The Twelfth Article of Faith

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. 

I find this one a little harder with the current administration, though it is not the first time I have felt that way.

Then I see horrible behavior from people who claim to be against the government on similar grounds -- perhaps with other differences -- and I have a lot of thoughts.

There are responsibilities to living in a society. That is not just the responsibility we might have to each other under any circumstances. When we become a unit, where there are benefits to that but also restrictions and opportunities for conflict, it can be complicated and frustrating.

One thing I appreciate the phrasing is that not all governments are the same, but issues related to the social contract can still apply.

If you have a bad king -- or a bad president who would prefer being a king -- can one ethically be subject?

I believe so, but then how do we do that?

In a democracy that certainly means participating and working for the common good. 

That sounds simple enough, but there are people who feel like their vote isn't worth the bother, with other people doing things like setting ballot boxes on fire because they suspect the submitted ballots are "wrong". 

In that way it relates a lot to the eleventh article:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2026/09/the-eleventh-article-of-faith.html 

If the system has an abusive hierarchy spread through it, that's corruption to fight, but it is very easy to be sure you are in the right and that other people are the problem.

It ends up taking humility and love, which often appear to be in short supply.

One important step is considering the consequences:

What message will this send? Who will receive it? What will be the effects?

I have written about this before, mainly about Palestine. Regardless, if you are inconveniencing a lot of people who can't make the changes you are hoping for, that's probably not the way to go. If the reason you are picking on them is because you are scared of the people who are in charge, or just angry that people are not properly acknowledging your superiority, those would be clear signs that you are on the wrong path, but possibly signs that are hard to admit to yourself.

It takes thought and listening. It takes wisdom, which can be difficult, but prayer can help.

It takes a lot of honesty, especially with yourself. 

And it takes integrity. 

Knowing something is terrible but thinking that the ends justify the means is unlikely to be true. It's unlikely to help.

These are difficult times. I know. Navigating them is tricky, but I have not given up hope. 

The Eleventh Article of Faith

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.  

One of the things that annoys me the most about my fellow saints is when they develop a persecution complex on the grounds of religion.

There is a level at which it makes more sense for us than for many other Christian groups. 

Remember, I have been reading about how the Bible came to be:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2026/09/the-eight-article-of-faith.html 

There have been some strong reminders about how people were persecuted for translating and printing and making the Bible available to common people. There were the persecutions that happened in England as monarch changes brought changes in the official religion and piety and devotion to previous (or not yet allowed) religions was not seen as a virtue.

That happened in other countries too. One that affects my family history was the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. It sent my Huguenot ancestors, the Bobier family, fleeing from France. They went first to Ireland, then Ontario, then into New York.

That was 1572, but we also know that many of the people who came to the American colonies to freely practice their own religions were not great about believing other people should have the same rights. Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and lots of Quakers could tell you that.

Except that we think of that as being pre-Revolutionary War. The country with freedom of religion is the one where we have the Mormon Extermination Order issued by Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs in 1838, the same year as the Haun's Mill Massacre, and President Buchanan admitting the persecution is wrong but refusing to help.

That seems like a long time ago now, but when I was a kid, the older adults around me probably had relatives they remembered who were affected by that.

I get it.

I am also aware of Catholic churches being burned in Philadelphia in 1844 and pogroms and other persecutions against the Jews in the early 20th century (with worse things coming later, yes), and persecution of Sikhs after 9/11 because turbans... I could keep going.

At some point you need to look around and see that no one is preventing you from going to church, or praying, or doing any of the things that are essential to your personal worship.  

They might, on the other hand, prevent you from trying to force other people to live by your beliefs. 

Maybe classes in public schools don't say prayers together (which I think would probably be uncomfortable for multiple people) but silent prayers are certainly offered frequently. 

Maybe some people aren't allowed to beat their children, or deny their children medical care without facing criminal penalties (though usually the child is dead by the time they talk about charges; it's not a perfect system).

And definitely, your religious beliefs do not allow you to impose rules about love, sex, or reproduction onto other people. Well, they keep trying, but based on law and precedence it should not work. 

It doesn't mean that there are no laws ever -- age restrictions regarding sexual partners are one example -- but you do not get to dictate the morality of others, and it is not a coincidence that those most interested in doing so often also tend to be abusive and terrible.

How, where, or what they may. It says it right there.

It's a good thing. 

The Tenth Article of Faith

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the Earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.  

I'm sure this one will sound weirdest, but there is a way in which any kind of religious faith sounds weird: God, atonement, angels...

Faith has its evidence, of course, the feelings and confirmations and the things you can note. 

An important aspect for me is when I can see how things work and make sense and are supportive and generous.

Therefore, what has become more clear to me is that this period of a thousand years before final judgment and like Paradise is going to be a necessary period for healing.

I know we are not the only church that believes in a Millennium, but that there are different beliefs on it.

One thing a lot of members of my church tend to focus on is that there will be temple work done, getting everything caught up that we have not had time to get done before.

I believe that, but I am so much more aware now of the suffering and unfairness and the need to make things right.

My two oldest brothers both died shortly after they were born (they were not twins; that was two separate births and deaths). We believe that my mother will get a chance to raise them. That is wonderful, and seems fairly easy.

