Are Save Two Churches Only" series and write up a post on imagery. The topic of imagery might seem unrelated, and, in a way, I'm certainly treating it as such by writing a break-out post like this, but, actually, it is related, and I hope this post serves as a stepping stone to ideas that I intend to write about in the third installment of the "Two Churches" series.

In a world where information is increasingly presented in audio and visual formats, a love of reading seems to be on the decline. This is extremely unfortunate for many reasons and has major implications across many subjects and fields of study. The study of scripture and other things of a "spiritual" nature is not exempt.

In literature, writers use imagery to elicit scenes, ideas, and concepts in the minds of those who read what they write. Imagery can be both literal and figurative, and one encounters both in scripture. Literary imagery employs the mind in a way that audio and visual formats do not.

Figurative language, specifically, is extremely helpful when attempting to communicate about things of the spirit, and that's because we are typically much more familiar with things in the physical world than we are with things in the spiritual world. We relate to them better, and our familiarity with things in the physical world enables us to make comparisons with, see relationships between, and draw conclusions about things in the spirit world. This is why Jesus taught in parables and why analogies and symbols are plentiful in scripture. As we come across figurative language, our minds use what we know about things in the physical world to become capable of encountering thoughts that transcend the words that describe the physical things themselves, and it is through these thoughts that we begin to relate to, and engage with, the spirit world.

Figurative language should get us thinking. We should pay attention to the images that come to our minds when we read it, and we should ask ourselves what more there is to learn from an author's use of it. 

Let’s take a look at a few examples.

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. (Deuteronomy 10:16)

This scripture is one of my favorites. It’s imagery hit me like a ton of bricks one day, and I wrote a blogpost about circumcision a while back. Scriptures like this one are just begging for questions. Hearts don’t have foreskins, so what is this scripture talking about? How can you circumcise something that doesn’t exist? What is it about circumcision that still makes it an apt comparison? What is really meant to be removed from our hearts? How can a circumcision of the “foreskin of your heart” help you “be no more stiffnecked?”

Here’s another one:

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matthew 6)

Why does Jesus only talk about one eye and not two? What kind of light is “the light of the body?” What kind of light is he talking about? Is it physical light? How can an eye be single? How can our whole body be full of light when light enters an eye? How can an eye be evil? How can light be darkness?

And here’s one more:

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: (Ephesians 6)

There’s a lot to chew on in that quote. Formulating questions about each part of the armor of God (breastplate, shield, helmet, etc.) should yield greater understanding about its spiritual counterpart (righteousness, faith, salvation, etc.). What is it about the Spirit (or the word of God) that makes it a sword? What is it about righteousness that makes it a breastplate? And so on. What does each part of the armor do? What does it protect and what is significant about those parts of the body? How is each part of the armor specifically suited to protect each body part? What do you do with each piece of armor? How is it used? How does its use differ from other parts of the armor? How do the spiritual counterparts relate? From what are we protected?

Imagery like this is used all over scripture, and it is intended to prepare our minds to understand and receive the things of the spirit. It is meant to help us comprehend God, who is in and through all things, and it is meant to help us incorporate the Spirit of God into ourselves so that we may become one with him.

There Are Save Two Churches Only—Part II

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14:10)

Let me tell you about a thought experiment I conducted in Gospel Doctrine class one time.

I drew a large circle on a white board at the front of the class. It was the first part of a Venn diagram, and I told the class that the space interior to the circle would be composed of individuals who belonged to the church of the Lamb of God and that the space outside the circle would be composed of individuals who belonged to the church of the devil.

We spent a few moments talking about what characteristics might be found in the individuals of each group, keeping in mind that the Lord looks on the heart of the individual and that, if we want to be able to “see” who constitutes each group, we have to see as the Lord sees. And then I offered a suggestion. I drew a second circle that partially overlapped the first one and labeled it, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” and while facing the whiteboard, I suggested to the class that only part of the membership of the LDS church was actually to be found within the first circle and that there were many (if not, most) members who fell outside the circle.

