13 Keys to Greater Self-Discipline

-->

I’ve been feeling like I need to build more self-discipline in my life, so I went searching for principles and practices that could help me with this.  I want to share what I learned.  Some of these I can see have a spiritual component behind them, and others I have to think about it more.

1. Get your priorities straight. When you get up, think of the one major thing you are going to work on that day, the thing that if it were done you would be sooooo happy. Tackle it first.

2. Use promises to help you.

1) Make small promises to yourself.

2) Respect yourself as the general over the army of ‘you’ and do what you tell yourself to do. No whining. No complaining. No excuses. “Yes ma’am! Right away ma’am!”

3) Keep the promises you make to yourself and others. This helps build a pattern of integrity in your character. (It also ensures you don’t make promises lightly.)

3. Get rid of distractions. Put phone on airplane mode. Close email. Close all extra webpages. Close browser. TURN OFF WIFI.  Then DO IT.  Avoid checking email first thing in the morning; do it around 11am or so, after you’ve gotten a good start on hard work.  Make a goal of only checking email ONCE a day. (Treat it like your snail-mail box.)

4. Do hard work before you do something fun.  This helps build a habit of delayed gratification in small things, so you can grow towards delaying gratification in larger things for larger rewards. (And make sure the reward doesn’t undo the hard work, e.g. eating ice cream after working out.) 

5. When you think of something you ought to do, try to act on it immediately.  This builds a habit of making impulsiveness work for you. Following good impulses builds your ability to listen and follow the Spirit.

I should get in shape. Drop and do 20 push-ups now.

I should read my scriptures. Go read them now!

I should pray.  Go pray! Now!

I should call so-and-so to see how they are doing.  Call them now! If you’re in a place where you can’t, put it on your to-do list immediately.

6. Tell yourself you are doing it for the discipline, whether it is easy or hard. This sends a good message to yourself that you have a good long-term goal – discipline—that you are working toward. It feels good to know that everything good you do can contribute to it.

7. Cultivate positive self-talk. As the general of the army of ‘you,’ you must become skilled at rallying the troops. Encourage yourself. Remind yourself why you are doing the hard thing. When you fail or feel lazy, don’t yell at yourself or call yourself names. Instead, pull out your inner psychoanalyst and ask yourself why you failed or procrastinated or whatever. There is often a real problem underneath that needs to be solved first, e.g. skills that need to be gained and practiced, a gravitational well of a comfort zone that must be escaped, a lack of confidence that needs to be acknowledged and dissipated with positive achievements, some sort of negative pattern of experiences that has conditioned us to act a certain way that must be fought with positive conditioning.  Focus on finding and solving the problem.

8. Take action. Don’t stew about it. Don’t wait until you feel like doing it. Those ‘blah’ feelings LIE! Defy them! Deep down you do  care, or you wouldn’t be so annoyed at feeling ‘blah.’   “’Tis better far for us to strive, our useless cares from us to drive.”  Motivation often follows action.  Action is the best way for getting rid of that ‘blah’ feeling. Action is a positive use of agency.

9. Face obstacles head on, with courage. Things often don’t go according to plan. The more you practice facing life problems head on, the more you’ll develop the ability to overcome bigger obstacles and the more resilient you become. Your brain will adapt and grow and develop new ways of discovering solutions. Over time, you’ll find it easier to face common-occurring problems. You will meet each new obstacle with more courage, thanks to your mindset in the past.

10. Expose yourself to small amounts of hardship. You will gain satisfaction from overcoming the hardship and thriving anyway. You will learn tolerance for difficulty and discomfort, which will give you a layer of inner toughness and confidence to face future problems and obstacles.  Take a cold shower. Exercise daily. Weed in the hot sun.  Fast for 2 meals.  Work the math problem the long way.

11. Whatever it is, keep at it a little longer than you think you can. This will stretch your capabilities. It shows you that you can expand your limits.  Run 100 more yards. Work 5-20 minutes longer. 

12. Give it your 100% best effort. This is not the same as perfectionism. Best effort means complete focus of energy and attention, you search for resources to help and use them, and you ask for help when you need it.  It means you make corrections as you discover they are needed, and you deliver in the time required. In short, it means you do everything you can think of to make it work, mustering your best thinking and bringing all your talents to bear. It means you take responsibility for the outcome and don’t blame others.

