Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts

Finding the Defiance in Turning the Other Cheek

Angel of Empathy, J. Kirk Richards
Part of how I'm navigating this current era of watching the most conservative apostles die on every untenable hill is by shifting my focus to female leadership, members, and their perspectives. What this looks like is getting their books from the Church's thrift store, Deseret Industries. I live in an area where this is very easy to do. Curating my library of church books to be predominantly written by and focused on women is something that brings me joy. 

So of course, some dude had to come and interrupt it.

Around the same time I picked up Rosie Card's book from the shelf, one of the employees came over to stock more books. Apropos of nothing, he tried to engage me in a conversation about the SEC fine, with the opener of "Did you know our church is the richest one in the world?"

Now, the trouble with doing this to strangers is you have no idea who you could be talking to and what their lived experience has been. I could've said absolutely anything back to him, much of which could've hurt his feelings. But I didn't. I was not having this conversation with a stranger in DI because it's not my job to help him manage whatever combination of feelings was going on inside of him to make him approach me like this. So I ignored him.

He didn't take the hint, so I said as gently as I could, "Yes, sweetheart. I'm aware."

He didn't expect that. He didn't know what to do with it. It confused him enough that he disengaged. He then left me alone to do my browsing.

Just because a person refuses to engage in a dialogue about the failures of the Church with you doesn't mean they are ignorant about the situation, or deluding themselves into apologetics to soothe themselves into pretending it isn't happening. Sometimes, the exact opposite is true. They know just as much, if not more of the details of the situation than you do. They know people involved whose names you don't even know.

The world of the Church is small like that.

When you come at someone sideways, in inappropriate times and places, with assumptions and accusations, you put yourself into a position where the only version of a story you will hear and can accept is the one being passed around by people in that exact frame of mind.

Why?

Because folks with the details you don't know aren't interested in having an argument, especially not with a stranger. Silence is how they protect their peace. It's not complicity in wrong-doing. It's the refusal to engage with someone who lacks tact and self-control. That behavior creates an echo chamber of its own in which no one involved actually arrives at a full vision of the truth.

Anyway, here's my haul from yesterday:

I'm going to make a Goodreads bookshelf of my finds to share what I've found so far since people have asked. You can also find what I'm currently reading in the Goodreads widget in my sidebar

I also got Becoming by Michelle Obama. Anyone insulting me for including her memoir will be reminded that she has never had to pay a $5 million fine to the SEC.

 

P.S. If you think "turning the other cheek" in Matthew 5:39 means passively letting people hurt you, let me relieve you of the burden of that false interpretation. Turning the other cheek is an act of defiance, the refusal to surrender your own dignity to the person trying to deprive it from you. That's what Jesus taught.

God's Love IS Unconditional

Image courtesy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

In my younger years, I attempted to excuse myself from fully buying into the notion that God truly intended me to love all people. Surely he didn't mean for me to love people I have good reason not to trust, those who show animosity towards me and would do me harm if they got the chance. And certainly there was no obligation for me to love the people who had already intentionally and maliciously hurt me. 

A God who truly cared about me wouldn't put me in that position... right?

This was part of a prolonged, circuitous effort to justify myself in refusing to forgive several of the most abusive people in my past. I could "forgive" them in a way that was effectively meaningless, as long as I didn't have to love them. It was a rationale that came from a deeply hurt and fearful place.

As I continued to heal and reached a place where I was ready to handle the answers to these questions, the truth slowly coalesced in my own mind through the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus said love everyone...

To love my neighbor is a commandment that Jesus Christ teaches consistently throughout the New Testament, through just about every imaginable lens.

And in one of my favorite sermons in all of scripture, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that I am to love my enemies.

So between loving my neighbor and my enemies... who is left?

There is no one else left. Jesus Christ, and our Heavenly Parents who sent him, never intended to leave us any room to make exceptions. The love they intend to teach us is universal, meaning without limits or exceptions.

It's through this same logical progression that I want to discuss why I believe, with every inch of my soul, that divine love is truly unconditional. I will also discuss why I'm deeply mistrustful of anyone who presents any vision of divine love that isn't unconditional.

One of the scriptures that has been in my life the longest as a disciple is Romans 8:38-39. It's probably the one I've reached for more than any other in my seventeen years of church membership, including now:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I don't have to be a Biblical literalist to understand that these verses are describing a love that is infinite and eternal in nature. It does not end. It never changes. The love of God transcends all human weakness to encompass the entire human race. And to someone who is determined to make this a description of universal love again, they just stop there.

Read it again.

When it says that nothing and no one, including "any other creature," can separate us from the love of God, that includes ourselves. The literal meaning of these words is that nothing we will ever do will remove the love of God from us. By the time God's love is universal in all the ways that the scriptures describe, it's impossible for that love not to also be unconditional.

And treat them kindly too.

Why is this important? Because it's impossible to fully appreciate the motivation of Jesus Christ during his atonement in Gethsemane without it.

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 5:6-8

That's what Jesus Christ did in the Garden of Gethsemane. That was the reason he bled from every pore. It wasn't to set some impossibly high standard of righteousness he knew no one else would ever be able live up to. It wasn't to position himself as a superior to the rest of the human race. It was to make sure that no mistake any person would ever make would prevent them from re-entering the presence of our Heavenly Parents. His sacrifice does not exist as the ultimate condemnation of sin. It's the unconditional love he showed to all of humanity, including to those who would never choose to believe in him. It was the ultimate act of unconditional love.