Whether my father will be in on that, based on some of the choices he has made, is a bit more open to question.

Even more uncertain is thinking about a friend who died when her daughter was very young. That child is now grown. Of course they will still want time together, but it wouldn't be sharing the same experiences.

I don't know how all of that will work out, but I believe that it will work and in a way that is good for everyone.

That is something I believe and something that brings me joy.

Even though I feel pretty assured in my beliefs (acknowledging a lot of unknowns), I do periodically ask myself if I would be okay with being wrong. If there is nothing after, would I still want to live this way? I would. If there is something different after, would I still be okay with my choices now? I believe I would.  

I don't really know who reads this or what state of belief you have, but I do have one suggestion.

If you don't believe in God and are angry about people who do, or if you have been in the church but then fallen out... if there is something where you might be at odds with the divine, I suggest leaving some room that if things turn out to be fine... that with all of the suffering and sinning against, that there is healing and redemption... that you could be happy with that instead of still resenting it.

That is partially inspired by reading about a movie called The Rapture where someone chooses eternal purgatory rather than letting go of her anger, but also those dwarfs in The Last Battle, refusing to be taken in so denying all of their senses just to stay mad. 

At least be willing to get over it if you turn out to have been wrong.

That's an important life skill, even just here and now. 

It's huge for politics. 

The Ninth Article of Faith

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.  

Also a nice side-benefit of going through old Ensign issues, I see news updates and either remember when that changed or realize that I did not know something had changed.

When I was younger, Relief Society (for women) was on Tuesdays, Primary (for children) was on Wednesdays, and Sunday School (everyone but in different age groups), Priesthood (for men) and Sacrament Meeting (for everyone together) were on Sunday, but not consecutively. I am assuming there were youth group meetings on some night (maybe Thursday), but I don't remember.

That's multiple trips back and forth in a week. It may matter less if you all live close to the church, but that was certainly not true in some areas. In addition, when fewer women were working, there was less interference with that schedule. That was changing in the 80s.

They changed to a block meeting where it was three hours consecutively: Sacrament Meeting, Sunday school (still divided by age) and then the third hour had Primary, Relief Society, Priesthood, and Youth. I remember people making fun of how long Mormons spent in church on Sundays, but at the time it was easier to get all of the church meetings into a single three-hour block.

A few years ago it was changed to two hours. That was just adjusted again. Instead of alternating weeks on what had been the second and third hours, we now have everything each week, but compressed to half hours.

That may not sound that great and important, but there are always questions of how to make things work. People get busier and more stressed, so you want to help with that. If the answer is eliminating something, that can have other issues.

No one wants to go back to three hours; I know that. If we had never changed, how would that have worked out? There were people who skipped hours on the three-hour block, but there were people who skipped weeks with the alternating schedule.

A lot of the changes that get made are trying to get people to rely on the Spirit more, helping to meet individual and local needs at that level rather than having to be told everything from the top. That would be very helpful and valuable, but is also remarkably hard to get people to do. Sometimes there are people who think they already know everything, so they don't see the need to change. Often there are people who worry that they are not good enough to get inspiration. 

Ultimately the kingdom is full of people, and they are imperfect. The attempts to help them and work with them may seem confusing or weird or ineffective, but there is a room for a lot of beauty. 

And I firmly believe in the availability of divine help throughout all of the levels. 

The Eight Article of Faith

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Reading through all of the standard works this year has been helpful for this, but so is going through old issues of the Ensign. 

Currently I am reading through 1982, and there is a series, "How the Bible came to be."

Sometimes I will remember old articles, but this came out when I was ten and I am pretty sure I didn't read it. I am somewhat familiar with some stages from the Reformation onward, but there are a lot of things I did not know here, even if parts of it are familiar. 

So that's what the Septuagint is! 

For an Ensign article that made a huge impression on me at the time, see "The Bible -- Only 4263 Languages to Go" by Joe Stringham, from the January 1990 Ensign: 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1990/01/the-bible-only-4263-languages-to-go?lang=eng

It is about translating into different languages. One example it gives is Isaiah 52:15.

In the King James Version it is translated as "So shall He sprinkle many nations." That would probably sound like a reference to the sprinkling in various sacrifices so relating to sanctification and purification, though I imagine for religions that baptize by sprinkling, it could also represent bringing these nations into the fold.

However, in other translations it translates as scattering (which is a thing that happened), astonishing or causing to recoil (also plausible), and grammatically it can also switch the subject and object.

It could make one feel hopeless about ever getting anything out of the scriptures, except that it happens all the time anyway. Sometimes it can mean different things.

There is another phrase that repeats in Isaiah, "For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (Isaiah 9:12, 21 and 10:4)

The first few times I read it, I thought of the hand as a punishing one, because of the anger. More recently I have read it as that even with the anger, it is still stretched out as a welcome, and plea for return.

Even though the book does not change, we do change and there is room for all manner of experience in it. 

That is one of the things that I keep seeing more, and taking more hope from. 

As imperfect as we all are, and flawed and with so much to learn, there is room for that.

There is room for us. 

One issue that came up for some translators and compilers was how much was figurative and how much was literal. 

