Personal Honesty, Accountability, and Responsibility tough pill to swallow but great medicine

[drtanner]

Amen to some great council from Elder Robbins:

Brothers and sisters, I am grateful to be with you in this opening session of the 2017 BYU Campus Education Week. This year’s theme comes from Doctrine and Covenants 50:24, with special emphasis on these words: “And he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light.”

I am going to take a different approach to this theme than might be expected by exposing and illustrating some very cunning and effective ways that the “wicked one” prevents people from progressing and receiving more light (D&C 93:39).

Many gospel principles come in pairs, meaning one is incomplete without the other. I want to refer to three of these doctrinal pairs today:

Agency and responsibility
Mercy and justice
Faith and works
When Satan is successful in dividing doctrinal pairs, he begins to wreak havoc upon mankind. It is one of his most cunning strategies to keep people from growing in the light.

You already know that faith without works really isn’t faith (see James 2:17). My primary focus will be on the other two doctrinal pairs: first, to illustrate how avoiding responsibility affects agency; and second, how “denying justice,” as it is referred to in the Book of Mormon (see Alma 42:30), affects mercy.

The Book of Mormon teaches us that we are agents to “act . . . and not to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:26)—or to be “free to act for [our]selves” (2 Nephi 10:23). This freedom of choice was not a gift of partial agency but of complete and total 100 percent agency. It was absolute in the sense that the One Perfect Parent never forces His children. He shows us the way and may even command us, but, “nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee” (Moses 3:17).

Assuming responsibility and being accountable for our choices are agency’s complementary principles (see D&C 101:78). Responsibility is to recognize ourselves as being the cause for the effects or results of our choices—good or bad. On the negative side, it is to always own up to the consequences of poor choices.

Except for those held innocent, such as little children and the intellectually disabled, gospel doctrine teaches us that each person is responsible for the use of their agency and “will be punished for their own sins” (Articles of Faith 1:2).1 It isn’t just a heavenly principle but a law of nature—we reap what we sow.

Logically then, complete and total agency comes with complete and total responsibility:

And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free. [Helaman 14:30; emphasis added]

THE KORIHOR PRINCIPLE—SEPARATING AGENCY FROM RESPONSIBILITY

One of Satan’s most crafty strategies to gain control of our agency isn’t a frontal attack on our agency but a sneaky backdoor assault on responsibility. Without responsibility, every good gift from God could be misused for evil purposes. For example, freedom of speech without responsibility can be used to create and protect pornography. The rights of a woman can be twisted to justify an unnecessary abortion. When the world separates choice from accountability, it leads to anarchy and a war of wills or survival of the fittest. We could call agency without responsibility the Korihor principle, as we read in the book of Alma “that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17; emphasis added). With negative consequences removed, you now have agency unbridled, as if there were no day of reckoning.

THE NEHOR PRINCIPLE—DENYING JUSTICE

If Satan is not successful in fully separating agency from responsibility, one of his backup schemes is to dull or minimize feelings of ­responsibility—what we could call the Nehor principle, also found in the book of Alma: “That all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble . . . ; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life” (Alma 1:4).

What an attractive offer for those who seek happiness in wickedness! The Nehor principle depends entirely on mercy and denies justice—a separation of the second doctrinal pair aforementioned. Denying justice is a twin of avoiding responsibility. They are essentially the same thing. A common strategy of each Book of Mormon anti-Christ was to separate agency from responsibility. “Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin” (2 Nephi 28:8).

Faith without works, mercy without justice, and agency without responsibility are all different verses of the same seductive and damning song. With each, the natural man rejects accountability in an attempt to sedate his conscience. It is similar to the early sixteenth-century practice of paying for indulgences, but much easier—this way it is free!2 No wonder the broad path is filled with so many. The path parades a guilt-free journey to ­salvation but is, in reality, a cleverly disguised detour to destruction (see 3 Nephi 14:13).

Agency without responsibility is one of the foremost anti-Christ doctrines—very cunning in its nature and very destructive in its results.

THE ANTI-RESPONSIBILITY LIST

To illustrate, I want to share a list of things that Satan tempts people to either say or do to avoid being responsible. This list isn’t all-inclusive, but I believe it covers his most common tactics.

1. Blaming others: Saul disobediently took of the spoils of war from the Amalekites; then, when confronted by Samuel, he blamed the people (see 1 Samuel 15:21).

2. Rationalizing or justifying: Saul then rationalized or justified his disobedience, stating that the saved livestock was for “sacrifice unto the Lord” (1 Samuel 15:21; see also verse 22).

3. Making excuses: Excuses come in a thousand varieties, such as this one from Laman and Lemuel: “How is it possible that the Lord will deliver Laban into our hands? Behold, he is a mighty man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty; then why not us?” (1 Nephi 3:31).

4. Minimalizing or trivializing sin: This is exactly what Nehor advocated (see Alma 1:3–4).

5. Hiding: This is a common avoidance technique. It is a tactic Satan used with Adam and Eve after they partook of the forbidden fruit (see Moses 4:14).

6. Covering up: Closely associated with hiding is covering up, which David attempted to do to conceal his affair with Bathsheba (see 2 Samuel 12:9, 12).

7. Fleeing from responsibility: This is something Jonah tried to do (see Jonah 1:3).

8. Abandoning responsibility: Similar to fleeing is abandoning responsibility. One example is when Corianton forsook his ministry in pursuit of the harlot Isabel (see Alma 39:3).

9. Denying or lying: “And Saul said . . . : I have performed the commandment of the Lord. And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears . . . ?” (1 Samuel 15:13–14).

10. Rebelling: Samuel then rebuked Saul “for rebellion.” “Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king” (1 Samuel 15:23).

11. Complaining and murmuring: One who rebels also complains and murmurs: “And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and . . . said . . . , Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt!” (Numbers 14:2).

12. Finding fault and getting angry: These two are closely associated, as described by Nephi: “And it came to pass that Laman was angry with me, and also with my father; and also was Lemuel” (1 Nephi 3:28).

13. Making demands and entitlements: “We will not that our younger brother shall be a ruler over us. And it came to pass that Laman and Lemuel did take me and bind me with cords, and they did treat me with much harshness” (1 Nephi 18:10–11).

14. Doubting, losing hope, giving up, and quitting: “Our brother is a fool. . . . For they did not believe that I could build a ship” (1 Nephi 17:17–18).

15. Indulging in self-pity and a victim ­mentality: “Behold, these many years we have suffered in the wilderness, which time we might have enjoyed our possessions and the land of our inheritance; yea, and we might have been happy” (1 Nephi 17:21).

16. Being indecisive or being in a spiritual ­stupor: The irony with indecision is that if you don’t make a decision in time, time will make a decision for you.

17. Procrastinating: A twin of indecision is ­procrastination. “But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late” (Helaman 13:38).

18. Allowing fear to rule: This one is also related to hiding: “And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth. . . . His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant” (Matthew 25:25–26).

19. Enabling: An example of enabling or ­helping others to avoid responsibility is the instance when Eli failed to discipline his sons for their grievous sins and was rebuked by the Lord: “Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and . . . honourest thy sons above me . . . ? (1 Samuel 2:29; see also verses 22–36).

When you consider this list with Laman and Lemuel in mind, you will see that they were guilty of nearly everything on the list. It is this list that destroyed Laman and Lemuel. It is an extremely dangerous list.