The prophet Abinadi in the Book of Mormon taught that when Jesus Christ was making that sacrifice, he saw his seed. I've heard some go so far as to suggest that he saw each and every person individually for whom he was making that sacrifice. I'm inclined to agree with that interpretation. (See Mosiah 15:10)

Abinadi then goes on to define exactly who the seed of Jesus Christ is. And as it turns out, it's not those who obey the laws of God with exactness. It's not the whole who need no physician. It's those who look forward to a remission of their sins, who are fully aware they are imperfect human beings who require grace to be made whole. As always, it's the harlots and publicans, the strangers and outsiders who go into heaven before those who find themselves thinking, "the world would be a better place if everyone in it were more like me and approached God exactly like I do." (See Matthew 9:12-13, 12:42, and 21:28-31. See also Jacob 3:5 and Helaman 7:24)

As I recall, that was the sin that got Lucifer cast out of the presence of God. He attempted to put himself between us and our Heavenly Parents with a plan that never would've allowed us to experience that divine love ever again. He, not Jesus Christ, is the one who wanted to make divine love conditional upon his own standard, which he intended to implement by force. He sought to make himself, not God, the object of our worship, the receiver of our love. (See Moses 4:1-4)

Why am I mistrusting of anyone who rejects divine love as being unconditional? Because my soul has been rejecting that plan since the very beginning. I don't trust anyone who views it as their right to stand between our Heavenly Parents and their children, interrupting the loving exchange between us and them. My Savior died so that no one would ever be in a position to do that. I reject the idea that any other intermediary belongs there, deciding how much divine love anyone else is entitled to experience.

When your heart is filled with love, others will love you.

Why would someone put themselves in that position? The same reason I did all those years ago, in my own very human way: to justify myself in withholding my love from someone I didn't want to acknowledge was deserving of it. I wanted to abandon the second great commandment to love my neighbor, when I already knew there was no way for me to do that without utterly breaking the first. That is, to love God.

If you don't believe me, you don't have to take my word for it. 1 John 4:20-21 says the same exact thing:

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

This is as true for God as it is for us. Our Heavenly Parents have set no standard for us that they are not equally bound to follow. They have taught us to have universal, unconditional love for each other because it's how they live. It's the only way we can truly become like them.

And while we (and they) are fully aware that we will stumble along the way, I believe they would rather watch us stumble along the path of loving unconditionally than being perfect at withholding our love from those who just don't deserve it. Especially if we're going to point to them as a justification.

The Harm of Perfectionism in LDS Parenting

There are few subjects I find more exhausting than LDS parents who decide, while their children are still young, to go to war with the very notion of those children ever having any real autonomy of their own. I've seen and heard parents in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concoct the terms by which their children will lose everything from holiday participation to financial support if their children don't grow into the exact adults they want their children to become.



It's one thing when these people express these expectations of their children in their own home, or even in church settings where they're bound to find some amount of like-minded support. It's another when they're bold enough to outline their plans for anyone on the internet to see.

Which is what Matthew P. Watkins, an LDS blogger and podcast creator decided to do, using his four year old daughter as the character in the scenario he's concocting.

There are plenty of people in the world who can explain why what Matthew P. Watkins is saying isn't as loving or mature of an approach as he thinks it is. Several people, including those outside the Church, already have. But because this is a Mormon parent whose thinking is carefully constructed on the foundations of LDS beliefs on marriage and family, I won't use that approach. I think it's important to refute the approach he's defending and advocating with the language of the faith he believes in. That way, those who might be tempted to adopt it in their own families will understand why it's the wrong approach to be using.

What qualifies me to tell Watkins and those who think like him that this kind of parenting is trash? Because I'm just a convert who has spent an inordinate amount of my own time in the Church explaining to parents that this kind of behavior is abusive. It relies on coercion as a teaching tactic, which God has condemned. And at the time God was condemning it in the scriptures, he wasn't talking about all the non-Mormon parents out in The World. He was talking about people like Matthew Watkins.

One of the most oft-quoted scriptures in any LDS setting is from D&C 121:34-46, which most church members recognize as the "unrighteous dominion" section. It's where God defines, in plain language, what religious abuse is and outlines for members of the Church what they should be doing instead.

Persuasion. Long-suffering. Gentleness. Meekness. Love unfeigned. This is the kind of spiritual leadership and parenting God teaches should be happening within the Church.

Sometimes, I just want to sit these parents down, slap these verses down in front of them, and say "Point to which one you think means coercion, force, manipulation, and ongoing punishment into adulthood." Because honestly, if they've reached adulthood in the Church while thinking this is the behavior God has given them license to engage in, I have to think it's because their problem is one of scriptural literacy.

But like anyone else who has served in the Church as a Sunday School teacher as many times as I have, I can already hear the defensive response I would get back from such a maneuver.

"But Sister Collins. What about reproving betimes with sharpness?"

That's another part of the section I've linked to above. That's the part of that section LDS parents use in their moral licensing to believe they get to reject whoever I want, however they want, with no filter, tact, or respect for anyone's boundaries.

But like I said before: I've clocked so many parents like this already. I already know how to respond.

"How exactly do you think you're going to act like that, then show an increase of love afterwards? Hmm? How? You can't. Because you've already proven your faithfulness isn't stronger than death. Your faithfulness to your children is non-existent when you treat them like this." 

When LDS parents treat random people at church with more kindness, tolerance, and respect than their own children, just because of ideological similarities and reputation curation, that's the definition of hypocrisy. That's not what being a good parent looks like. It's not even what being a good person looks like, to say nothing of being a good Christian.