I think that's a reasonable question, and that there is not always an easy answer, but I think that might also be the wrong question.

It seems completely possible to me that there could be times when the original author was writing something to the best of their understanding, but their understanding was limited if not actually wrong.

Sometimes this could be personal flaws, like maybe Paul was a chauvinist, but it was something that is society supported and there were nonetheless things that he did understand well, making his writings still valuable.

Actually, I will tell you one place where I thought it.

In Exodus, the King James Version refers to the Lord hardening Pharoah's heart. The Joseph Smith Translation says that Pharoah hardened his heart, meaning that the Lord was not causing Pharoah to keep breaking his promise, plague after plague.

There are definitely people who believe in predestination and that there isn't really free will, meaning you can only be saved if God lets you. While that phrasing doesn't disrupt the narrative flow, you could argue that there is doctrinal significance.

There can also be things that would be impossible to understand. For example, I have seen it suggested that the scorpions referenced in Revelation could be tanks, like the tail coming over the head could look like the barrel of the gun coming out of the turret. Maybe. From someone writing in Biblical times, looking at today would be very hard to describe. 

Then, there might just be things we don't know enough to understand. 

I firmly believe the story of the creation fits in here. Even if we could comprehend it, it's certainly not something we have responsibility for doing, or the ability to do. Therefore, I think it's weird to focus on being a Young Earther rather than studying and working on increasing in humility and charity.

We all have our hangups.

There's a lot in there, and a lot that can be found. 

I have only started getting more out of the Chronicles on my last two times through.

I am starting to really hate the poetry. I have always found the Psalms cloying, Job too long, and I am starting to be really irritated with Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. 

In the past I have considered skipping The Song of Solomon, but then I don't because I feel guilty.

It can be a struggle, but I find value in the struggle. 

And some of those issues are all the more reason that the 9th article is so important. 

 

The Seventh Article of Faith

We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. 

I was actually just reading in 1 Corinthians, where chapters 12 and 14 have a lot on spiritual gifts, including the gift of tongues.

I always feel a little bad reading there. It calls the gift of tongues the least of the gifts, and that is one that I have.

Except, that's not how I have it.

I am really good with language, learning and picking up on it and also using it for communication. That has been noted by me and by others, from as far back as high school.

When they reference "the gift of tongues" here, it is speaking in another language, but it is quickly added that it is not really edifying without interpretation.

I have heard of people -- mainly Pentecostal but some Catholics too -- who do have these experiences where they speak things that they don't know and don't understand, but they feel very good during it.

I don't have a problem with that. Maybe they are touching upon a concept that they are not quite ready to fully understand yet, but that experience gets them a bit closer and will make sense to them later.

We all have a lot of growing to do.

I also get Paul's point that it should generally be paired with interpretation so people do know what's going on.

I mean, on the day of the Pentecost, everyone heard the preaching in their own language. (Acts 2:6)

At least some of the speakers were not speaking in their own language. Were some speaking in tongues, but in the right language so that some already understood them, and there was a speaker representing the language of every listener? There were at least fifteen languages indicated. Or was there also some interpretation going on?

There wasn't absolute clarity for those around. Some of the onlookers thought it was drunkenness. Maybe a Parthian heard his own language and thought that was great, but also heard some Cappadocian and Arabian, didn't recognize them, and thought those speakers were drunk.

It doesn't even matter. The point is that those who were willing to learn had the opportunity to learn. 

What we also don't know is whether there was an other outpouring like that. We know Peter preached many times, but maybe after that it was always in Aramaic, and maybe Hebrew and Greek, but maybe only those and if someone else needed to understand they just used a person who knew the right languages.

I don't know, but I know that there are lots of ways in which we can help each other if we will be open to truth and to love for each other.

Miracles can happen if we let them.

The Sixth Article of Faith

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

Thinking about this one, I was tempted to treat it with the 9th; some of my first thoughts related more to the ninth. 

They should all kind of go together anyway, but I decided it would be more productive to focus on the differences. 

Perhaps it helps that I was reading in Acts not too long ago, with the first calling of bishops (pastors). There were physical needs. Maybe those needs were unusually pressing so it was noticed sooner, but leaving the apostles in charge of everything took time away from those things that only they could do. Hence, you call people whose chief responsibility is "serving tables". (See Acts 6:2.)

The thing is, we adapt organizations all the time to the specific needs. There is much that was not in the primitive church.

We have a Sunday school, and that is not just for children but also for youth and adults (though they do have different classes), because everyone can stand to learn more about the scriptures and there is a lot to learn that you don't get on the first pass.

We do have an organization for children, the primary, because children need to learn and will do better with lessons adapted for them (and with singing time and chances to wiggle more).

We have Relief Society, which started as women sewing shirts for men working on constructing the temple, and did not operate continuously, but then was restarted because it filled a purpose that was good for that time and place.

Under different circumstances there are different needs, and different ways of meeting those needs.

However, the callings that are mentioned in the article are on one level very basic and very important.

Apostles are special witnesses of Christ, and a church that is following Christ needs those witnesses.

Without prophets and prophesy, it is apostasy. That doesn't mean that faith can't exist or matter, but there would be a lot missing.