When reading 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi, we can only try to imagine how difficult it was for the members of Lehi’s family to leave their home, obtain the brass plates, camp out for eight years in the wilderness, and build a large ocean-going vessel. The responsibility that faced the ­family was indeed formidable. Yet, as difficult as a responsibility may be, “difficulty is the excuse history never accepts,”3 as is so graphically illustrated in the case of Laman and Lemuel.

Difficult situations are the test of one’s faith, to see if we will go forward with either a believing heart (see D&C 64:34) or a doubting heart (see D&C 58:29), if at all. A difficult situation reveals a person’s character and either strengthens it, as with Nephi, or weakens and corrupts it, as with Laman and Lemuel, who epitomize what it means to be irresponsible (see Alma 62:41).

EXCUSES DO NOT EQUAL RESULTS

It is important to recognize that excuses never equal results. In the case of Laman and Lemuel, all the excuses in the world could never obtain the brass plates. The reason Nephi obtained the plates and Laman and Lemuel didn’t is because Nephi never went to the anti-responsibility list. He was a champion, and champions do not turn to the list. As Elder David B. Haight of the Quorum of the Twelve stated, “A determined man finds a way; the other man finds an excuse.”4

If the anti-responsibility list is so dangerous, why do so many people frequently turn to it? Because the natural man is irresponsible by nature, he goes to the list as a defense mechanism to avoid shame and embarrassment, stress and anxiety, and the pain and negative consequences of mistakes and sin. Rather than repent to eliminate guilt, he sedates it with excuses. It gives him a false sense that his environment or someone else is to blame, and therefore he has no need to repent.

The anti-responsibility list could also be called the anti-faith list because it halts progress dead in its tracks. When Satan tempts a person to avoid responsibility, that person subtly surrenders their agency because the person is no longer in control or “acting.” Instead they become an object who is being acted upon, and Satan cleverly begins to control their life.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING AN EXCUSE AND GIVING A REASON

It is important to note that everyone occasionally fails in their attempts at success, just as Nephi did with his brothers in their first two trips to Jerusalem when they were trying to obtain the plates. But those who are valiant accept responsibility for their mistakes and sins. They repent, get back on their feet, and continue moving forward in faith. They may give an explanation or a reason for their lack of success but not an excuse.

At first glance it may appear that Adam was blaming Eve when he said, “The woman thou gavest me.” However, when Adam subsequently added “and I did eat,” we are given to understand that he accepted responsibility for his actions and was giving an explanation, not blaming Eve. Eve in turn also said, “And I did eat” (Moses 4:18–19; see also verses 17–20; 5:10–11).

THE POWER AND REWARD OF BEING RESPONSIBLE

Turning to the anti-responsibility list is an act of self-betrayal. It is to give up on oneself and sometimes on others. As I share the following stories, I hope you will observe how going to the anti-responsibility list is counterproductive, even if you are right.

Story 1: 100 Percent Responsibility in the Distribution Center

In 1983 a few partners and I started a new ­company that taught time-management seminars and created and sold day planners.

For corporate seminars, we sent our consultants to the client’s headquarters, where they taught at the corporate training facilities. Prior to the seminar, two employees in our distribution center would prepare and ship several boxes of training materials, such as the day planners, binders, and forms. Also included was a participant’s seminar guidebook of around a hundred pages with quotes, fill-in-the blanks, graphs, and illustrations.

The two distribution center employees would normally send the seminar shipment ten days before the seminar. At the time that the following incident occurred, we were teaching around 250 seminars each month. With so many seminar shipments, these two employees would often commit errors, such as not shipping sufficient quantities or omitting certain materials or not shipping on time. This became an irritating and often embarrassing frustration for the consultants.

When these problems occurred, the seminar division would file a complaint with me, as the distribution center was one of my responsibilities. When I spoke with these two employees about errors and system improvements, they never wanted to accept responsibility for the errors. They would blame others, saying things like, “It’s not our fault. The seminar division filled out the Seminar Supplies Request form incorrectly, and we sent the shipment exactly according to their specifications. It’s their fault. You can’t blame us!” Or they might say, “We shipped it on time, but the freight company delivered it late. You can’t blame us!” Another excuse was, “The binder subsidiary packaged the individual seminar kits with errors, and we shipped the kits as they were given to us. It’s their fault.” It seemed these two employees were never responsible for the errors, and so the errors continued.

Then something critical happened. The director of training for a large multinational corporation attended one of our seminars and was so thrilled with it that she invited us to teach a pilot seminar to its fifty or so top executives. On the day of the seminar, our consultant arrived and opened the boxes of materials and discovered that the seminar guidebooks were missing. Without the seminar guidebooks, how would the participants follow along and take notes? Their training director was panic-stricken. Our consultant did the best he could by making sure each participant was given a pad of paper on which to take notes throughout the day, and the seminar turned out reasonably well, even without the guidebooks.

Extremely embarrassed and angry, their training director called our seminar division and said, “You will never teach here again! How could you have made such an embarrassing and inexcusable error with our pilot seminar?”

An upset senior vice president of our seminar division called me and said, “This is the last straw. We are about to lose a million-dollar account because of the distribution center’s errors. We simply can’t tolerate any more errors!”

As one of the owners of the company, I couldn’t tolerate such errors either. At the same time, I did not want to see these two breadwinners fired. After pondering possible solutions, I decided to implement an incentive system to motivate these two men to be more careful. For each seminar shipped correctly, they would receive one additional dollar, or a possibility of an extra $250 each month—hopefully enough to focus their attention on quality. However, if they made one error, a one-dollar penalty wasn’t much of a loss. I therefore decided to also include two $100 bonuses for no errors. With the first error they not only lost one dollar but also the first $100 bonus. If they made a second error, they lost the second $100 bonus.

I also told these employees, “If there is an error, you will lose your bonus, regardless of where that error originates. You are 100 percent responsible for that shipment.”

“Well, that’s not fair,” they responded. “What happens if the seminar division fills out the Seminar Supplies Request form incorrectly and, not knowing, we send the shipment with ‘their’ errors?”

I said, “You will lose your bonus. You are 100 percent responsible for that shipment’s success.”

“That’s not fair! What happens if we send the shipment on time but the freight company delivers it late?”

“You will lose your bonus. You are 100 percent responsible.”

“That’s not fair! What happens if the binder division commits errors in prepackaging the individual seminar kits? You can’t blame us for their mistakes!”

“You will lose your bonus,” I once again responded. “You are 100 percent responsible for that shipment’s success. Do you understand?”

“That isn’t fair!!”

“Well, it may not seem fair, but that’s life. You will lose your bonus.”

What I did was eliminate the anti-­responsibility list as an option for them. They now understood that they could no longer blame others, make excuses, or justify errors—even when they were right and it was someone else’s fault!

What happened next was fascinating to observe. When they would receive an order from the seminar division, they would call the seminar division to review the form item by item. They took responsibility for correcting any errors committed by the seminar division. They began to read the freight company’s documents to make sure the correct delivery date was entered. They began to mark the cardboard shipping boxes “one of seven,” “two of seven,” etc., with each box’s contents written on the outside of the box. They began sending shipments three or four days ­earlier than they had in their previous routine. A few days before the seminar they would call the client company to verify receipt of the shipment and the contents. If they had somehow omitted any materials, they had three or four extra days now to send missing items by express shipment. Errors finally stopped happening, and the employees began to earn their bonuses month after month. It was a life-changing experience for them to learn firsthand the power, control, and reward of being 100 percent responsible.