And the thing is, it doesn't matter that I think that. What matters is when children see their parents doing this and come to that conclusion on their own. Whether parents like it or not, their children will grow up and begin passing their own judgment on their parents as representations of the principles and values they've attempted to teach. Once those children start seeing and recognizing the hypocrisy in their parents' discipleship, the disconnect between how their parents behave towards them and what Jesus taught, they lose all moral authority in the eyes of their children.

The most glaring form of this hypocrisy is centered on the temple. Many LDS families use the standards for entering the temple as a justification to distance themselves from anyone and everything that deviates from that standard. The trouble with that, of course, is that a family's home is NOT a temple. Ostracizing and showing favoritism based on religious devotion is deeply inappropriate. It's exactly the kind of self-righteous behavior Jesus taught against when he was on earth.

You don't have to take my word on that. It's in the Sermon on the Mount. God never intended for Latter-day Saints to only surround themselves with people who think and act exactly like they do.

Matt. 5:46-48

When God commanded us to "be perfect," it was only in the grace we show to others when they fall short of our expectations. This graciousness, not the performance of outward observances of law, is what make God perfect. It's the only way to become like our Heavenly Parents, and to receive that same quality of mercy from them.

I have given this same warning over and over again to these kinds of parents. They rarely listen. They don't even begin to see the wisdom in what I've told them until it is far too late to change the outcome. The damage they do to their relationships with their children becomes the teacher they have to learn the lesson from.

"If your temple cosplay is more important to you than having a relationship with your adult children, I have news for you: you won't have a relationship with them. Or their spouses. Or your grandchildren. That's the road you're walking on, and that's where it leads. And when you arrive at that place, the only person you will have to blame is yourself."

Real Talk about Tithing

No matter how strained my relationship with the Church has become, no matter how much or how little I've had at my disposal, I have always paid a full tithe. There are people in this world, particularly disaffected former members of my church, who take personal offense at that. 

Why would anyone else care about what I do with my own resources? Why would the money I give in tithing ever be offensive to them?

Because they haven't even begun the process of deconstructing the impulse, especially present in certain LDS families, to be a relentless scold. They don't know how to interact with people beyond being a self-appointed measuring stick for the ethical behavior of others. I have to remind myself that only hurt people do stuff like this, and it truly has nothing to do with me. But the urge to be petty and ask them when the last time they bought something from Amazon was gets hard to ignore.

Another component to this is not understanding that there are legal limitations to how the Church can spend tithes and offerings, as opposed to philanthropically donated lands, funds, stocks, and estates from families like the Marriotts. Philanthropically-donated wealth paid for City Creek, not tithing funds. It's a private investment that has never been touched by tithing dollars. Anyone who doesn't know the difference is unprepared to have an intelligent, good faith conversation about what they're trying to criticize.

In all likelihood, my tithing money is paying the basic operational budgets for congregations outside of the United States. I'm paying electric bills for members of the Church in Europe. I'm paying for the disinfectants to clean the toys in Primary in New Zealand. I'm paying for basic, mundane, lifesaving things to people I don't know and will never meet. The money I give as tithes and offerings to the Church overwhelmingly pays for back to school clothes, puts food on tables and in pantries, gets medicine and wheelchairs to people in developing countries. I'm paying for youth camps in Brazil, temples in Africa, chapels in the Philippines, and for all the infrastructure in the lives of those Saints that come with them that wouldn't be there without my contribution, small as it is. 

My tithing is never going to be some life-changing amount of money, in terms of total monetary value. But Christ himself taught in the lesson of the widow's mites that it's faith and generosity, not money, that matters most to him. (See Mark 12:41-44) Jesus, who taught his people to "render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s" and pulled a coin from the mouth of a fish doesn't need money. (Mark 12:14-17, Matt. 17:24-27) Rather, he needs to know whether I will place the lives of others above and beyond the value of money. I pay my tithing to demonstrate to God that there are more important things to me in this world than money.

I don't take criticism on this aspect of my faith from folks who have never heard of D. Michael Quinn, let alone the work he did to privately verify that church finances are largely boring and unremarkable.

And to show, in good faith, that I'm not some rube who truly believes no tithing dollars are ever wasted, here are some of the things I would never spend another dollar on if it were up to me. 
  1. BYU and CES 
  2. Kirton McConkie 
  3. LDS Family Services
The Church isn't perfect. But to sit here and say that the Church hasn't done any good at all with the money in its possession, that the ownership of those wrongs belongs to the members who gave that money in good faith, is totally asinine and disingenuous.
 
If the people making these assertions were purely interested in ethical consumption, rather than setting up others to fail moral standards they themselves could never meet, I'd take their criticism more seriously. But given that people complaining about tithing on Twitter from their iPhone, in line to buy coffee from the Starbucks inside of a Target before taking their Amazon return to the UPS store have no sense of themselves as they're going through space. They can take an entire stadium of seats.

Talking Openly About Heavenly Mother

I don't like the trend I've been noticing from general authorities in which they try to discourage people from talking about Mother in Heaven. Especially since we're seeing a metamorphosis in the reasoning from "she's too sacred to even mention" to "we just don't know enough to speculate."

In Their Image, Caitlin Connolly
Imagine if Joseph F. Smith had used the collective ignorance of the Church as the reason not to seek the vision of the dead that became Section 138 in the Doctrine and Covenants. Present ignorance is never an excuse not to seek knowledge. Especially about God.

I mean, I can pull at least half a dozen scriptures off the top of my head as to why saying "No thank you" to the knowledge God has to bestow is a bad idea.

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

 Matt. 13:11-12

But I think these two will suffice for now.