As much as that spiritual guidance matters, it is hard for people to focus on spiritual matters when their needs for shelter and food and safety are not being met, so having pastors to focus on that (even if they end up providing some spiritual guidance too) is important.

There is always more that we can know, so there must always be teachers, even if often we are learning together. 

There is still someone working on it.

Those callings focus on the believers, but there will be people who could believe but do not know; evangelists spread the gospel, and this is also necessary.

It makes sense that those parts of the organization were listed, even if there is a lot of room for more. 

The Fifth Article of Faith

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

One of the expressions that confuses people who aren't members the most is probably when we talk about our callings.

When people talk about callings outside of the church, they usually mean something that they feel called to do as a life's work. That can happen to church members as well, but it is pretty normal to have callings that are temporary and that don't have to start out with soul searching and that is really good.

Let me back up.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has no professional clergy. There are paid professions in the church educational system with the schools; those are not volunteer positions. Some of the professional buildings have paid custodial staff (though we also take turns cleaning the regular meeting houses)... for most things that happen, it is someone volunteering their time where the only compensation is spiritual.

You don't decide what you are going to do. When you get asked you can say "no", but generally you are saying "yes".

I have written many posts about speaking in church, and also about giving lessons. Those are things that people do without pay, taking turns, but getting asked. 

It can work out differently, depending on the thing. For example, you may be called to be a Sunday school teacher. Probably you will not be the only one, and you will rotate giving lessons, working out a schedule with the other teachers. For speaking on Sunday, members are asked to give talks. Maybe they ask you for a time when you will be out of town, and you say that... they may ask you to speak the following week then contact someone else for that day.

People are supposed to pray and carefully consider the needs before extending a calling. Then, obviously prayer and pondering would be a part of doing your calling. 

That being said, I remember more than once hearing jokes from people about it being desperation rather than inspiration.

I think some of that comes from not wanting to brag, maybe, and often people have doubts about how good of a job they can do.

It generally works out. I was just talking to one teacher who is very insecure about teaching, but I know she does a good job. If she was more confident, maybe she would not do as well.

I know I have at times thought there were callings that I would never be able to do; later on I ended up doing them and it worked out. 

I have loved teaching Sunday school, but I have also been very happy as a ward librarian (helping people with copies and lesson supplies), in the nursery (children 18 months to three years old), working with youth, organizing activities, and being in charge of emergency preparedness.

I get different things from different callings, which I think makes it good that we change things up periodically. 

Currently, as a counselor in the Relief Society presidency, I find myself having more love and appreciation for the women in the ward. I am grateful for that. 

Even with the calling where I did my worst job ever, Relief Society accompanist, well, I learned things from doing it, if mostly humility. I don't regret doing it, but I am also glad it didn't last for that long.

The Fourth Article of Faith

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

There is a level at which all of the articles build upon each other, but I think that is especially striking with the first four; first there is that God exists, then that sin does, but also that there is atonement.

This article then puts them together. 

Faith has to come first because without it there is no motivation for anything else.

There are two scriptures I want to reference for that...

Hebrews 11:1 -- Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 

It is not just belief, because it is in something true and there are signs and things that come and make it grow. 

Alma 32:28 --  Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

It takes some openness, but it is not happening without input and thought.

It does change you, and part of that is caring about things and people more, and wanting to be good, which is why it must lead to repentance.

Repentance is a whole topic on its own, but there is commitment that is signaled by baptism and that baptism cleanses and then the Holy Ghost sanctifies.

Again, there could easily be multiple subtopics here. I am not going to get into all of that now, but there is information out there.

None of the articles mention baptism for the dead, but that is something we do, and is something I have written about before:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2024/03/ordinances-for-everyone.html 

I will reaffirm here what I wrote about there; one of the keys to my faith is that I find mercy and justice through the entire system.

If there were people who did not have access to salvation because of the time and place where they were born, or how short their life was, or anything else that they could not control, how could we trust God?

Of course, many people don't. 

What I understand is that God is better than fair, and better than people. 

I am not saying you have to believe that. 

My beliefs bring me hope and joy, and I do want to share that.

I also want to suggest leaving some room for belief. 

If you were to learn that healing and reparation would come for everything, would that be enough, or would you still be angry? If there were meaning in the prior suffering that you could understand, would that help?

Leave room for a seed.  

The Third Article of Faith

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

The balance of justice and mercy may be the most important part of my faith, and here is where we get to it.

I know people who have had trouble forgiving someone who wronged them because they felt like that would make it right.

It doesn't; the wrong is still wrong.

(Forgiveness can be a part of healing, but don't try and abridge the healing because someone else is demanding forgiveness; that's a different problem.)

The wrongs that are done and the pain that is caused must be paid for and they have, by Jesus Christ, if you repent.

(This will take us a little into the Fourth Article as well.)

People get hung up on not having the same chances, so life isn't fair, or that none of it really matters or that there is no choice. 

I love L.M. Montgomery but she has Presbyterians saying, at least semi-seriously, that there's no point worrying over things because they're all foreordained.

That is how some people justified that other people would not have the chance to be baptized or that the righteous should be blessed... foreordination and so every thing is the way it should be, even if it seems horrible to look at.

No. We have choices, as do the people around us, and some of those choices are bad.