What these two employees learned is that when they blamed someone else, they were surrendering control of the shipment’s success to ­others—such as the seminar division or the freight company. They learned that excuses keep you from taking control of your life. They learned that it is self-defeating to blame others, make excuses, or justify mistakes—even when you are right! The moment you do any of these self-defeating things, you lose control over the positive outcomes you are seeking in life.

Story 2: “Putting My Marriage Before My Pride”

Let me quote from the experience of a young wife:

Like any couple, my husband and I have had disagreements during our marriage. But one incident stands out in my mind. I no longer recall the reason for our disagreement, but we ended up not speaking at all, and I remember feeling that it was all my husband’s fault. I felt I had done absolutely nothing for which I needed to apologize.

As the day went by, I waited for my husband to say he was sorry. Surely he could see how wrong he was. It must be obvious how much he had hurt my feelings. I felt I had to stand up for myself; it was the principle that mattered.

As the day was drawing to a close, I started to realize that I was waiting in vain, so I went to the Lord in prayer. I prayed that my husband would realize what he had done and how it was hurting our marriage. I prayed that he would be inspired to apologize so we could end our disagreement.

As I was praying, I felt a strong impression that I should go to my husband and apologize. I was a bit shocked by this impression and immediately pointed out in my prayer that I had done nothing wrong and therefore should not have to say I was sorry. A thought came strongly to my mind: “Do you want to be right, or do you want to be married?”

As I considered this question, I realized that I could hold onto my pride and not give in until he apologized, but how long would that take? Days? I was miserable while we weren’t speaking to each other. I understood that while this incident itself wouldn’t be the end of our marriage, if I were always unyielding, that might cause serious damage over the years. I decided it was more important to have a happy, loving marriage than to keep my pride intact over something that would later seem trivial.

I went to my husband and apologized for upsetting him. He also apologized, and soon we were happy and united again in love.

Since that time there have been occasions when I have needed to ask myself that question again: “Do you want to be right, or do you want to be married?” How grateful I am for the great lesson I learned the first time I faced that question. It has always helped me realign my perspective and put my husband and my marriage before my own pride.5

In the story, this sister learned that even if she may have been right and it was her husband’s fault, blaming him was counterproductive, causing her to lose control over positive outcomes. She also discovered that there is power and control in the expression “I’m sorry” when it is used with love unfeigned and empathy—not merely to excuse ourselves.

In a marriage, a 50 percent attitude on both parts may seem logical, but only a 100 percent attitude on both parts closes the door to the anti-responsibility list. A final lesson that this sister learned is that you cannot control the agency of another person—only your own.

A loving mother once gave the following wise counsel to her daughter, who was unhappy with a struggling marriage. She had the daughter draw a vertical line down the middle of a sheet of paper and write down on the left side all the things her husband did that bothered her. Then, on the right side, she had her write down her response to each offense. The mother then had her cut the paper in half, separating the two lists.

“Now throw the paper with your husband’s faults in the garbage. If you want to be happy and improve your marriage, stop focusing on your husband’s faults and focus instead on your own behavior. Examine the way you are responding to the things that bother you and see if you can respond in a different, more positive way.”

This mother understood the power and wisdom of 100 percent responsibility.

THE GREATEST EXAMPLE OF ALL

Of course the Savior was the most responsible person in the history of the world. His is the greatest example. Even in His moments of excruciating pain and anguish, He showed no self-pity, one of the dysfunctional items on the list. He was always thinking outward with His ever-selfless care and concern for others—restoring a soldier’s ear in Gethsemane and, later, on the cross, praying for those who had despitefully used Him—in fulfillment of His own commandment to do so: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

The more we are like Jesus Christ, the less likely we are to judge unrighteously, to give up on someone, or to quit a worthy cause. Even though we may sometimes give up on ourselves, the Savior never gives up on us, because He is perfect in His long-suffering: “Notwithstanding their sins, my bowels are filled with compassion towards them” (D&C 101:9).

Jesus Christ did not come to find fault, criticize, or blame. He came to build up, edify, and save (see Luke 9:56). However, His compassion does not nullify His expectation that we be fully responsible and never try to minimize or justify sin. “For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (D&C 1:31; see also Alma 45:16). If the Lord cannot look upon sin with even the least degree of allowance, what law of the gospel demands complete and full responsibility for sin?

That would be the law of justice. “What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God” (Alma 42:25; see also verse 24). Not in the “least degree” and “not one whit” are other ways of saying that God holds His children 100 percent responsible for the use of their agency. The danger of the anti-responsibility list consists in the fact that it blinds its victims to the need for repentance. Laman and Lemuel, for example, didn’t see a need to repent because it was all Nephi’s fault. “If it’s not my fault, why should I repent?” The one blinded can’t even take the first step in the repentance process, which is to recognize the need for repentance.

Alma understood very well how excuses keep us from repenting, as we discover in this verse where he counseled his wayward son, Corianton:

What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. . . .

O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God; but do you let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his long-suffering have full sway in your heart; and let it bring you down to the dust in humility. [Alma 42:25, 30]

As we learn from this verse, those who use excuses are “denying justice”—the Nehor ­principle—and believe that the law of justice doesn’t apply to them. Alma was pleading with his son not to go to the list. “Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point.” He was teaching his son to be 100 percent responsible.

To deny God’s justice—or to say we are not accountable for sin—is to also deny His justification in the forgiveness of that sin: “The Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins” (Helaman 5:10; emphasis added).

TWO WAYS TO DENY THE LORD’S JUSTICE

Satan successfully divides the complimentary principles of mercy and justice when a person succumbs to the temptation to deny the Lord’s justice. Denying the Lord’s justice comes in at least two forms. The first, which I have already mentioned, is to deny the law of justice in regard to one’s own sins, something both Korihor and Nehor advocated. A second and equally damaging denial is not trusting in the Lord’s justice or in His wisdom in dealing with the injustices others have perpetrated against us.

In the movie based on the masterfully written classic The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, Edmond Dantès, the protagonist, is an honest and loving man who turns bitter and vengeful after three covetous men bear false witness against him and frame him in a treasonous plot. When a corrupt public prosecutor becomes complicit, Dantès is arrested on the very day he is to be married to his beautiful fiancée, Mercédès. At age nineteen he is given a life sentence in the infamous island prison of Chateau d’If for a crime he did not commit.

After many tortuous years in solitary confinement, he finally meets another prisoner, the elderly Abbé Faria, who in his search for freedom has miscalculated and tunneled his way to Edmond’s cell rather than to an outside wall and freedom. With a tunnel now connecting their cells and nothing but time on their hands, Faria begins to teach Dantès history, science, philosophy, and languages, turning him into a well-educated man. Faria also bequeaths to Dantès a treasure of vast wealth hidden on the uninhabited island of Monte Cristo and tells him how to find it, should he ever escape.

Knowing that vengeance could consume and destroy Dantès, Abbé Faria teaches him a final lesson before he dies. The lesson is to not deny the Lord’s justice.

Abbé Faria says, “Do not commit the crime for which you now serve the sentence. God said, ‘Vengeance is mine.’”

Dantès responds, “I don’t believe in God.”

Abbé Faria then says, “It doesn’t matter. He believes in you.”6

Dantès remains unconvinced. Upon the death of Faria, Dantès devises a clever plan by hiding himself in the death shroud of Faria and is finally able to escape his fourteen years of torment from Chateau d’If. After securing the treasure, he becomes extremely wealthy and assumes a new identity as the Count of Monte Cristo.

For the evil men who conspired against him, he devises an elaborate plan of revenge with a painful and prolonged punishment—a just recompense for the fourteen years he barely survived in the dungeon to which they had unjustly sent him.