And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

2 Ne. 29:9-10

The biggest impediment to this approach is how much of a mixed message it has already become, whether general leadership knows that or not. They don't seem to understand that there are women in this church alive today who have been promised knowledge of and interactions with Heavenly Mother in their patriarchal blessings. There is no way for them to be doing all this and not to have to eat crow for it later.

Tolerance as a Christ-like Attribute

The Hand of God, YongSung Kim
Because I'm in a new ward and I just met my new bishop on Sunday, I'm anticipating having the opportunity to speak in church soon. I haven't spoken in church since my faith transition. Even introducing myself feels endlessly fraught and complicated now.

I'm realizing though that I've had talk on Tolerance formulating in my head for the past two weeks. So if I get the chance to speak, it will probably be about that. What put me on that path was something I heard the Elder's Quorum President say. He was quoting President Monson out of context to caution about the risks of being too tolerant. It made me realize that a mistrust of tolerance has been going on in LDS discourse for a long time.

It's only in recent years that a false dichotomy has been drawn between being loyal to God/the institutional Church and being tolerant to social change in our discourse. Before that, it was seen as a virtue. An attribute of Christ. A hallmark of discipleship.

Tolerance is not a weakness or a moral failure. That may be how it's presented in the Republican party. But that's an attitude with no place in the Church. 

Tolerance is a skill, a talent, and a spiritual gift given by God to facilitate compassion. Tolerance is how we exercise patience with others. It's how we are challenged to see issues from more than one perspective. It's how we learn to admit that our way of looking at the world is not the only way to see it. Exercising tolerance with people who are different from us gives us opportunities to receive correction and repent. It's a necessary part of being in a Church that believes in continuing revelation.

We live in an environment where it is rare that we are given the full, objective truth about anyone or anything. There are hidden actors behind algorithms trying to further their own agendas by influencing what we think about literally everything. Their goal is to catch us unaware and uninformed because that's when we're most susceptible to being manipulated. Social media platforms operate to prioritize engagement. They figured out years ago that generating conflict and feeding insecurities are the best ways to do that.

Who we trust. Who we mistrust. Who we love. Who we dehumanize. How we see those around us—it's all being fed to us by machines, programmed by people we don't know and will never meet. These same forces are at work within the Church. We are not immune to those influences. The confrontations at play within our society are at play within the Church. Deepening mistrust and the normalization of disrespect based entirely on political ideologies and social issues have taught us to withhold our compassion from each other.

I've seen those campaigns at work. I've watched as members of the Church have done real harm to others because of how they've been radicalized online. I've been on the receiving end of those attacks more than once.

Exercising tolerance is an opportunity for us to develop the gift of discernment—to recognize and reject that manipulation. Committing to exercise tolerance will protect us from the campaigns at work trying to spread racism, sexism, hatred, prejudice, and violence.

In overcoming these influences, we have a perfect example in Jesus Christ—the one who ate with tax collectors and sex workers. The one who saved the adulteress from being stoned in the street because he could see the predatory guilt in her accusers.

Jesus Christ is the perfect example of tolerance. It's the single most important example he ever set. Why do I say that? Because his compassion is what we love most about him. It's what allows him to be our Savior. He saves us from the cruelty of this world.

In the Sermon on the Mount in Matt.5:44-48, Jesus gave the commandment for us to be perfect like our Heavenly Parents. He didn't say that the route to that perfection would be obedience to law. When we read those verses in context, Jesus taught it would be in our capacity to love our enemies, to pray for them, and to tolerate the people who are different from us that we become perfect. Tolerance is the pathway to becoming Christ-like.

That is the single most important skill we will ever learn. It's the entire purpose of coming to mortality—to learn to encounter and embrace differences when it's not an easy thing to do. That is the only way we will ever develop the capacity for the universal, unconditional love our Heavenly Parents have for all of their children.
 
One of my favorite sacrament hymns is "In Humility, Our Savior." It's short. It's a beautiful use of alto voices. It was written by a woman. And it brought us this gem:
"Fill our hearts with sweet forgiving, Teach us tolerance and love."
Tolerance brings the healing and peace of Christ to those who embrace it. I know I need it. My church needs it. My country needs it. This world we share needs it.

Lighting the Y on Rainbow Day

Let it be absolutely clear to everyone who is watching the fallout from the Rainbow Day Y Lighting last night.


Brigham Young University cares more about the non-existent harm to a letter in the dirt than the active discrimination of its own LGBTQ+ students.

When Christ taught about cleansing the inner vessel, whited sepulchres full of dead men's bones, and priests and Levites who leave people to die on the side of the road, this is what he was talking about. (Matt. 23:25-27, Luke 10:25-37)

If you can't see that, don't bother calling yourself a Christian.

You may think you know Christ, the man who ate with sinners and publicans before the whole who needed no physician, but make no mistake:

He does not know you. (Matt. 7:21-23, 9:10-13)

What you have done to the least of these, your LGBTQ+ brethren, you have done unto him.

We are not just commanded to love our neighbors, we are commanded to do so with "love unfeigned." (D&C 121:41)

This thing y'all keep doing where you say you love all people, but call police on them for being visible behind their backs? That doesn't make you a disciple. It makes you a liar.

There is no Capitalism in the Kingdom of God

16 Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!

17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!

18 But blessed are the poor who are pure in heart, whose hearts are broken, and whose spirits are contrite, for they shall see the kingdom of God coming in power and great glory unto their deliverance; for the fatness of the earth shall be theirs.

D&C 56:16-18

A reminder to all of us that there is no "capitalism," no "free market," in the Lord's kingdom.

 


23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I 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.

Matthew 19:23-24

No one goes to heaven with money. You either go poor of your own free will, or you don't go.