I wish I could adequately describe the looks I saw on the faces of the people in the class that day as I turned around to face them. They looked totally lost. I’ve never before, nor since, seen so much collective cognitive dissonance at one time. It came as a great surprise to me, even though it shouldn’t have. To address it, I quickly said, “Ok, wait! Hear me out! I bet everyone knows at least one person who holds a temple recommend, whose heart is not right and who, clearly, isn’t worthy of it.” To that, the entire class responded with a collective nod and looks of understanding and agreement, as their minds quickly recalled someone in their life who met that criteria.

Then, a member of the class raised a hand and said, “You could probably do the same thing with any church,” to which, I responded, “That’s right!” and I turned back to the whiteboard and drew several more circles and labeled each of them with the name of another church.

I quickly made the point that other churches were probably similarly constituted and that there were, likely, individuals in other churches who had hearts that qualified them to be counted as members of the church of the Lamb of God. 

And then, a member of the class raised a hand and said, “Wait a minute! If that’s the case, then what’s the point of being a member of our church?”

And I thought to myself, “Ah! That’s the $64,000 question!”

Now, I’m not going to recount what happened during the remainder of that class in this blogpost. Suffice it to say that that question, instead of being a fantastic springboard for a potentially amazing and edifying discussion, turned out to be a little too unsettling for some.

But it’s a great question, don’t you think?

The fact of the matter is that the LDS church gets people to believe that, if they are LDS, they are part of the church of the Lamb of God. However, that simple thought experiment easily demonstrated that that isn’t, necessarily, so. Any honest person could probably take a step back and see that this is actually Satan’s modus operandi—convincing people that their membership in an earthly institution automatically makes them members of a heavenly one—but that’s not how it works.

What is the point of being a member of the LDS church? Is there one?

What is the angel trying to tell Nephi when he says “there are save two churches only?” What is Nephi trying to tell us by including it in his record? Perhaps we should rethink the level of importance we place on earthly institutions.

All throughout scripture, there are invitations and admonitions given to us to “see” things as God sees them—to view things from a spiritual perspective, not just a temporal one.

To do this is of critical importance. Increasingly, the more determined we are to hold to things that are temporal in nature, the more we will find ourselves separated from things that are spiritual (and, consequently, eternal) in nature.

It’s a really big deal.

There Are Save Two Churches Only—Part I

In my opinion, the following scripture from the Book of Mormon is one of many that have been misinterpreted by members of the LDS church, consequently making it difficult for those who do not belong to the LDS church to find any reason or motivation to read the Book of Mormon at all.

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14:10)

From that opening paragraph and the verse I quoted, I could take this blogpost in a lot of different directions, but my purpose in writing this is to help people understand what this verse is talking about so that they might know better how to become part of the “church of the Lamb of God.”

I can remember being stumped by this verse when I was a teenager. Having been raised in the LDS church, I was taught that it was the “one true church.” But if that was the case, why didn’t this verse say something more like “there is only one true church and all of the others are not true?” Why does it refer to only two churches?

Even if I hadn’t been raised in the LDS church, I doubt I would have understood that verse at that young age. I still saw things through a very temporal lens. How could Nephi’s angel guide tell him that there were only two churches? I could count far more than that just in the town I grew up in! Only two churches? How could that be? What’s he talking about?

It might be good to bring in another scripture:

But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7)

Understanding scripture requires us to see things the way the Lord sees them. When Samuel sought for the man whom the Lord had appointed to be king over Israel, the Lord had to tell Samuel which son of Jesse would be king, because the Lord looks on the heart, and it was David’s heart that qualified him to be king.

Now, I’m not going to go into this in this blogpost, but I’ll just mention here that names mean things, and that is true for names of churches, too. “The church of the Lamb of God” means something, and if you want some extra credit, you can do some further research on this.

For now, I’ll just assume the reader and I agree that being part of the church of the Lamb of God is a good thing. After all, what’s the alternative? The church of the devil—“that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” Who wants to be a part of that? (Spoiler alert: It turns out, more than you would think.)

In Defense of Mary

This morning, while working on another post, I stumbled across an article about Mary, the mother of Jesus, and I was quite disappointed by what I read. Actually, I will go further and say I was disgusted. I’m not even going to provide a link to it.