With precision Dantès sets in motion his plan, and his enemies suffer the punishment he has carefully devised for each one of them.

When we read the book or watch the movie version of The Count of Monte Cristo, there is something in us that wants to see justice served against those cruel and conspiring men who inflicted so much pain on an innocent man. There is a sense of fairness and a desire in each of us that good must prevail over evil, that things lost must be restored, and that broken hearts must be mended. Until these things happen, there is an injustice gap that is hard for us to reconcile in our minds and even more so in our hearts—leaving us troubled and finding it difficult to move on.

People try to reconcile this injustice gap in many ways: through seeking revenge, justifying their anger and bitterness, or seeking legal redress and imposed consequences. We ultimately discover that the Lord’s way is the only way for true and complete reconciliation.

The error of Dantès was not necessarily seeking redress and justice according to the law of the land and bringing devious facts to light with appropriate penalties for the guilty but in letting his desire for justice turn to hatred, anger, self-pity, self-justification, and other disabling behaviors on the anti-responsibility list. He essentially descended to his enemies’ level of ungodliness, and he used deception, lies, and fraud to entrap them—all outside the lawful process—just as they had done to him and just as Abbé Faria had prophesied.

By relying on the law of Moses—an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth—rather than on the law of the gospel, including forgiving and praying for one’s enemies, Dantès imposed a life sentence of misery and bitterness upon himself. In denying the Lord’s justice for others, he unwittingly denied the Lord’s mercy for himself and chose to serve the sentence that Christ had already served in his behalf. It robbed him of a life of happiness that could have been his but for the want of revenge.

Having faith in Jesus Christ is to trust that because of His atoning sacrifice, He will correct all injustices, restore all things lost, and mend all things broken, including hearts. He will make all things right, not leaving any detail unattended. Therefore, “ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds” (D&C 64:11).

Like Edmond Dantès, many victims have been so cruelly injured, such as in abuse cases, with no apparent justice forthcoming, that they felt like the Lord was requiring the impossible by asking them to forgive.

As hard as forgiving may be in such situations, not forgiving is even harder over the long run because it puts a person on the disabling anti-responsibility list. Not forgiving is a synonym with blaming, anger, self-justifying, and self‑pity—all things that are on the list. When Satan taps into any of these negative emotions, he begins exercising control over a person’s life.

One of the most difficult times to forgive is in the case of spouse abuse, with its accompanying anguish, pain of betrayal, and cruelty. There is an interesting and common pattern with abuse cases: the abuser nearly always blames the victim, just as Laman and Lemuel blamed Nephi for their abuse of him. The Lord warned Nephi to separate his family from his brothers and their wicked intentions so he could protect himself and his family (see 2 Nephi 5:1–7). Let’s assume that a woman who has been cruelly abused receives similar revelation, and she separates from her extremely abusive husband.

Even though the abused woman is now free from the abusive environment, she is finding it hard to forgive her husband for the sustained and escalating cruelty. It seems unfair to ask her to forgive his brutality when he seems to be unrepentant. It doesn’t seem fair for her, the innocent one, to be suffering while he, the guilty one, appears to get off scot-free. Is there peace to be found without justice?

Like Edmond Dantès, until the abused wife learns to forgive, she is also denying or not trusting in the justice of God and His ability to judge wisely.

Justice is an eternal law that requires a penalty each time a law of God is broken (Alma 42:13–24). The sinner must pay the penalty if he does not repent (Mosiah 2:38–39; D&C 19:17). If he does repent, the Savior pays the penalty through the Atonement, invoking mercy (Alma 34:16).7

If the former husband does not repent, he will pay the penalty—“how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not” (D&C 19:15). The wife will know if he truly repents because his restitution will include humbly and sincerely asking for her forgiveness and his striving to make amends.

Even though the wife may understand the law of justice, what she is feeling is the need for justice now. Elder Neal A. Maxwell wisely taught that “faith in God includes faith in His purposes as well as in His timing. We cannot fully accept Him while rejecting His schedule.”8 Elder Maxwell also said, “The gospel guarantees ultimate, not proximate, justice.”9 “Behold, mine eyes see and know all their works, and I have in reserve a swift judgment in the season thereof, for them all” (D&C 121:24).

The law of justice and trusting in the Lord’s timing allows the wife not to worry about justice anymore and places judgment in God’s hands: “Behold what the scripture says—man shall not smite, neither shall he judge; for judgment is mine, saith the Lord, and vengeance is mine also, and I will repay” (Mormon 8:20).

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland shared this helpful insight:

Please don’t ask if it is fair. . . . When it comes to our own sins, we don’t ask for justice. What we plead for is mercy—and that is what we must be willing to give.

Can we see the tragic irony of not granting to others what we need so badly ourselves?10

Those who have experienced permanent damage, prolonged suffering, or loss from an offense face a far more difficult challenge in forgiving and turning justice over to the Lord. Hopefully they can find comfort in something the Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “What can [these misfortunes] do? Nothing. All your losses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful.”11

Until the abused woman can turn justice over to the Lord, she will likely continue to experience feelings of anger—which are a form of negative devotion toward her abuser—and this traps her in a recurring nightmare. President George Albert Smith referred to this as “cherish[ing] an improper influence.”12 With her husband having hurt her so deeply, why would the wife allow him to continue victimizing her by haunting her thoughts? Hasn’t she suffered enough? Not forgiving her abuser allows him to mentally torment her over and over and over. Forgiving him doesn’t set him free; it sets her free.

Part of understanding forgiveness is to understand what it is not:

Forgiving her abusive husband does not excuse or condone his cruelty.
Forgiving does not mean forgetting his brutality; you cannot unremember or erase a memory that is so traumatic.
Forgiving does not mean that justice is being denied, because mercy cannot rob justice.
Forgiving does not erase the injury he has caused, but it can begin to heal the wounds and ease the pain.
Forgiving does not mean trusting him again and giving him yet another chance to abuse her and the children. While to forgive is a commandment, trust has to be earned and evidenced by good behavior over time, which he clearly has not demonstrated.
Forgiving does not mean forgiveness of his sins. Only the Lord can do that, based upon sincere repentance.
These are things that forgiveness does not mean. What forgiveness does mean is to forgive the husband’s foolishness—even his stupidity—in succumbing to the impulses of the natural man and at the same time still hope that he will yet yield “to the enticings of the Holy Spirit” (Mosiah 3:19). Forgiveness does not mean giving him another chance to abuse, but it does mean giving him another chance at the plan of salvation.

It is also helpful if the wife understands “that we are punished by our sins and not for them.”13 She then recognizes that her abuser has inflicted far more eternal damage upon himself than temporal damage upon her. And even in the present, his true happiness and joy diminish in inverse proportion to his increased wickedness, because “wickedness never was happiness” (Alma 41:10). He is to be pitied for the sorrowful and precarious situation he is in.

Knowing that he is sinking in spiritual quicksand might begin to change her desire for ­justice—which is already occurring—to a hope that he will repent before it is too late. With this understanding she might even begin to pray for the one who has despitefully abused her.

This Christlike change in her heart helps her to forgive and brings about the healing she so desperately wants and deserves. The Savior knows exactly how to heal her because He precisely knows her pain, having lived it vicariously.

In this scenario of the abused wife, we have two parties—the abusive husband and the ­victim-wife, both of whom need divine help. Alma teaches us that the Savior suffered for both: for the sins of the man and for the anguish, heartache, and pain of the woman (see Alma 7:11–12; Luke 4:18).

To access the Savior’s grace and the healing power of His Atonement, the Savior requires something from both of them.