36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mark 8:36-37

Those who have gained the world and lost their souls simply won't be there.

Emmanuel: A Closer Look at the Birth of Christ

Studying the Christmas story is something I've never had much occasion to do in my life. Growing up, Christmas was more about time with family than any sort of real religious sentiment. Now that my husband and I live far away from both of our families, deciding how to celebrate Christmas is part of creating our new family identity.

Behold the Lamb of God by Walter Rane


In my effort to find a deeper meaning and purpose in Christmas, I began with a closer look at the birth of Christ. Although I've read the story a few times, I've never given it the close analysis that leads to revelation before. And even if I had, it's only now that I've been a newlywed for some time that certain details catch my attention.




The familiar story as told in the Gospels is one of a young woman named Mary. She is visited by an angel and told "thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus." (Luke 1: 31) She responds in faith, submitting to the will of God, saying,"Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." (Verse 38)

At this point in time, she was betrothed to a man named Joseph. He was a carpenter who, like Mary, was born in Bethlehem but was now living in Nazareth. Susan Easton Black goes into a great deal of detail of what their betrothal would have been like in her talk from BYU Education Week 2009. It's called The Road to Bethlehem. It sheds a lot of light onto what that phase of Mary and Joseph's life would have been like.

She describes how their betrothal would have begun with a formal engagement ceremony, after which Mary and Joseph would have been considered husband and wife. They would not have lived together, and it was during this time that Joseph would have built a house for them. Once that was finished, their engagement period would end and they would be formally married in front of the entire community. 

Until then, it was Mary's family's responsibility to protect her reputation. She would be veiled and escorted in public, and as far as every other young man around her was concerned she was already married.




Mary takes a trip to visit her elderly cousin Elizabeth, who is also pregnant by a miracle with John the Baptist. They stay together for several months, and by the time Mary returns she is undeniably with child.

Joseph has a choice. He can "put Mary away," which means to end their engagement. (Matthew 1: 19) He has already decided this is what he will do. For him, it's only a question of whether to do it publicly or privately.

If he does it privately, it becomes nobody else's business but their own. He need not give an explanation to anyone, they simply break off their engagement. But if he puts her away publicly, he would essentially go to the elders in Nazareth and accuse her of being unfaithful. She would be accused, her family would be shamed. Because she would no doubt be convicted, they likely would have convicted her of adultery and would have grounds to execute her by stoning.

Putting away a woman publicly existed entirely for a man to save face. He could present himself to the community as one who cared about the law, and he would not have been questioned by anyone. But to condemn a woman to death requires a vindictive spirit which clearly Joseph does not have. He decides to put her away privately, no doubt sparing her life.

Joseph is a man of great faith, and has the spiritual gift of dreams and visions. He dreams he sees an angel, who delivers him a message: 

Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1: 20-21

Joseph decides to continue with their engagement, The story does not pick up again until Joseph is returning to Bethlehem to be taxed, and he brings Mary with him, "his espoused wife, being great with child." (Luke 2: 5)

Notice then that they still aren't married at the time Mary gives birth. She is also "great" with child, which has always troubled me. Why on earth did anyone think it was a good idea to make a woman that pregnant walk from Nazareth to Bethlehem? According to Google Maps, the walking distance is 136 kilometers (84.5 miles) and would take 36 hours of straight walking. At 4 miles a day, you'd make it there in 21 days.

When they arrive, they can't find anywhere to stay. Because it's tax season, there are likely many people who are visiting in the city. Depending on when they arrived, there may not have been any room for them in the homes and inns. But there's an element to this story that seems to have escaped people's attention today but certainly wouldn't have back then.

Mary and Joseph aren't married, yet Mary is pregnant. I don't know how "cohabitation" was looked upon in ancient Israel, but I doubt it would have been favorable. Did people turn them away because they didn't want a "fallen" woman giving birth in their house? Perhaps that's why Luke states specifically that "there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2: 7, emphasis added)





Because Christ was born at the Passover season in April, the shepherds would have been out in the fields with the sheep. The stables built for them in the sides of caves would have been empty. This is where the Good Shepherd was born, in a place meant to protect the flocks. No doubt it gave Mary and Joseph the privacy they would have desired for such a sacred event.

After Jesus is born, Mary had to go through a period of purification for seven days because she gave birth to a son. On the eighth day, her son would be circumcised. She would be ritually "unclean" for another 33 days. Then she would have to offer up a young lamb as a burnt offering and a dove as a sin offering. But in the case of one who was too poor to offer a lamb, another dove could be offered instead. (See Leviticus 12)

21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
Luke 2: 21-24
Turtledoves are the offering of someone who is destitute. Because we know Joseph had a trade, and was well-respected enough in the community that he was permitted to marry, we know he must have been a person of a certain degree of means. I don't suggest he was wealthy, because we don't know that to be true. But beggars didn't marry, and no self-respecting family would give a daughter to someone who could not provide for her.




But Joseph and Mary, if they weren't beggars before, are certainly beggars now. The reality of their circumstances, although existing only between the lines, seem rather clear to me for the first time.

Both of their families appear to have disowned them, for at least some duration of time surrounding the birth of Jesus. They have not been permitted to marry, likely because of the suspicion in the community around Mary's pregnancy. The thought that someone would take it upon themselves to see justice was done against Mary would be consistent with the treatment we see Christ receiving in every other season of his life. I find it likely that Joseph weighed what danger was posed to Mary against what risks she faced in a long journey, and still thought it better to remove her from Nazareth.