The wicked may prosper and the righteous may suffer. 

(It is more flagrant for some; I've noticed.)

However, Christ has conquered both death and sin, so all of that can be healed. Even though it takes time and even though everyone will not repent, they will get the chance.

I have not been a huge sinner. Sometimes in the scriptures there are people who feel great suffering for sins that probably aren't that bad. (For the Book of Mormon, 2nd Nephi 4 and Enos come to mind.)

I am not good enough to be like that. Maybe someday I will. 

I have at times had suffering spiritually healed. It feels like a miracle.

Someone has already felt your pain and paid the price for it. 

I also sometimes live with pain. I have become a more compassionate, tender person because of that.

I'm not saying any of that is easy, or even easy comprehend, but I have complete faith that the plan works and that there is room in it for everyone, with everyone still having choice.

That faith gives me joy. 

  

The Second Article of Faith

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

Doctinally, perhaps the most interesting thing here is that we don't believe in original sin, where everyone is tainted just being born into this world. That means you don't need something like "immaculate conception" where somehow Mary's conception was different so she could be a fit vessel for the virgin birth.

For years when people talked about immaculate conception, I assumed that was about the conception of Jesus, not Mary. 

This is important to me because there can be a tendency to look down on flesh and humanity and all of those things. I admit that they are flawed, but also that they are good.

For our faith, the Fall was necessary to allow us this flawed growth.  

I am glad to have a body, even though I am very aware of its weaknesses (even more as I age).

I am glad to have knowledge of good and evil, even though a world where everyone has that knowledge and has the ability to choose means that bad things happen to me and because of me.

Good things happen too, and they have meaning. They can be hard won.

There is a scripture in the Book of Mormon, "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."  (2nd Nephi 2:25)

There is messiness to life, but there is also meaning and beauty and depth.

I know that for some people who have issues with religion, this is where it comes in. How can God allow such things to happen?

I had said in the first post that I would get more into my relationship with Christ in the third article, and I will get more into this as well.

Those parts all go together. 

 

The First Article of Faith

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Fun story: I once really confused some Jehovah's Witnesses by saying we believed in the Trinity.

I mean, the Trinity was the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, right? We believe in them.

As it is, in our church we do sometimes refer to them as the "Godhead" referring to how they function together. 

I know the difference now, though I still find it kind of weird.

I don't want this to be a series of posts arguing the doctrine, but rather more how I feel about my beliefs and how they affect me. However, I do want to throw in one scripture here.

You might expect it to be from the baptism of Jesus when he is in the water, the voice of the Father is heard, and the Holy Ghost is mentioned as descending like a dove. 

Instead, I want to bring up John 17:21, when Jesus is praying for his apostles...

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 

I mention that not to convince anyone, which I don't think one scripture could do, but because I think that there is value in understanding that there can be both unity and the individual. A lot of scripture can point us toward something better, but we have to believe that such things are possible and maybe even imagine them as desirable.

At the same time, so often we hear one thing and imagine the worst possible meaning of it, maybe because of what we have seen from other people... I won't pretend it's not hard.

Because there can be confusion about "God," I will often refer to Heavenly Father specifically. That is whom I pray to.

It gets tricky trying to be respectful and not overuse names, especially as those names become exclamations for so many people. 

For Jesus, I will often refer to "the Savior", and often "the Spirit" for the Holy Ghost. 

Things that are important for the phrasing in the article is that God is the father of our spirits and that our savior is the man who was known as Jesus and was anointed to be the Savior of the World. 

We have less to refer to for the Holy Ghost, and yet that can be the one that you have the most personal experience with.

I will write more about Jesus later (on the third article), but for the other two, this is their importance to me.

You may know that I have had a difficult relationship with my earthly father, even though I love him. There are people with that situation who find it difficult to imagine a loving, fatherly God.

Somehow I always felt that.

Well, let me modify that. I did worry very much about being worthy of love and if He could love me, imperfect mess that I was. However, I was able to understand that He was good; there wasn't going to be any of this unfair, competitive, grudge-holding difficulty. 

In addition, love from God was persistently shown and demonstrated until it was something that I knew and that has been a source of strength.

In my teen years I remember a great deal of emotional pain, specifically about the concern of being lovable to other people. Though that took longer to resolve, there were limits to how much it brought me down. I believe that was the influence of the Holy Ghost, shoring up my resilience.

In addition, there have been many times when I have received knowledge and guidance through the Spirit, so that the biggest influence on my life might be from there, except they all work together, so it doesn't need to be separated out that way.

But they do fill their unique roles, as individuals. So if I wanted to sort it out, I could. 

Articulating faith

I have been thinking for a while about having a series of posts where I go over the Articles of Faith and my thoughts and feelings on them.

I know that sometimes my liberality my seem at odds with the orthodoxy of my belief. I don't find contradiction there, but that may be because of things that are not clear to readers. I have written about some of those things in the past, but I've been doing this for a lot of years; no one is expected to keep track..

This is partially inspired by recent discussion of the Athanasian Creed and who counts as Christians. 