The husband’s key to access the Lord’s grace is repentance. If the husband doesn’t repent, he cannot be forgiven by the Lord (see D&C 19:15–17).

The wife’s key to access the Lord’s grace and then allow Him to heal her is forgiveness. Until the wife is able to forgive, she is choosing to suffer the anguish and pain that He has already suffered on her behalf. By not forgiving, she unwittingly denies His mercy and healing. In a sense, she fulfills this scripture:

I, God, have suffered these things . . . that they might not suffer. . . .

But if they would not repent [or forgive,] they must suffer even as I. [D&C 19:16–17]

CONCLUSION

In summary, being 100 percent responsible is accepting yourself as the person in control of your life. If others are at fault and need to change before further progress is made, then you are at their mercy and they are in control over the positive outcomes or desired results in your life. Agency and responsibility are inseparably connected. You cannot avoid responsibility without also diminishing agency. Mercy and justice are also inseparable. You cannot deny the Lord’s justice without also impeding His mercy. Oh, how Satan loves to divide complementary principles and laugh at the resulting devastation!

I invite each one of you to eliminate the anti-responsibility or anti-faith list from your life, even when you are right! It is an anti-happy and an anti-success list even when you are right. It is not a list for the valiant sons and daughters of God who are seeking to become more like Him. It is one of Satan’s foremost tools in controlling and destroying lives. The day a person eliminates the list from their life is the day they regain control over positive outcomes from that point on, and they begin moving forward in the light at an accelerated pace (see D&C 50:24).

I bear my certain witness of the name of Jesus Christ and of the power and happiness that the fulness of His gospel affords us. He is the Life and the Light of the World. These principles that I shared today are His. I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

[passionflower]

This is not the gospel as much as it is the philosophy of Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was a reader and believer in the Baghavad Vita along with Thoreau and the whole Walden Pond gang. This means he was really into Karma and therefore what you did in this life will affect you in your next one. Emerson was a nonchristian unitarian preacher alive at the time of JS, who obviously did not think much of him. He writings and biography show him to be the epitomy of the type of person foretold in the BOM who would not believe in the visitation of angels, and that Boston was full of (thanks to him) when Martin Harris visited Charles Anthon.

The words "Choice and Accountability" are from one of the lectures of Emerson, and "personal responsibility" is also. "Free agency" was coined by him, too, but at least I have lived long enough to see that one taken down. Want some more? Robbins talk up there is full of them.

None of these phrases occur anywhere in the scriptures. "Agency" occurs once. And some of Robbins sweeping generalizations are just not entirely correct.

Emerson makes good reading. As a philosophy, it is better than some others out there and has some merit to some people in some circumstances. But it is still ONLY a philosophy, not a religion. Agency is a much higher and simpler concept than Emerson or branches of the Hindu religion would have us believe.

The instability of the family in this generation has made Emerson and Thoreau popular again and that is why it has been making a comeback in the last few decades. Philosophies like this are ALWAYS the gospel somehow, and they come and go according to what people are looking for at the time. They have nothing to do with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance for sins, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, etc, but are somehow STILL the gospel.

[drtanner]

This is not the gospel as much as it is the philosophy of Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was a reader and believer in the Baghavad Vita along with Thoreau and the whole Walden Pond gang. This means he was really into Karma and therefore what you did in this life will affect you in your next one. Emerson was a nonchristian unitarian preacher alive at the time of JS, who obviously did not think much of him. He writings and biography show him to be the epitomy of the type of person foretold in the BOM who would not believe in the visitation of angels, and that Boston was full of (thanks to him) when Martin Harris visited Charles Anthon.

The words "Choice and Accountability" are from one of the lectures of Emerson, and "personal responsibility" is also. "Free agency" was coined by him, too, but at least I have lived long enough to see that one taken down. Want some more? Robbins talk up there is full of them.

None of these phrases occur anywhere in the scriptures. "Agency" occurs once. And some of Robbins sweeping generalizations are just not entirely correct.

Emerson makes good reading. As a philosophy, it is better than some others out there and has some merit to some people in some circumstances. But it is still ONLY a philosophy, not a religion. Agency is a much higher and simpler concept than Emerson or branches of the Hindu religion would have us believe.

The instability of the family in this generation has made Emerson and Thoreau popular again and that is why it has been making a comeback in the last few decades. Philosophies like this are ALWAYS the gospel somehow, and they come and go according to what people are looking for at the time. They have nothing to do with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance for sins, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, etc, but are somehow STILL the gospel.

You forgot to provide any examples from Elder Robbins.

[passionflower]

This is not the gospel as much as it is the philosophy of Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was a reader and believer in the Baghavad Vita along with Thoreau and the whole Walden Pond gang. This means he was really into Karma and therefore what you did in this life will affect you in your next one. Emerson was a nonchristian unitarian preacher alive at the time of JS, who obviously did not think much of him. He writings and biography show him to be the epitomy of the type of person foretold in the BOM who would not believe in the visitation of angels, and that Boston was full of (thanks to him) when Martin Harris visited Charles Anthon.

The words "Choice and Accountability" are from one of the lectures of Emerson, and "personal responsibility" is also. "Free agency" was coined by him, too, but at least I have lived long enough to see that one taken down. Want some more? Robbins talk up there is full of them.

None of these phrases occur anywhere in the scriptures. "Agency" occurs once. And some of Robbins sweeping generalizations are just not entirely correct.

Emerson makes good reading. As a philosophy, it is better than some others out there and has some merit to some people in some circumstances. But it is still ONLY a philosophy, not a religion. Agency is a much higher and simpler concept than Emerson or branches of the Hindu religion would have us believe.

The instability of the family in this generation has made Emerson and Thoreau popular again and that is why it has been making a comeback in the last few decades. Philosophies like this are ALWAYS the gospel somehow, and they come and go according to what people are looking for at the time. They have nothing to do with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance for sins, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, etc, but are somehow STILL the gospel.

You forgot to provide any examples from Elder Robbins.

I didn't forget. If you need any more examples, you haven't read enough of the original Emerson essays or anything by Thoreau. The similarities are glaring. They both exhibit what has become an I-am-responsible-for-my-own-life american style idealism.

And they can make good reading as far as worldly stuff is concerned. And sometimes that's OK because we have to live in this world. I'm just saying it is philosophy, not religion, and It's unfortunate when it gets superimposed onto the gospel. It is important to note the distinction between the two.

The descriptions of forgiveness are simply "something to say". People just feel unsettled on such subjects, overcomplicate them, and he is trying to give out some certainty by kind of telling people "what it all means". IMO, uncertainty is just part of life and the ability to live with it is a mark of maturity. If I was ever stupid enough to need all his advise, please shoot me. Even the college age "me" would have been too stupid to live.

When Nephi killed Laban, he was neither honest, accountable, or responsible in the sense Elder Robbins describes. He did not turn himself in for committing crimes of premeditated murder, robbery, kidnapping, and posing as a person he was not, and neither was he the first to say he was sorry after forcing Laban's servant down into the wilderness with them.

The subject of agency is one of the most screwed up topics in the church. While Robbins might be giving good relationship advice and telling his audience to grow up, he isn't really talking about submission to the authority of God and His will in any true religious sense, and/or how changeable that can be in any given circumstance. God may not always want us to act in the manner Robbins describes as ideal. He may not always put two principles together in the way Robbins does. He could suddenly ask you to decapitate a helpless drunken man on the street, take all his clothing and and very fine sword, and go around impersonating him, Tests in life given by God don't always fit so neatly into the packages Robbins puts them into. We had a talk in church Sunday about honesty. A real life example was given, wherein honesty in a certain situation saved a person from being arrested. That's great example, but there are actually times when the spirit tells someone not to be honest, and things not only work out well, but miracles result. I am an eyewitness to such things.