Mary has no dowry to offer, because they have not yet been married. That she has nothing to offer to this trip makes me wonder, for the first time, if her parents knew who she really was. Did they disown her? Did she tell them she would give birth to the Son of God? Did they believe her? Or did they condemn her with everyone else in their village?




Luke 2 says that "when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." We could interpret that to mean that they left within 2 months of arriving in Bethlehem. But we know this not to be the case because of the timing of the Wise Men coming to worship him, and the details added by the account in Matthew.

Matthew 2 begins by stating that "when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem." (Verse 1)

Bethlehem was where they headed, and Bethlehem was where they found Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. The star leading them there appeared on the night of his birth. Depending from whence in the east the Wise Men have come, the journey could cover several hundred miles and take several months. By the time they arrive, verse 11 informs us that Jesus is a "young child," and the family is now living in a "house."

They did not return to Nazareth right away. They left behind everything, at least for a season--all of their possessions, their families, their associations, everything that Joseph had been building for them. We might think that the first one to seek the life of Jesus was King Herod. But there is reason to believe that an untold number of people had already tried--and failed--to prevent the Son of God from coming into this world.

Matthew does not reveal whether Joseph and Mary returned with Jesus to Nazareth before going to Egypt. Because Luke tells us they did, we may think it might have been for a short time--possibly a visit. Matthew's timeline suggests that they left from Bethlehem to Egypt, and only returned to live in Nazareth after Herod's death.

What does all of this change about Christmas for me?

What I have disliked most about Christmas is how I see people use it as a reason to do once a year what they really should be doing all the time. People try to polish things up at this time of year to make them look nice for pictures, and let them go again immediately after it's over. It's a stressful build-up, a prolonged period of pretending, and an even more depressing let down. From start to finish, I have simply wanted no part of it.

Realizing that the Christmas story, when you really look at it, is a messy story about a family trying to find peace when they are up to their eyeballs in problems is very reassuring to me. Not because I like to see people with problems, but because I know it's honest and real when the struggle is present. And when you see the story for what it really is, it makes the way we celebrate Christmas seem ridiculous by comparison.

The Christmas story, when you really dig into it, is not a happy story. It is a story of two people who are trying to cope with a responsibility that is completely beyond them, while everything around them in life is falling apart. And exactly because of that incredible responsibility, that Life which has been entrusted to their care, they somehow manage to have hope in spite of all fear.

And it's not because of anything they are doing. They seem to be making things up as they go along. Their hope comes from Christ's very presence in their lives, even though he's a helpless baby. Knowing who he is, that God has kept his word to send the Messiah--this is the source of their peace.

Some people want Christmas without Christ. But they also want Christmas to be a time of peace. They want what never was, and never can be.

They see the disconnect between his perfection and their imperfection, and assume he can't know anything about their lives. If only they could see how wrong they are. Jesus Christ comprehends the needs of every person, exactly because his circumstances were awful.

He comprehends exactly how bad life can be, and how much we need someone on our side to make things right. Because he comprehends the cruelty in people, the unfairness in life, he doesn't want us to go through it alone. He wants to love us when we feel unloved, or even unlovable. He remembers us when we feel forgotten. He sees us when others pass us by. He hears our cries for help when no one else is listening.

There may have been no room for him and his family in the inns of Bethlehem. But at Christmas-time, may we always make room for him in our hearts. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

A More Intelligent Modesty

Modesty can be a pretty divisive issue in the Church, and a lot of that has to do with the quality of the conversation. I see a lot of people using statistics and correlation arguments, as if we can prove that modesty is better. Those who are immodest are more likely to be attacked and bear children out of wedlock. Those who dress immodestly are more likely to break the law of chastity or other commandments. 

These arguments are not only bogus, they have no power to convert others to Christ because they have no connection to Him or His doctrine whatsoever.

At the same time, there are two arguments I have seen to defend greater lenience on immodesty: that standards of modesty are modern teachings set forth by current prophets, but are not to be found in the scriptures. I've even seen it said that standards of modesty were never taught by Jesus himself. These are only two of some ridiculous claims I've heard, and these are the types of false doctrine that inspired me to write this post.

I'm going to write the talk on modesty that I wish someone would have given me when I was in Young Women--a more intelligent discourse on modesty. If we're going to help teenagers resist against all that is immodest around them today, the true doctrine of modesty is something they're going to need to understand.

What is modesty?

The best guide on modesty is the For Strength of Youth pamphlet--which now has a website. If you have any doubt of what God expects of you on any issue, more likely than not the answer is here.


Modesty is a very important, personal decision to dress according to the high moral standards of the Savior. It is one of the important decisions of discipleship that applies to all of us--old and young, male and female.

Much of what we understand of modesty only encompasses a few scriptures, usually in relation to the modesty of women. But throughout the scriptures, the standards for dignified clothing and appearance applied to men and women alike. While Proverbs 31 and 1 Timothy 2: 9-10 are indispensable to the conversation on modest dress and demeanor, the doctrine of modesty is all encompassing throughout the scriptures.

Modesty, however, can be a very loose term. It applies as much to clothing and appearance as it does to a simple and refined character. I want to talk intelligently about the dress standards of the Church, and I've chose to define these modesty standards in two ways: the Lord’s teachings on clothing, and His teachings on nakedness.

Clothing and nakedness have both a literal and symbolic place in scripture. Before we can understand the doctrine of modesty, we need to be familiar with the teachings of ancient prophets, as well as Christ himself, on the significance of clothing and nakedness.

What can we learn from ancient scripture on God’s standards for clothing? How does this relate to our standards of modesty today?