I had always thought people were referring to the Nicene Creed before, so it was interesting to learn there was another one. Apparently, there is also the Apostles' Creed, but Athanasius was a defender of the Nicene Creed, so if the Athanasian Creed was the most recent, it makes sense that it is the reference point. 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2026/06/an-example-of-believers.html 

My church doesn't believe in it, so based on that, okay, fine. I do find it weird that the Protestants place so much of their definition on something pre-Reformation, but I don't know how much individuals believe it... I mean, faith can get very personal. Sometimes a lot of those things are more felt than thought. 

Both feeling and thinking are important to me. 

We don't have any creeds, but the Articles of Faith would give a good overall view. 

Joseph Smith had received a letter from the editor and owner of the Chicago Democrat asking about the church and faith. This was in 1842, so twelve years after the church was organized. The "Wentworth Letter" gave an introduction and history of the new church, and the articles are kind of a summing up. It doesn't contain everything we believe, but it gives a fairly good gist.

There are thirteen of them, so that is the plan for the next thirteen posts. 

Bewaring of pride, differently

Although I have some more thoughts about the Hegseth thing, I want to finish with this idea I have been working toward ever so subtly.

Maybe the first thing is to point out that when I am writing about things that I think are important, I circle around it a lot and give a lot of examples. It's not that I don't say the point, but I try and give enough information that people will find the logic on their own. 

Statistics should carry more weight than anecdotes, which can be deceiving. However, anecdotes can be what helps people incorporate how something works into their worldview.

With recent posts about perspective and how they can be different, I am getting toward something else that has been bothering me lately. This is about people finding something they think is great, being really excited, and this is what they are going to offer to everyone; you should be enthusiastic about it too.

I am specifically thinking of two people. One I actually believe is completely headed in the wrong direction. I have sympathy for how she got there, but she is wrong and really excited about it.

The other has a point, I think, but it is probably not as universal as she thinks it is. 

Her situation is more to the point.

It is great that something helped you when you were struggling. It can feel like a miracle. If it helps additional people, that is also great.

We are all different. 

Penicillin was a huge breakthrough and works well on a lot of things. Some people are allergic and some bacteria are resistant.

I hope Alexander Fleming doesn't take that personally. 

We have different sources of support. We have experiences where some things resonate with us more than others. We process grief differently. We need different things at different times, where sometimes you really need to process something, but sometimes the immediate need is distraction. 

Our differences can be rich and contribute to life's complex beauty, or we can get huffy about them. 

Something that works for you might might not work for another person because they have a different background that blocks that channel. It might not work for them now, but maybe a few years down the road it will because they have had a chance to learn different things or get used to something.

It can even be that sometimes, when you describe your experience to someone, that it guides them to their own different understanding. Sharing can be good, but it still may not be THE ANSWER.

It struck me because it was a different aspect of pride.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng 

Normally when I think of pride, I focus on the "enmity" part, where there is hostility and competition. In terms of people enjoying their talents and blessings without begrudging anyone anything, I am all for that; that's not how I use the word pride.

In this case, it does start with enjoying and enthusiasm. While it is not obviously competitive -- at least at the start -- I suppose the problem is being so sure that this is THE ANSWER. That gives a sense of superiority, or at least a desire for recognition.

That could turn to hostility and resentment. I like to think having any sense of humor and being at all grounded would keep it from going that way. Maybe it is harder to stay grounded in this environment. 

Previously I had worked out that the key to not giving into pride is to focus on loving more and building your affection for people. I still think that's a good overall policy, but I am not sure that it helps with this.

Except, if you really are working on loving people, you should be noticing that there are differences.

The next step may be realizing how those differences play out. Because of that, you may not always know best for them. 

That doesn't have to take away anything from you.

Related posts: 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2026/06/perspective-check.html 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2026/06/all-aboard-meal-train.html 

All aboard the Meal Train

Recently I called a friend to check in after seeing they had an injured child.

I offered to start a meal train.

If you don't know, that's when people sign up to bring over dinner. They usually run for about two weeks.

My offer was not sarcastic, but it wasn't earnest either. I was sure she would not want one. She laughed too, like "No!"

If she had said it would help, I totally would have started one and probably taken the first dinner. There's still a level at which we don't take them too seriously and there are reasons for that.

Shortly after that call I saw that a friend of a friend had died. Checking out the obituary, there was a link to a meal train; there was a real outpouring of love in that. 

I felt somewhat humbled. 

Some of my bad attitude comes from memories of people bringing food over for us, where a can of refried beans sat on the counter for weeks until there was a food drive. It was supposed to go in a casserole -- it was not just the can -- but I have a real aversion to all but green beans and I was not going to touch it.

Someone else brought a jar of juice they had made and canned from the grapes in their yard. That is impressive, but we don't drink a lot of juice. It ended up in the pantry and got pushed behind things; the next time we saw it the color had changed and we had to let it go.

Still, we have never really had trouble feeding ourselves.

Back when the average family had a stay-at-home mother who did all of the cooking, her being out of commission could really disrupt the meal supply. People do need to eat.

It has also been common to take food when there is a death, not just because people are sad but also there are often friends and family from out of town. Possibly the genesis of a meal train was so that all the food didn't come in at once.