I could take Zen Buddhism, make it sound more americanized and throw a few gospel words in it. Then I could superimpose it onto gospel subjects as Robbins does, and spiritually naive people would go for it. They would eat up my practical down to earth applications on real ordinary life situations and suddenly I would be a popular Mormon guru overnight.

I like Zen Buddhism. But it isn't the gospel. It is a philosophical approach to life that people in a frantic world find appealing, is all. The gospel is Jesus Christ and Him crucified and being the only name under heaven that can save us from hell. That's a huge difference. No matter how honest, accountable and responsible I am, if I don't exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent of my sins as the Lord defines them, get baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and then commit to follow his will the rest of my life no matter how outrageous, exaltation will not be at the end of my road.

When philosophy can bear a resemblance to gospel truths and people accept them as one and the same, it does damage. There are people on this forum who believe Karma and restitution as spoken of in the BOM are one and the same. This is counterfeiting, as these two subjects only bear a superficial resemblance to each other.

The descriptions of "forgiveness" Elder Robbins gives are just "something to say". People feel unsettled on such subjects, emotionally overcomplicate them, and most of all don't use common sense. He is attempting to use the gospel to give out some certainty, and IMO, anybody who needs that doesn't want to face the fact that living with uncertainty is part of life and your ability to do so is a reflection of your level of maturity.

[drtanner]

THE GREATEST EXAMPLE OF ALL

Of course the Savior was the most responsible person in the history of the world. His is the greatest example. Even in His moments of excruciating pain and anguish, He showed no self-pity, one of the dysfunctional items on the list. He was always thinking outward with His ever-selfless care and concern for others—restoring a soldier’s ear in Gethsemane and, later, on the cross, praying for those who had despitefully used Him—in fulfillment of His own commandment to do so: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

The more we are like Jesus Christ, the less likely we are to judge unrighteously, to give up on someone, or to quit a worthy cause. Even though we may sometimes give up on ourselves, the Savior never gives up on us, because He is perfect in His long-suffering: “Notwithstanding their sins, my bowels are filled with compassion towards them” (D&C 101:9).

Jesus Christ did not come to find fault, criticize, or blame. He came to build up, edify, and save (see Luke 9:56). However, His compassion does not nullify His expectation that we be fully responsible and never try to minimize or justify sin. “For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (D&C 1:31; see also Alma 45:16). If the Lord cannot look upon sin with even the least degree of allowance, what law of the gospel demands complete and full responsibility for sin?

Having faith in Jesus Christ is to trust that because of His atoning sacrifice, He will correct all injustices, restore all things lost, and mend all things broken, including hearts. He will make all things right, not leaving any detail unattended. Therefore, “ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds” (D&C 64:11).

Philosophy or gospel?

[passionflower]

THE GREATEST EXAMPLE OF ALL

Of course the Savior was the most responsible person in the history of the world. His is the greatest example. Even in His moments of excruciating pain and anguish, He showed no self-pity, one of the dysfunctional items on the list. He was always thinking outward with His ever-selfless care and concern for others—restoring a soldier’s ear in Gethsemane and, later, on the cross, praying for those who had despitefully used Him—in fulfillment of His own commandment to do so: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

The more we are like Jesus Christ, the less likely we are to judge unrighteously, to give up on someone, or to quit a worthy cause. Even though we may sometimes give up on ourselves, the Savior never gives up on us, because He is perfect in His long-suffering: “Notwithstanding their sins, my bowels are filled with compassion towards them” (D&C 101:9).

Jesus Christ did not come to find fault, criticize, or blame. He came to build up, edify, and save (see Luke 9:56). However, His compassion does not nullify His expectation that we be fully responsible and never try to minimize or justify sin. “For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (D&C 1:31; see also Alma 45:16). If the Lord cannot look upon sin with even the least degree of allowance, what law of the gospel demands complete and full responsibility for sin?

Having faith in Jesus Christ is to trust that because of His atoning sacrifice, He will correct all injustices, restore all things lost, and mend all things broken, including hearts. He will make all things right, not leaving any detail unattended. Therefore, “ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds” (D&C 64:11).

Philosophy or gospel?

This is what I think I could call "comfort" gospel, and I see this all the time. What is being taught is good enough, but the premise it is placed on is incorrect. It is this kind of "everything is going to be OK, and Jesus will always be with you leaving His footsteps in the sand as He is carrying you" kind of thing.

If I wanted to take the time to shoot holes through all that up there using the scriptures, it could be easily done.

When you get emotional about the gospel, you don't see it straight anymore, and Jesus gets painted to be this man for all seasons who is "supposed to be" a certain way, which is whatever we need Him to be at any given time.

But that is far removed from gaining a revelation of the Saviour to ourselves. He is a real person with a real and dynamic personality. He is someone to "get to know" by virtue of the Holy Ghost. Not someone to create to fit our personal needs and weaknesses. It is eacy to forget that when the Brother of Jared was brought back into the presence of Jehovah, he was not enveloped in some lovey dovey experience. He was scared nearly out of his mind and in places he never knew he had! If you read the scriptures about any time an angel has appeared, this same type of very frightening scenario takes place. I can relate to this and testify of it.

Oh Boy can I ever!

On my StoryHour Thread, I tell several tales of my own going to and from the spirit world. I don't just expect you to believe me here just because " I said so", of course, but for myself I can vouch for the fact that when you arrive in the spirit world, your perspective goes through a tremendous change. You no longer "need" Jesus to fix your problems, right your wrongs, mend your broken heart, etc. The things you think are so very important now, like alot of the stuff written in your post up there, really no longer matter at all.

That's why I call this kind of stuff comfort gospel. It isn't really true, but it makes everyone feel better and maintains them inside the gospel net ( they don't lose faith). But on the other hand, no real growth and maturity in understanding is experienced and no faith is really tested. It is well intended, though. I give Elder Robbins my sincere belief that his intentions are good. I of course assume yours are also.

When people do this stuff, they are presenting the gospel in a form that requires little depth and searching out on the person listening. Everything is explained right now, in an easily digestable manner, which can be made use of at this moment. Life now looks based on certain consistent "laws", and uncertainty is erased, to a degree.
I am not knocking philosophy, everyone could use a philosophy of life. I am just trying distinguish the difference between it and religion. One comes from Man and is about making sense of this world, the other is from God and is preparing us for a better one.

[drtanner]

If I wanted to take the time to shoot holes through all that up there using the scriptures, it could be easily done

Would love to hear any of what you feel are holes In his message from the scriptures. Thanks for sharing your perspective on the talk.

[Arandur]

This is not the gospel as much as it is the philosophy of Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was a reader and believer in the Baghavad Vita along with Thoreau and the whole Walden Pond gang. This means he was really into Karma and therefore what you did in this life will affect you in your next one. Emerson was a nonchristian unitarian preacher alive at the time of JS, who obviously did not think much of him. He writings and biography show him to be the epitomy of the type of person foretold in the BOM who would not believe in the visitation of angels, and that Boston was full of (thanks to him) when Martin Harris visited Charles Anthon.

The words "Choice and Accountability" are from one of the lectures of Emerson, and "personal responsibility" is also. "Free agency" was coined by him, too, but at least I have lived long enough to see that one taken down. Want some more? Robbins talk up there is full of them.