13. Finish the task. Even though the shiny and excitement wears off the new project, you keep going anyway. Even though you are dying to drop everything and go do something different, you keep at it.  Some projects and tasks may be too large to complete in one blast of effort, so you’ll have to break it up into smaller pieces, but you still make sure to finish each piece.  Finishing small tasks leads to the ability to finish bigger tasks.

Conclusion

Ultimately, developing self-discipline is about creating a life in which you are not ruled by your feelings, desires, appetites, and passions.  It’s about keeping the things of the moment in bounds so you can enjoy the things that last eternally. 

Some interesting ancillary material gathered while preparing my talk on the First Vision

When preparing my talk on the First Vision of Joseph Smith, I went searching all over the place. I looked on LDS.org for conference talks. I also used the Citation Index app to look at what had been said in the Journal of Discourses about the First Vision as well.  I gathered a lot of interesting quotes that in some way touched on Joseph Smith's experience, and I used hardly any of them in my talk, but they are so interesting that I felt they were worth sharing here.  So I will put them here and discuss.

-->

Conditions of camp meeting revivals

Elder Daniel H. Wells JD 12:71  (an apostle)

“The days of my youth were days of religious excitement—the days of revivals…—and I can well apprehend the effect these things must have had on the mind of Joseph; he was a young man, I was but a boy, and I know how those revivals affected young minds…. Some of those preachers would hold their protracted meetings for days and weeks, and sometimes for a month, one meeting after another, every day and every evening, getting around the young with their influences, and concentrating their prayers, perhaps, on a single individual, and praying for no other, until he would say he had got religion and was converted. Suffice it to say, that I was disgusted with it, and did not believe in any of it, and rested my chance, so far as religion was concerned, on trying to do that which was right as near as I could, and running the risk.”

 No wonder it was such religious excitement. Elder Wells eventually joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo, so he found what he was looking for, and it didn't involve emotional manipulation or social pressure tactics.

-->  --> -->

Sterling W. Sill:  (1956)

[Christendom] is divided into some 250 contending sects, all claiming to accept the Bible as the inspired word of God and the only authoritative rule of faith and doctrine. Their confusion on even the most simple points of doctrine is indicated by the report that some seventy-eight of these baptize by immersion, many sprinkle, sixty-eight have optional forms, sixty-seven practice infant baptism, many have no baptism. Thirty-nine require no adherent to creed or doctrine of any kind.

Almost every Protestant church came into existence because of “a protest” or an “argument.” The division of opinion caused by the Civil War was responsible for the formation of many new churches. The Church of England was organized because the Pope refused to give Henry VIII a divorce. There are many “state churches.” It was Emperor Constantine, not the servants of the Lord, that made Christianity the church of the Roman Empire.(Conference Report, April 1956, First Day—Morning Meeting 16)

The Bible says there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. 

-->

Brigham Young (JD 14:109)

“I read the Bible, diligently and faithfully, and if I could have found a church and people organized according to the pattern contained in its pages I should have been satisfied that that was God’s Church and people, and that would have been witness enough for me. But I will give you a little of my experience in my early days with regard to the religious sects. From my youth up their cry was, “Lo, here is Christ; lo, there is Christ;” no, “Yonder is Christ,” “Christ is not there, he is here,” and so on, each claiming that it had the Savior, and that others were wrong. I used to think to myself, “Some one of you may be right, but hold on, wait awhile! When I reach the years of judgment and discretion I can judge for myself; and in the meanwhile take no course either with one party or the other.” When I would make known my views and feelings with regard to their confused state they would call me an infidel. I would say to them, “All right, I am an infidel in a great many things.” I read the Bible, and especially the New Testament, which was given as a pattern for the life of Christians, whether as a church or individuals, and this was my inward inquiry, "Is there a church on the earth organized according to the pattern Jesus left?” No. Is there an Apostle left on the earth? Not one. Is there a prophet, which the Scriptures inform us were placed in the Church for its edification? Not one. Is there an evangelist? No. Is there the gift of healing? We cannot find any such thing, with all their cries of “Lo here, lo there, and lo yonder.” “Are there any who speak with tongues?” No. Any that prophesy? No, we do not believe in prophecy. Any one who has received the Holy Ghost, and speaks and preaches by its influence? “Why the Holy Ghost is not given in these days,” say all those who say, “Lo, here is Christ,” and “Lo, there is Christ!” Well, I used to say, “I am an infidel, for I do not believe anything of this; when you bring me a people built up and believing according to the New Testament I will believe that they are right. When you find such a people you will find the people and the Church of God, with all the gifts and graces of the Gospel in their midst; and you will find the kingdom of God on the earth.” They labored with me, but finally declared that I was an infidel, for I could not believe in their doctrines and principles. Yet I have been at many of their meetings and seen their modes of conversion.”