In the first episode of The Unicorn, widower Wade has a small crisis as he reaches the end of the donated meals that had accumulated in their chest freezer. For a few months it had not mattered that he couldn't cook (but could heat). Sure, it was fictional, but there were different connotations. 

Of course, The Unicorn was set in North Carolina and the other meal train was in Missouri, so maybe part of the issue is that we are pickier eaters in the Pacific Northwest. There might be more dietary issues out here.

I do think there is something to be said for not automatically serving on default settings; that may not be the best way of meeting needs. Asking "Do you need anything?' isn't a great technique either.

Regardless, it was good for me to be reminded that something I don't want can still be good for someone else. 

I did call. I did not find a need for service, but I did get confirmation that things were going okay. 

That is a start, but should not be a finish.

Perspective check

I have been thinking about pride a lot, especially as it relates to dominator culture.

There can be multiple things to say, but I want to start with pride as it relates to intellectual superiority: "I'm smarter than you," "I know better than you," etc.

People will say some really wrong things -- there has been a movement against expertise -- so I get how it is easy to start feeling like you are the last person who knows anything. If that's not you, great, but this message is true for anyone, even those who don't need it:

You are not "smarter" than anyone. You are certainly not smarter than everyone.

That could easily be taken as an insult, but it's not intended that way. It's more a reminder of how we can do better collectively.

I am generally regarded as smart. That is partly that my mind works well in terms of comprehending and recalling facts, as well as integrating different bits of knowledge together. I also have a lot of curiosity and interest in that, so I read a lot and watch videos and do things to learn more. If I go back in time a few years and compare, I have learned a lot.

There is still so much that I don't know. There are other people who know parts that I don't.

No one of us can know it all.

That relates to academic things, but not only that. Different people have different experiences and experience things differently. 

Lots of people know more than I do about crocheting and knitting. There may be people who look down on that knowledge, but if you want a sweater it's important and there may be information picked up about fibers and strength of connection and grip that can pertain to other things.   

Privilege can be a part of knowing, but not the only part. 

For example, the person who can afford to and does move to France when the election does not go the way he wanted does have a different perspective on it than people without those options. It may not be the most useful perspective, even if he has the means to get more publicity on it.

Privilege is not necessarily a part of not understanding how color affects water temperature and that affects algae growth, but it may be a key part of assuming that knowledge is not necessary.  

Beyond that, there are people who may not know much now, but are capable of great understanding and skill with access to that training. 

(So using gifted programs as a way for some people to affirm that their children are special, redirecting resources away from other programs, would be a big mistake.)

We can help each other. One of the early steps is respecting others and what they have to offer.  

It is great to seek knowledge and enjoy it and to love the things that you know; you just need to be able to do that for other people too. 

One on one

If I could just take another moment to complain about Mike Lee, his online tantrum did not help.

Yes, the issue has been resolved (though apparently by removing the Christian designation from everyone, not just Mormons), but that appears to be related more to a phone call between Lee and Trump than all of the outraged tweets:

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2026-06-09/mormon-backlash-pentagon-christian-list-21914850.html 

I had said the real answer would be sucking up; I feel vindicated.

Regardless, the angry tweets still have people talking, and not productively.

It takes different directions, from people spewing hate specifically about our religion or just religion in general, to others talking about how nice Mormons are even though they are not Christians, and theorizing that it is the organization.

There are also former members saying things that aren't correct. Whether that false understanding is part of why they left or happened after, and whether they got it from someone who is still attending... those are all things I can't answer because it's really not the right venue.

I think this happens more on the main blog, but I will sometimes "argue" that there is no point in arguing on the internet. 

I think it happens more on the main blog because that is generally referring to politics. Perhaps that is because political beliefs often turn out to be more a matter of emotion and ideology than reason.

I know it doesn't have to be that way.

We can and should think about things. We should not shut out emotion, but we should not just give in to it either. 

Some of the worst emotions can be really strong.

The internet can be great for sharing pictures or quick updates or jokes. It can be good for leading people to more information or rallying them to action. 

In general, it works more as a broadcast system. 

There are topics for which effective communication requires personal connection. That's a whole different set of requirements.

Sometimes you may still find a closed mind (or you may be the closed mind). Sometimes the only rational thing to do is let some people go, but it is still better to have connected with the person and tried. 

An example of the believers

Mike Lee (and a few other political members) are sharing scriptures and things online, desperately protesting the military declaration that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been left off the military list of recognized religions.

https://apnews.com/article/us-military-religious-affiliations-pete-hegseth-christian-002a610344189f4f456291d76b910d52 

Despite sharing a religion, I don't agree with Mike Lee very often; that pattern continues.

First of all, regarding Lee's tortured "Why?"

You know why.

We claim that we are Christians because we believe that Jesus Christ was the literal Son of God. By atoning for sin and conquering death through his resurrection, he is the Savior of Mankind. We could go on and on about what he has done for us and how that affects us. 

"Christians" first started being used after the Resurrection (in Antioch, Acts 11:26), long before the Athanasian Creed, used since the early 6th century and currently being referenced a lot.

Those who are not sticking by the creed are focusing on the weirdness of LDS beliefs, but I see a logic to them.