Clothing has always been a literal representation of piety. To receive clothing, or standards for clothing from God is a symbol of our covenant with him. To be covered by this clothing means to be covered and protected by him and His law. And on one of the most fundamental Christian levels, to give clothing to the naked consistently represents the highest form of charity.





Beginning with the coats of skin that God made with Adam and Eve, there is a robust history on God's dealings with the clothing of his people. The Hebrew word used for Atonement is כפרת, or Kaparah, which also means "to cover." While the language suggests a loving God covering us with his protection against all sin and destruction, it also suggests the coverings He has provided for His children since the beginning of their mortal probation.




The high priest's attire set Aaron and the Levites apart as the priestly classes. Under the Law of Moses, strict laws relating to clothing were put into place which set the entire Jewish population apart. One perfect example of these many customs, traditions, and laws is the robe without seam: a long white robe which would be woven without seam, and was not to be made of mixed fibers (see Leviticus 19: 19.) We can safely assume that Lehi and his family carried these same Jewish traditions with them over to the new world, because we see them talking about cleansing their garments of blood/sin, and rending their garments to show humility and repentance.

We must also keep in mind that their standards of clothing were stricter than ours. To keep the private, sacred parts of their bodies covered simply went without saying to the culture of Ancient Israel. The fact that weaves, fabrics, ornaments, and other aspects of fashion dominate the Old Testament conversation on clothing doesn't mean that God didn't care about hemlines and cleavage back then. It simply reflects that it was a matter that didn't need to be explained to them in obvious detail.

Christ abides by these very same teachings and standards, showing their validity as sacred law. His seamless robe demonstrates that these were not just traditions invented by priests out of chauvinism; the symbolic nature of clothing was so important to the Lord that prophecies of Christ’s death include his seamless robe being torn (John 19:23.) 




And who could forget the beautiful story of Christ healing the woman who reached out to touch his garment? (Matt5: 28-30) While our Catholic and Orthodox neighbors attribute the power of this miracle to the garment itself, we know to attribute the power of Christ to Christ himself--not to his possessions.

It was because of his virtue, his modesty, his total moral perfection before God that even touching the raiment of Christ allowed someone to be healed. Christ may never have addressed modesty by name in his teachings. But in this account we see the power of modesty, chastity, and virtue modeled perfectly by the master teacher. 

Clothing is also consistently associated with the language of salvation. (see Isaiah 61: 10, Revelations 3: 5) If our clothing is truly unimportant to God, why is it inseparable to His covenants throughout history, and finally inseparable from exaltation itself? Why does Christ himself abide by those principles if they are simply false traditions taught by men?

Here I address the accusation that Jesus never cared about modesty because He never addressed it by name. We have no proof that he never addressed it, we only assume this to be the case because such an account is not included in our scriptures. But why should we expect Christ to command us in all things before we are willing to follow His example? It should simply be enough to live as he lived without the expectation for compulsion.

As we can see, the Lord has always used clothing to express His love to His children, to signify His covenant with them, to set them apart from all that was immoral and iniquitous in the world. As we follow that same example, we receive His divine protection.

Today, our standards of modesty are different. In fact, we enjoy some of the greatest freedoms in terms of what to wear that the world has ever known. It is true that knee length skirts, one piece bathing suits, covered backs and chests, and sleeves on everything from t-shirts to wedding dresses can present challenges to us. But we enjoy freedoms for styles, fabrics, weaves, colors, and designs that reflect our cultures from all over the world. For that we must be truly grateful, and rejoice in our diversity.

Modesty has been a part of man’s relationship with God since the beginning. And just as Christ said that Solomon in all his wealth was never arrayed so finely as simple lily, we must be willing to receive reality checks on our clothing choices when they come. Otherwise, we miss the lessons of loveliness from the Creator of all that is truly and timelessly beautiful.

What can we learn from ancient scripture about nakedness? What are the teachings of Christ on it specifically? How does this knowledge relate to standards of modesty in our day?

Nakedness has three connotations in the scriptures: poverty, sin and rebellion. In the teachings of Christ, we see references to all three. In the same way that clothing had both temporal and spiritual significance, so too does nakedness.




In Matthew 25: 35-40, we see Jesus speaking in relation to the nakedness of poverty. The Lord and His prophets alike hardly refer to the poor without expressing it in such plain terms of “clothing the naked.” His mandate is to clothe nakedness wherever we find it, for to do so is to love Him. To fail in this duty is no different to God than if we were to leave Him naked and destitute. He leaves no room for argument or interpretation. (See also James 2: 16; Jacob 2: 19; Mosiah 18: 28.)



But in Matthew 22: 11-12, we see Christ speaking against a spiritual nakedness, a rebellion which in this parable hearkens back to Satan himself. To be without the wedding garment means to be a stranger to the Bridegroom, in this case to God himself. As God has offered his covering, His Atonement, freely to all--some will yet return to His presence in their mortal nakedness. They have stubbornly remained attached the world in all its trends and sensual pleasures. They are the natural men, enemies to God. In verse 13, we read about what He intends to do in this situation.

In the language of the scriptures, Satan is naked (Job 26: 6.) He has been since the beginning of the world because he did not receive a body, nor the coats of skin Adam and Eve received to clothe their bodies. This clothing demonstrates how Satan was cast out, and is not covered by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. 

That image of being naked and separated from God repeats throughout the Book of Mormon. After the Lamanites separate from the Nephites, Nephi records that they began wearing very little clothing, hunting wild beasts in the forest, and living in ever growing depravity (Alma 3: 5; 43: 20; 44: 18.) The Book of Mormon testifies repeatedly that nakedness is a representation of apostasy.