 Brigham Young and others, by reading the Bible could compare its teachings and practices with that practiced by churches in their day and see plainly that the true church was not on the earth at that time.  And yet, they had to wait for the truth to appear.  Joseph, did not read hardly any of the Bible, and he was confused by the things people said.  So he took the extraordinary step of asking God to tell him which church was true.   

I also note that Brigham Young didn't let the label "infidel" intimidate him; he would not bow to social pressure to join a church he didn't believe in. He had the courage of his convictions.

This also gives me a sense of how socially alienating it might have been to join no church in those days. 

-->

Men would try to excite the public mind against Joseph Smith

Mrs. Palmer:

"I remember the excitement stirred up among some of the people over Joseph's First Vision, and of hearing my father contend that it was only the sweet dream of a pure minded boy. One of our church leaders came to my father to remonstrate against his allowing such close friendship between his family and the "Smith Boy," as he called him. My father defended his own position by saying that Joseph was the best help he had ever found. He told the churchman that he always fixed the time of hoeing his large field to that when he could secure the services of Joseph Smith, because of the influence that boy had over the wild boys of the neighborhood, and explained that when these boys, or young men, worked by themselves much time would be spent in arguing and quarreling, which often ended in a ring fight. But when Joseph Smith worked with them, the work went steadily forward, and he got the full worth of the wages he paid.

I remember the churchman saying, in a very solemn and impressive tone, that the very influence the boy carried was the danger they feared for the coming generation, that not only the young men, but all who came in contact with him, would follow him, and he must be put down." (Hyrum L. Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus, comps., They Knew the Prophet [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1974], 2)

-->

-->

Priesthood authority needed

John Taylor:

“Supposing a man was to come here as Governor or Secretary, or holding any other office under the government of the United States; he comes in the name of the United States, or by the power or authority of the United States, does he not? Yes. But supposing some of you were to set up here as Governor, they would want to see your credentials and know by what authority you came here and whether you were appointed by the legitimate authorities of the United States or not. If not, they would pay no attention to you; they would look upon you as a very commonplace, foolish individual, and moreover, they would also look upon you as a fraud. Well, then, if God does not send men, of course they cannot act under the authority of God; if they do, they act fraudulently. Now, how can men go in the name of God when they tell you that God has never spoken for the last eighteen hundred years, and that he does not now reveal himself? That being the case, how then can they go forth in the name of God? I do not know; it is a mystery to me.” (JD 21:155)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has priesthood authority. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ordained by John the Baptist, and by the ancient apostles Peter, James, and John, who appeared to him as resurrected beings. 

Fear of revelation and priesthood?

George Q. Cannon:

“…if a man comes forward claiming that he has this authority he is met with the accusations: “You are deluded, you are an imposter, you preach false doctrine, we will have none of your teaching. Men who believe in prophecy and revelation are liable to be deceived, and we are afraid of you, we do not know but you will deceive us. Jesus said there should be false prophets, we believe you are one of them.”