None of these phrases occur anywhere in the scriptures. "Agency" occurs once. And some of Robbins sweeping generalizations are just not entirely correct.

Emerson makes good reading. As a philosophy, it is better than some others out there and has some merit to some people in some circumstances. But it is still ONLY a philosophy, not a religion. Agency is a much higher and simpler concept than Emerson or branches of the Hindu religion would have us believe.

The instability of the family in this generation has made Emerson and Thoreau popular again and that is why it has been making a comeback in the last few decades. Philosophies like this are ALWAYS the gospel somehow, and they come and go according to what people are looking for at the time. They have nothing to do with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance for sins, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, etc, but are somehow STILL the gospel.

Interesting observation. I hadn't made the connection to Emerson on my first read, but the influence is clear now that I'm looking for it. Funny, I've never been a big fan of Emerson's thinking, but I found this talk quite edifying.

It's true that it isn't the gospel in the sense of focusing on the core principles and ordinances - he only lightly touches on faith and repentance - but his stated purpose was "exposing and illustrating some very cunning and effective ways that the 'wicked one' prevents people from progressing and receiving more light". That is, he is discussing common obstacles to coming unto Christ and living the gospel, and how to overcome them. I think he did that quite well.

Sadly, topics like this are often taken as the essence of the gospel, as if we are meant to develop these skills, habits, and mindsets by which we perfect ourselves and overcome our own sins, thereby qualifying for a remission of past sins through the atonement, etc. That's not possible of course, but it's a clever and strangely enticing trap to fall into that mindset. It's unfortunate that we sometimes facilitate that trap in seeking to understand how to become better servants of Christ. I wish it were more frequently made clear that it's God who perfects us and purifies our hearts, not us or our works in and of themselves. Thinking otherwise can certainly keep us from exercising faith in Christ, repenting, etc. At least as far as our own salvation is concerned, works are important in that we turn to God by aligning our works with His will (repentance). That is, we obey. We turn to Him and do it His way, which often involves giving up things we don't see as bad or doing things we don't see as important or even desirable.

But avoiding responsibility, making excuses, and the like can also keep us from faith in Christ, repentance and baptism. I can say from sad personal experience that the habit also makes it quite difficult to consistently obey the promptings of the Holy Ghost. To the degree that this happens to a given person, these principles constitute an important facet of their path to the Savior and His gospel. The connection may not have been explicitly made by Elder Robbins, but it's there. And I expect that the honest seeker who is coming unto Christ but is being held back by behaviors like those described will benefit greatly. The key is to apply principles like these as the Spirit directs.

[passionflower]

If I wanted to take the time to shoot holes through all that up there using the scriptures, it could be easily done

Would love to hear any of what you feel are holes In his message from the scriptures. Thanks for sharing your perspective on the talk.

OK, just a few things here.

When Jesus was 12 years old, he took off on his parents who sought him with sorrow for three days, was it? Would anybody say a 12 year old doing something like this was the "most responsible person in the history of the world?" If course not. And he doesn't apologize when they tell him how distressed they were, either. He just simply says,"wist ye not that I be about my father's business?" Which makes them look bad and doesn't really address their feelings or authority as his parents at all. Jesus was responsible all right, but only to His Father.

Although He certainly was outwardly caring, when he cries, " Father, Father, why has thou forsaken me?" he is feeling his own pain there, and badly. When in the Garden, and the reality of His mission comes to Him, He begs not to have to go through with it. He wants some other way than this. Even Jesus doesn't always get His prayers answered with a "yes", even after pleading three times. However, the crowning achievement, once again, is his willingness to submit His will, which is to not going through with suffering for the sins of the world, at least not as planned, to His Fathers, which is to go full speed ahead. He does get an angel to assist Him, though. This is where Jesus is the true example. Regardless of how He felt, He submitted to His Father. If anybody here is truly responsible, and follows through with integrity, honour, accountablity, responsibility, and honesty, it is God the Father. Nothing sways Him. Even the desperate pleadings of His only begotten Son.

Jesus never gave any commandments that were His own, the whole gospel comes down from God the Father. And the reason while on the cross He prays for the soldiers who crucified Him to be forgiven because they knew not what they did, is because they really didn't know what they were doing. To them, Jesus was a convicted criminal, guilty of the high Treason against the government of Rome. The Romans had a long history of secret type combination who attempted to put their leaders on the throne as King, and they killed whoever got in their way. Since members of such societies are hard to find, just the suspicion alone could get you the death sentence. In such cases, Romans WILL shoot first and ask questions later. The Jewish leaders knew they had Pontius Pilate just where they wanted him when they accused Jesus of the crime of establishing himself as King.
Well, but wasn't Herod a King? No. Not in any real sense of the word.

Jesus did a whole lot of fault finding, criticizing and blaming, but in the name of His Father and the mission He was to perform. All prophets did, and like Him, lost His life for it. John The Baptist, who Jesus called the greatest of all prophets, called some guys who came to His baptism a generation of vipers and told them God could raise up better children than them out of the rocks. That's pretty insulting. He told them, in so many words that they were vain, pompous, and hypocritical. A lot of judgement going on there. The only person one-upping Him on this kind of talk is Jesus Himself. His refusing to speak to Herod at all screams volumes.

And I think I said elsewhere that needing Jesus to "right all wrongs" is something from this world alone. He is going to judge the world, yes, but the things you really worry about here, once you are dead, you don't worry about so much anymore.

This kind of quote up there is, IMO, for people very young in the gospel, and who have to "feel right" about everything. If this is something somebody just HAD to have to go on, then so be it. I told the story a while back of a time when my VT came by, and I was just looking at a new book I bought. It was a college textbook on what was then new stuff from the latest in archeological excavations in the Mediterranean. Therein, there were photos of mosaics (?) found in what was believed to be Christian churches from the 1st century AD. So little is known about the Christian Church in this century, that this was very exciting. The Mosaics were picturing the Apostles and Jesus Christ alone and among them. In these several churches, that were not near each other, all the mosaic depictions were alike. In other words, you may not know who was which Apostle, but you saw the same ones depicted in each mosaic and could recognize individuals from one mosaic to the other. I thought my VT would be interested in how Jesus Christ was portrayed.
She wasn't. In fact, she jumped up from the couch, covered her mouth and screamed. I am not kidding. I was so startled it took me a bit to get what was going on. In a moment she blurted out something like this was not her ideal representation of Jesus, as he wasn't big and buff and good looking enough. He also had to be married to Mary Magdalene, be her personal romantic ideal, and have several small chiuldren he was the perfect father to, or HE WASN'T JESUS CHRIST!!!!!, and she abruptly left my house, and I thought she had begun to cry. In a few days I got a new VT. This woman was then the YW President, and before that had been the RS President.
I don't know about you, but that says to me somebody doesn't really love the Lord, or look to Him for the right reasons or want to know him. What does any of that stuff so important to her have to do with being saved from Hell? Like a lot of people, she is making up a guy that fits into her own needs at the time.
I know you will want to know so I will tell you that he mosaics consistently showed Jesus and His Apostles dressed in Roman garb. Of course this is how they dressed, and not in the way so often depicted in art since then. It is clear from the scriptural descriptions: sandals with latchets, robes without seams, hidden knives, etc. They were all shown as clean shaven with short Roman style hair cuts. Rome dominated the world at this time. Even the Roman Toga became the mode of dress all the way to Great Britain. And yes, Jesus and the Apostles are wearing Roman Togas, and pretty skimpy ones at that. The reason you know who Jesus is, among the other Apostles, is because he gets portrayed alone as the good shepherd in several places in these churches. He always looks the same. He is shortest of all the Apostles. He has short dark curly hair, very fair skin and blue eyes. He is also shortest among the Apostles, like a whole head shorter, is definately on the slim side with a slight build and a baby face. Think of a dark haired Michael J Fox from Back to the Future.
His eyes are close together, he has a weak chin, and his nose is too large. No, not a real good looking desirable guy. But we are told He would be like that, didn't we? No wonder no one recognized Him when He resurrected ( if these are true depictions, that is. Maybe these were their own idealized ideas, who knows?)