The thrust of the article was for the author (an implicitly self-described victim of abuse) to empathize with Mary—someone the author saw as a survivor of the abuses and oppression of systemic male dominance and patriarchy. She incorrectly perceived Mary as a woman who agreed to “sexual assault” as a result of her being brought up in a religious and cultural system of oppression, where women were “violated in the name of religion because a man said so” and where they had no choice but to reluctantly submit to any request put forth by male superiors, “even if that male happens to be God.”

What a bunch of garbage!

Is unrighteous dominion a thing? Yes. Does abuse happen? Yes. Are there men who compel and coerce women? Yes. Were men like this around when Mary was alive? Undoubtedly. Was God one of them? No.

In misrepresenting Mary, the author also mischaracterizes God.

While I felt sorry for the author and the apparent trials she had in her life, her attempt to commiserate with Mary was born of both projection and ignorance regarding Mary’s character and the character of God. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon affirm the idea that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth. Mary would not have whispered “MeToo” in quiet moments, and women who align themselves to movements like that should not suppose that she would have. I know that she would not have.

Years ago, I was asked to choreograph and perform an interpretive dance to a song entitled, “Mary Pulled the Shawl.” The verses of the song are vignettes of Mary’s life—from the Annunciation, through Jesus’ sinless life, to the events surrounding his death and resurrection.

Now, I’m going to let people (especially those who think they know me in real life) in on a little secret: I’m not a dancer—not a formally trained dancer, anyway. I just pretend to be one when I’m on stage. ;)  I was very athletic as a child—a tomboy, actually—and that athleticism lent itself to an interest in “more feminine” activities like gymnastics, cheerleading, and dance as I became a teenager.

I was hesitant to take on the assignment of choreographing and performing that routine for several reasons. I felt very inadequate, first of all, because I knew that I didn’t have a complete grasp on all of the technique required to choreograph and perform a dance like that, and I wanted the dance to be good. But, more so, I had a deep desire to make the dramatic portrayal as accurate as possible. I understood that if I wanted the Spirit to testify of the truths communicated in the lyrics of that song, the performance couldn’t be distracting in any way. Rather, it had be as accurate a representation of what actually transpired as possible, and I prayerfully sought revelation about that. I felt a deep connection to Mary. She was a character from the scriptures that I had been introduced to at a young age and re-introduced to often. (I have dark features, and type-casting was alive and well when it came to Primary nativities, so…yeah.) Much like Mary, I had an experience when I was a teenager that completely changed the trajectory of my life. And then, early in my marriage, I lost a child of my own, and there were many lessons learned from that experience that would help me relate to her in choreography sessions just a few years later.

Choreographing that dance was a very sacred experience. Allow me to share some of what I learned about her.

Mary was an unassuming young woman, yet she was filled with faith at Gabriel’s pronouncement. She was someone who was completely (not reluctantly) willing to submit to God’s will and who wasn’t put off by what others might think of her because of it. She was filled with both wonder and gratitude as she experienced her baby’s first movements within her—periodic reminders and confirmations of the angel’s words to her regarding her calling, duty, and blessing to be the mother of the Son of God.

She was thoughtful and pondered on the things of God continually. She readily perceived light and God’s hand in her life. She saw and appreciated Jesus’ growth and development in a way that no one else could. She kept things in her heart.

Her experiences brought her the greatest sorrow, but they also brought her the greatest joy, and because of that, she never lamented or thought of herself as an oppressed victim of a corrupt and domineering male establishment. On the contrary, she saw herself as both the greatest benefactor and beneficiary of a virtuous one.

Her inability to relieve her son’s suffering on the cross was akin to everyone else’s inability to relieve her suffering in giving him life. Each of them had tasks they could only accomplish on their own.

I’ve often heard mischaracterizations of righteous men and women in the scriptures (even Jesus), but this was the first time that I had heard something like this said of Mary, and it’s just not true. Not only did I learn these things about her in those choreography sessions, but the Spirit testified of those things on numerous occasions, again and again, as I portrayed her on stage over the course of many years.

I hope there aren’t many others who view Mary (and God) the way that author does. In actuality, Mary’s life and mission are a testament to God’s goodness and to his willingness to send the best things into our lives.