Answer to prayer delayed

On Thursday I came home from work and went to the kitchen, on the way to the garage to put away my bicycle helmet. Sister Nectar stopped me in the kitchen and started to tell me about cleaning out the ice that had built up in the freezer. Our ice trays tend to leak or spill when we put them in the over-crowded freezer. She explained to me that she had a place in the freezer where she keeps small containers of applesauce. The place for the applesauce is just under the place where we put the ice trays. Rebecca likes a little frozen applesauce for her school lunches, Sister Nectar told me. She said that she hadn't gotten into this part of the freezer since school ended last June. So there was a lot of ice built up that she had to remove before she could put new containers of applesauce in this special spot in the freezer. This was the beginning of the new school year. There was more explanation, and I kept waiting for the punch line, "So be more careful when you put the ice trays in the freezer." My mind had begun to wander when she finally dropped the bombshell, "And that's how I found my wedding ring frozen in the ice. It was just sitting there, the lower portion of the ring frozen in the ice, the upper portion upright. Just like it was on display in a jewelry case in a jewelry store."

It took a second for the information to sink in. "You found your rings?" Yes, indeed she had. She hadn't lost them in Los Angeles. They were never thrown into the trash. They hadn't fallen in the kitchen, or the sink. They weren't in the storage closet. She hadn't dropped them in Costco. We didn't need to have taken that trip on Father's Day and go through the trash in Los Angeles. They were safely on ice in our own freezer the whole time. Amazing.

My sister told me that our prayers had been answered. Indeed, they were. The answer didn't come before we had expended a great deal of effort in looking for the rings. I don't suppose I'll ever know why God didn't answer our prayers a lot earlier.

Wedded to his country

"Tapping into the pervasive early modern analogy between private and public spheres according to which the King was figured as husband wedded to his country,...."( http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/events/2006-7/preachpolabs.rtf). So says Professor Christina Luckyj, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Thomas Jefferson took the idea of a king wedded to his country to the democratic ideal that ''Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country, and wedded to its liberty and interests, by the most lasting bonds.'' (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, composed in 1785).

I kind of like the analogy. Consider what this says about those who come unlawfully into the country, and remain wedded to their native language and culture.

Vicarious Ordinances in the Old Testament

I was searching the scriptures, looking for examples of vicarious ordinances practiced in Old Testament times, when I came across Deuteronomy 21:1-9. The more I thought about it, the more elements in common I saw between this ordinance to expiate murders by unknown persons, and baptism for the dead. Here is the Old Testament account.

1 If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him:
2 Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain:
3 And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke;
4 And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer’s neck there in the valley:
5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:
6 And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley:
7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.
8 Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.
9 So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.


First they determine which city shares the guilt for a murder committed nearby (vs. 1-2). If they knew who the murderer was they would execute him and the people of the city would be rid of the blood of the murderer. The elders are responsible for exercising justice. Since they cannot find the real killer of the slain man, they take an innocent heifer and kill it in the place of the murderer (v.4). The heifer becomes a vicarious sacrifice.

Note that in verse 4 they take the heifer to a rough valley which is not under cultivation. This makes me think of a wadi in Israel, a place where rains will wash away the blood of the heifer. I also think of baptismal fonts in temples located below ground, with the font resting on the back of cattle.

In verse 5 we see that the ordinance must be carried out under the direction of the priesthood, just as baptisms must be performed by the priesthood.

Verse 6 says that the elders wash their hands over the dead heifer. I notice that both baptism and this ordinance require water. The sins ceremoniously washed fall on the dead heifer, the vicarious sacrifice. Baptism also involves a kind of death, as “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death….” (Romans 6:4). Baptism also involves washing away of sins, “…arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

In verse 7 the elders confess their innocence of sin.

In verse 8 they call upon the Lord, which again reminds us of baptism and “calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). It is interesting that in the Hebrew the first part of this verse can also be translated as “Let atonement be made for.” The Mosaic ordinance foreshadows the Lord’s atonement, making forgiveness of sins possible, and giving meaning to the ordinance of baptism. The innocent heifer can be seen as symbolic of Christ giving his life as a ransom for our sins.

Verses 8 and 9 make it clear that only by observing this vicarious ordinance can the people be spared – saved – from the blood of the innocent man who was shed. The sins of the people cannot be forgiven without the proper ordinance. So too baptism is essential for salvation and the forgiveness of sins; and just as the Bible shows that a proxy can be slain in the place of a living person who is unavailable, a proxy can be used in the place of a dead person who was not baptized in life.

Dr. Laura,

I heard that you recently said on your radio program that we shouldn’t forgive someone who hasn’t repented. Since I am usually in agreement with what you say, and I also believe that we should forgive all men their trespasses against us, perhaps the disagreement is merely in what it means to forgive.

May I tell you what I think it means to forgive? As I understand it, you let go of the anger, hate, bitterness, desire to hurt, and resentment that you feel. You do this through love and the grace of God. Forgiveness does not mean forgetting, and it does not necessarily mean trusting again. Trust must be earned, and memory serves an important function.

As an example, suppose your spouse molests your child. You should let go of the poisonous negative feelings you harbor before they corrode your soul. But it would be foolish to allow the abuser to have access again to children. You forgive the spouse for your own sake, not his sake, and you don’t forget and you don’t automatically trust him again. Forgiveness means letting God and the law of the land take the proper course.

I believe that God forgives only those who repent, but God knows who has truly repented and who has not. We do not know, so we must leave the final judgment to God. While God in His infinite wisdom may forgive and remember the sin no more, we need to remember, but we also need to let go of all our animosity.

Just thought I’d let you know that some of your listeners may be using a different definition of forgiveness.

Important difference

In the debate about illegal immigrants I have noticed that very frequently those who defend illegal immigrants ignore the basic difference between legal and illegal immigration. The champions of illegal immigrants tell us that we are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants, and that our country has benefited from immigrants. They tell us that immigrants are only seeking to make a better life for themselves. This is for the most part true, but I still think that the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is an important one.

If a man unlawfully enters a woman against her will it is called rape, regardless of his personal motivations. The difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant is the difference between a loving husband with a willing wife, and a rapist. It is an important distinction to make.

Ambition

A few days ago I read something that defined ambition in terms that were not negative. It started me thinking about whether ambition was a good thing or a bad thing. I had always had a bad feeling about ambition. People who were ambitious were like Macbeth, Stalin, Voldemort, or Hitler. They were the ruthless people who would stop at nothing to get what they wanted, and woe to anyone who stood in their way.

An article in Time summed up ambition as “that need to grab an ever bigger piece of the resource pie before someone else gets it. Nature is a zero-sum game, after all. Every buffalo you kill for your family is one less for somebody else's; every acre of land you occupy elbows out somebody else.” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1126746-1,00.html)

Yet, does it have to be that way? Others define ambition as “energy and determination.” Another definition has ambition as “an earnest desire for some type of achievement or distinction,” and depending on what you wanted to achieve, and what you were willing to do to achieve it, ambition “may suggest equally a praiseworthy or an inordinate desire.” (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ambition)

Looking in the scriptures I find the word “ambition” used only once. “That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” (D&C 121:37)

When is ambition “vain ambition” and when is it merely a strong desire to accomplish something good? I think I need to be more open-minded to ambition.