But if there is any truth to these pictures, which would have been put together when the Apostles were still alive, they speak volumes. If Jesus Christ had a build like this, no wonder the Roman soldiers thought nailing his hands alone to the cross would be insufficient to hold him up. No wonder someone else had to carry His cross. And most important of all, this would add a most HORRIFIC dimension to the atonement and the kind of guy was whipped and beaten by Roman soldiers after suffering the weight of the sins of the world. No wonder he was begging for a way out. No wonder the element of the miraculous is so much in play here. Maybe just maybe, he wasn't the man's man or the romantic big and buff ideal.

[drtanner]

If I wanted to take the time to shoot holes through all that up there using the scriptures, it could be easily done

Would love to hear any of what you feel are holes In his message from the scriptures. Thanks for sharing your perspective on the talk.

OK, just a few things here.

When Jesus was 12 years old, he took off on his parents who sought him with sorrow for three days, was it? Would anybody say a 12 year old doing something like this was the "most responsible person in the history of the world?" If course not. And he doesn't apologize when they tell him how distressed they were, either. He just simply says,"wist ye not that I be about my father's business?" Which makes them look bad and doesn't really address their feelings or authority as his parents at all. Jesus was responsible all right, but only to His Father.

Although He certainly was outwardly caring, when he cries, " Father, Father, why has thou forsaken me?" he is feeling his own pain there, and badly. When in the Garden, and the reality of His mission comes to Him, He begs not to have to go through with it. He wants some other way than this. Even Jesus doesn't always get His prayers answered with a "yes", even after pleading three times. However, the crowning achievement, once again, is his willingness to submit His will, which is to not going through with suffering for the sins of the world, at least not as planned, to His Fathers, which is to go full speed ahead. He does get an angel to assist Him, though. This is where Jesus is the true example. Regardless of how He felt, He submitted to His Father. If anybody here is truly responsible, and follows through with integrity, honour, accountablity, responsibility, and honesty, it is God the Father. Nothing sways Him. Even the desperate pleadings of His only begotten Son.

Jesus never gave any commandments that were His own, the whole gospel comes down from God the Father. And the reason while on the cross He prays for the soldiers who crucified Him to be forgiven because they knew not what they did, is because they really didn't know what they were doing. To them, Jesus was a convicted criminal, guilty of the high Treason against the government of Rome. The Romans had a long history of secret type combination who attempted to put their leaders on the throne as King, and they killed whoever got in their way. Since members of such societies are hard to find, just the suspicion alone could get you the death sentence. In such cases, Romans WILL shoot first and ask questions later. The Jewish leaders knew they had Pontius Pilate just where they wanted him when they accused Jesus of the crime of establishing himself as King.
Well, but wasn't Herod a King? No. Not in any real sense of the word.

Jesus did a whole lot of fault finding, criticizing and blaming, but in the name of His Father and the mission He was to perform. All prophets did, and like Him, lost His life for it. John The Baptist, who Jesus called the greatest of all prophets, called some guys who came to His baptism a generation of vipers and told them God could raise up better children than them out of the rocks. That's pretty insulting. He told them, in so many words that they were vain, pompous, and hypocritical. A lot of judgement going on there. The only person one-upping Him on this kind of talk is Jesus Himself. His refusing to speak to Herod at all screams volumes.

And I think I said elsewhere that needing Jesus to "right all wrongs" is something from this world alone. He is going to judge the world, yes, but the things you really worry about here, once you are dead, you don't worry about so much anymore.

This kind of quote up there is, IMO, for people very young in the gospel, and who have to "feel right" about everything. If this is something somebody just HAD to have to go on, then so be it. I told the story a while back of a time when my VT came by, and I was just looking at a new book I bought. It was a college textbook on what was then new stuff from the latest in archeological excavations in the Mediterranean. Therein, there were photos of mosaics (?) found in what was believed to be Christian churches from the 1st century AD. So little is known about the Christian Church in this century, that this was very exciting. The Mosaics were picturing the Apostles and Jesus Christ alone and among them. In these several churches, that were not near each other, all the mosaic depictions were alike. In other words, you may not know who was which Apostle, but you saw the same ones depicted in each mosaic and could recognize individuals from one mosaic to the other. I thought my VT would be interested in how Jesus Christ was portrayed.
She wasn't. In fact, she jumped up from the couch, covered her mouth and screamed. I am not kidding. I was so startled it took me a bit to get what was going on. In a moment she blurted out something like this was not her ideal representation of Jesus, as he wasn't big and buff and good looking enough. He also had to be married to Mary Magdalene, be her personal romantic ideal, and have several small chiuldren he was the perfect father to, or HE WASN'T JESUS CHRIST!!!!!, and she abruptly left my house, and I thought she had begun to cry. In a few days I got a new VT. This woman was then the YW President, and before that had been the RS President.
I don't know about you, but that says to me somebody doesn't really love the Lord, or look to Him for the right reasons or want to know him. What does any of that stuff so important to her have to do with being saved from Hell? Like a lot of people, she is making up a guy that fits into her own needs at the time.
I know you will want to know so I will tell you that he mosaics consistently showed Jesus and His Apostles dressed in Roman garb. Of course this is how they dressed, and not in the way so often depicted in art since then. It is clear from the scriptural descriptions: sandals with latchets, robes without seams, hidden knives, etc. They were all shown as clean shaven with short Roman style hair cuts. Rome dominated the world at this time. Even the Roman Toga became the mode of dress all the way to Great Britain. And yes, Jesus and the Apostles are wearing Roman Togas, and pretty skimpy ones at that. The reason you know who Jesus is, among the other Apostles, is because he gets portrayed alone as the good shepherd in several places in these churches. He always looks the same. He is shortest of all the Apostles. He has short dark curly hair, very fair skin and blue eyes. He is also shortest among the Apostles, like a whole head shorter, is definately on the slim side with a slight build and a baby face. Think of a dark haired Michael J Fox from Back to the Future.
His eyes are close together, he has a weak chin, and his nose is too large. No, not a real good looking desirable guy. But we are told He would be like that, didn't we? No wonder no one recognized Him when He resurrected ( if these are true depictions, that is. Maybe these were their own idealized ideas, who knows?)

But if there is any truth to these pictures, which would have been put together when the Apostles were still alive, they speak volumes. If Jesus Christ had a build like this, no wonder the Roman soldiers thought nailing his hands alone to the cross would be insufficient to hold him up. No wonder someone else had to carry His cross. And most important of all, this would add a most HORRIFIC dimension to the atonement and the kind of guy was whipped and beaten by Roman soldiers after suffering the weight of the sins of the world. No wonder he was begging for a way out. No wonder the element of the miraculous is so much in play here. Maybe just maybe, he wasn't the man's man or the romantic big and buff ideal.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, but I didn't see any contradictions with what Elder Robbins was sharing and what you were attempting to point out in the paraphrasing of stories from scriptures.