If you accept faith in God, and thus sin and the need for redemption, so literally believe in Christ as the Savior, plenty of people will find that weird. Our beliefs make it make more sense.

Also, if you don't believe in Christ's divinity, but that "Christianity" can consist of trying to be good like him, Latter-Day Saints could reasonably be included in that group too.

So the "why" on that level is the creed, but that's not the real point and it's not my main point.

The real point (and it is a dominator culture point) is that this administration (particularly Hegseth in this case) wants to demonstrate their power. They want to demonstrate that they control who gets in and out of the club. Should there be a literal mark of the Beast, they are going to be the ones assigning it.

I acknowledge that there are going to be practical issues with chaplains and things, but no government body can tell me whether or not my faith is valid. Constitutionally, the U.S. government is not supposed to able to do that to anyone.

This is where Mike Lee really, really sucks.

Instead of having a tantrum about getting kicked out of the club (after being so supportive of the club), where is your concern for the 170 other religions?

Where was your outrage when approved promotions to Brigadier General for two women and two Black men were canceled?

Are you upset at all about the return of screwworm? Persecution of immigrants? Food that was ready to go to starving people being canceled and left to rot?

Jesus would not have done that. 

If your specific objection is just to our exclusion as Christians, and your justification for our inclusion is how closely we follow Christ, waiting for this specific issue makes your argument weak.

I mean that specifically for you and other members who continue supporting Trump and this abomination of an administration. How are people going to look at the things you do and say and think, yeah, that's a Christian all right. 

Well, maybe the people who look down on Christians. 

There might be some bargains offered where certain groups are allowed back on the list with sufficient deference paid. If you want that, you are going to have to give up the enraged posts and start sucking up. 

Before you do that, consider what is more valuable to you. Is it more important to be allowed in the club or to live by your faith?

If you choose the latter, you should consider how well you are doing that. Maybe pray about it. 

Procrastination

7This has frequently been a problem of mine.

I think on one level it is anxiety-related. Sometimes I need to get other things done to get other worries out of the way. Sometimes it may be concerns about how it will go or the commitment to a task that may be long and unpleasant.

Some brains scatter more easily than others.

There is one thing I am learning now that makes not procrastinating even more important, but also makes the anxiety worse...

You do not know what's going to happen next to blow up your schedule.

If you believe you have plenty of time to do something, that sounds great; is it merely an illusion?

I have been very impressed at the things that have gone wrong this week.

I have not progressed in my schoolwork the way I would have hoped.

Have I learned how to do better?

I can only hope.  

 

Wrapping up and moving on

While there is more that could be said and cleaning, tidying, and recycling, the material for the activity has been thoroughly explored. 

Obviously there could be other posts. I thought about spending more time on thinking about what happens to your things after you die. I don't think you should make all of your decisions based on other people, which we covered, but it may be worth leaving some instructions. 

Those have been covered in other posts from other times, and may come up again.

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2015/03/preparing-for-death-part-1.html 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2021/09/not-procrastinating-issues-of-life-and.html 

I saw something else this week that brought this series of posts full circle.

Someone had posted that most things you turn in don't get recycled. "Are they dirty? They don't get recycled."

These posts covered the importance of following the directions given by the places to whom you donate, as well as talking about "wishful" recycling.

There can definitely be problems; that is true. That's why you pay attention to what materials are accepted and what stipulations they have. 

There may also be issues with some unscrupulous places. As we were researching the "threads" issue, we started seeing a lot of ads for one option. A little searching found them getting pretty terrible reviews. That doesn't mean that there aren't good options, but some diligence is needed.

Saying something that could be true under certain circumstances without clarifying is dishonest. It may be even more important to consider the reason for the dishonesty.

In this case, I think it was a person who likes feeling superior to others; minimizing their efforts is one method. 

The "full circle" part is that it reminded me of the compost issue I had written about earlier, where some people will treat everything human as a contaminant, which is not terribly helpful but is pretty discouraging:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2026/04/cleaning-up-and-clearing-out-getting.html 

I see that on other topics besides recycling. 

Individuals can have various motivations. One person might have heard once that there is no point in recycling, get it stuck in their head, and then repeat it out of habit, without ever having looked more into it.

Someone might enjoy feeling superior.

Some may be promoting an agenda. 

For example, someone who sells cars might work against high-speed rail projects because they don't want the competition, but they won't give that as the reason. Maybe instead they will propose something that is supposed to be better, but does not hold up on further scrutiny. 

People who don't scrutinize might repeat that one too. Then if there are bot farms repeating things so that more people are hearing them, bad information and ideas can spread.

You do not necessarily have to become an expert on recycling, or any topic, but it is helpful to periodically ask where information is coming from and what interests it might serve.

Even more helpful could be asking about its effect on you.

Does this information tend to make you feel hopeless? Don't accept it too quickly. If hope lies in a different direction than you thought, it's worth seeking it out.

If I decide to give up recycling, do I go back to a bigger trash bin with a higher monthly rate?

Do we want more landfills? Are those beautiful?

It is frustrating that people will repeat things that may be wrong and that don't benefit them, but they still won't give up the ideas.

It may not be possible to fix that, but we do not have to be led by that. 

Beautifully, continuing to think about what works for you can support a happier life and a healthier planet.