Much of the feeling the Lord communicates in regards to immodesty is written in very symbolic language. Isaiah by far provides the most vivid descriptions—but any member who habitually skips over the Isaiah in their scripture reading will be unfamiliar with it.

Isaiah 3 details the depraved state of Zion during his day—the poverty and social breakdown which surround them on all sides. All that is praiseworthy in their society, including the worship of God Himself, has been abandoned and consumed in sin. Isaiah records that, “the shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not.”

But when you read the chapter in full, much of the description of their sin is expressed in the imagery of clothing. In fact, he spends nearly half of the chapter comparing Zion to a harlot, dressed in the clothing which has become typical to their time period (see verses 16-24.) Their immodesty has become synonymous with their immorality and their rejection of the Lord.




Isaiah states that “Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory.”

Immodesty is a provocation to the Lord. It is offensive to Him. And when we interpret Isaiah to be speaking of his own time and experience, that interpretation is not accurate. In addition to speaking prophetically of/to his contemporaries, he is also speaking of/to us about the days in which we live.

Nephi had the same opportunity to see our day, and he remarked in 1 Nephi 13: 7, “I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.”

How would Nephi know a harlot in our day if he saw one? The same way we recognize one. It’s not from the clothing they’re wearing, it’s from the clothing… well, that they aren’t wearing. To be immodest is to be wearing the trademark of a harlot. But what harm does that really do? Does a tank top and booty shorts really make that much of a difference in someone's salvation?

Verse 9 in the same chapter with Nephi is where we find our answer.

“And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.”

We bring too much of our own wisdom and rationalizing into the teaching and discussion of modesty. Immodesty is not wrong because it could cause others to view us sensually, although that does happen. It's not because it somehow diminishes our worth in the eyes of God. It isn't because immodesty leads us to break other commandments, or the law of chastity itself. It isn't because in one fell swooping neckline, all society is led to moral ruin.

The question of hemlines and necklines, the sleeves, skin-tight and see-through, backs, breasts and bathing suit--all stem from one reality; one issue that leaves all justification speechless before it.

Revealing ourselves and our nakedness is offensive to God.

To be most effective, the reasoning should end HERE. We need not make up secular or logical reasons to convince people of virtue's virtue. No one will be converted or persuaded by anything less than true principle, and the desire to do God's will anyway.

The question then, becomes one of desire. Those who disobey the standards of modesty seek to be sensual, which our culture can no longer distinguish from being desirable. But to be sensual is a sin well laid out in the scriptures. To be sensual is to be carnal--and to be carnal and sensual is to be devilish. It is to trade the Spirit of God, which attends us when we are meek and submissive, for the spirit of rebellion.

This is the sin of immodesty. It is not a sin of secular, statistical, or logical indiscretion. It is a sin of rebellion. And it is that spirit of rebellion, not the behavior of any sin in and of itself, which destroys individuals, families, and nations.

The Consequences of Immodesty

To add some additional observation from personal experience, I have known several women who refuse to enter the temple and make covenants with our Father in Heaven. Their reasoning? Because they know their manner of dress will not cover the garments they receive as part of those covenants.

Rather than repent, they seek to cover their sin by saying they aren't ready to lose their youth (one may only presume they mean their sexuality) to the garment. When I think of their husbands and children, whose prayers to be sealed together are thwarted because of a wife/mother’s vanity—I admit, it makes me angry. And I wouldn't be bringing this up if it wasn't something I have seen over and over again in various places I have lived.





In the choice between all God has to offer you—your family, your eternal progression, your divine inheritance, the ability to live in God’s presence, the fullest expression of Christ’s love for you—and a mini-skirt… there are women out there who would still choose the mini-skirt.

That may be the most expensive mini-skirt they ever own—because it could end up costing them everything that matters to them. All I can say is, I hope it was worth it.

Those who forfeit their relationship with God long enough because of immodesty soon find themselves in a spirit of mocking that which is sacred. They criticize others for living or promoting high standards of modesty. In their guilt, they resist against all correction. In their pride, they view themselves as being morally superior because anyone who attempts to correct them must be doing so sanctimoniously. It soon becomes impossible for God to reach them in their hardened state. They find fault in God’s laws, then in his people, in their leaders, and at last with the Church itself.



"...and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit." 1 Nephi 8: 27

But the most tragic part of that situation is, no matter how much they lash out against God or His people, they’ll never leave a mark. The only person they are truly hurting is themselves.

Modest clothing is not a burden. It is an expectation of the Lord, one that shows the Lord how much we respect ourselves and Him. It is a respect we cannot show in any other way. It is what the Lord has asked for and taught continually--the standard he has set throughout the history of the world. In short, modesty is a simple standard with eternal consequences.

When we seek after God with all of our hearts, one of the standards we will inevitably run into, regardless of our religion, is modesty. When we allow that standard to mold us and shape us into a fit reflection of God’s grace, we become holy as He is holy.

I know that God is our loving Father in Heaven. I know that Jesus is the Christ. Our Savior gave all He had in order to pay the price for our sins. In exchange for our salvation, He has asked for our obedience. I know that when we offer that which He has asked of us, nothing will ever be found wanting in our lives. No sin we leave behind will ever bring the sweetness of joy, which only following Christ can bring us. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints truly is Christ's church restored to the earth. The Book of Mormon is true. Joseph Smith was a prophet, and we have living prophets and apostles on the earth today.

I leave my witness with you in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

More Posts from Me

The Unimpressive Origins of Anti-Queerness in the LDS Church

"Sister Collins, why don't you believe being queer is a sin like the rest of the righteous, obedient Mormons?" Because despite...