And thus they fortify and encase themselves in their unbelief and reject the word of God, and if Paul or Peter were to rise from the dead, and go amongst them and proclaim the principles they taught anciently, they would close their churches and chapels, and would say, “We will have none of you, you will deceive us, you are one of the false prophets spoken of,” forgetting that, if there are false prophets, there will, in all probability, also be true ones;” (JD 14:163)

I have also noticed this even today. When I share the story of the First Vision with people of other faiths or talk to them about how we can receive personal revelation, they invariably ask me questions like, "How do you know you won't be deceived?"  Easy answer from the Bible: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself." The question then becomes whether someone is willing to try the experiment to do God's will or not. 

-->

Prejudice of the people

George A. Smith:

“Elder Parley P. Pratt, before receiving the Gospel, was a minister of the Reformed Baptist, or Campbelite, Church in Ohio. This sect had a brick meetinghouse in Mentor, Geauga, now Lake Co. The people who owned this house had prided themselves on their great liberality, they would give everybody a chance to preach. Bro. Pratt, wishing to preach to them went there but found the door shut against him, and the congregation assembled outside. He preached on the door step. Quite a number of his former Christian brethren had gone to a neighboring grocery and qualified the inner man with something stimulating, and having supplied themselves with eggs, and procured a drum and fife they marched backwards and forwards in front of the speaker, throwing their eggs at him until their supply—five dozen—was exhausted. Elder Pratt kept on preaching and bearing testimony of the truth of the Gospel. Among those present who seemed to enjoy the scene was a Campbellite, a grave looking deacon, to whom a young man, a stranger, who happened to be present said, “Is this the way you worship God in this country?” “Oh, no Sir!” answered the deacon, “that man is a ‘Mormon.’”  The stranger then remarked, “his talk is very reasonable.” “Yes,” said the old gentleman, “but he is a ‘Mormon,’ and we do not intend that he shall preach here.” “He appears very cool,” remarked the stranger. “Yes,” said the deacon, “he is used to it, he has been in such scrapes before.”

This circumstance illustrates the manner in which the Elders were received when they went forth to preach the Gospel, and it required the testimony of the Holy Spirit, a strong sense of duty, and revelation from the Almighty to stir them up to go forth under such circumstances. Not only did this persecution extend to those who preached the Gospel, but to all believers, for, although the Saints were industrious, peaceable, and virtuous, every kind of falsehood was told against them, their houses were torn down, their property destroyed and every species of injustice and cruelty was heaped upon them.” (JD 12:332)

Daniel H. Wells:    (back in 1882)

“When a person embraces the everlasting Gospel—which, by the way, seems to be very unpopular now, as in other ages; whether it will continue to be so I do not know—it requires a good deal of moral courage to sacrifice his associations in life, his property, social standing and good name, and everything that pertains to this life that is considered worth having. Still there are those spirits in the flesh that have the courage to do it; those that have the honesty of heart to receive this testimony and to stand up and bear it in the face of every opposing obstacle and every opposing foe.” (JD 23:303)

-->

BY had to overcome fear to preach

Brigham Young:

“About the time I was preparing myself to embrace the gospel, there were great reformation meetings, and many professed to be converted. Those were very stirring times. The cause of religion was the great topic and theme of conversation, and preachers were full of zeal to bring souls to Christ through repentance and faith in his name. I recollect very distinctly that if I permitted myself to speak in any of their meetings, the spirit forbade me mentioning or referring to the testimony of Jesus, only in a superficial way. A few who believed in the everlasting gospel which had been revealed through Joseph, the prophet, testified in their meetings that they knew by the spirit of revelation that God had done thus and so, and they were hooted at immediately by those reformers. If I spoke at all in their meetings, I had to guard every word I uttered, lest I should offend those who professed to understand the gospel of life and salvation, but who did not. Gradually we broke through this fear, and ventured to utter the sentiments of our hearts, in faith before God, delivering that to the people which the Lord had revealed to us….Unless we are willing to be guided by the revelations of the spirit of the Almighty, by obeying and living up to the principles of His gospel, we are as apt to believe one thing as another, and to be influenced by, and follow the dictations of a bad spirit as a good one.” (JD 12:99)

Need for personal revelation

Elder L. Aldin Porter :

“Some years ago I enjoyed a stake conference assignment as a junior companion to Elder LeGrand Richards, who had, under the influence of this directing Spirit, reorganized a stake presidency. We were driving home; he was very pensive. After a rather long period of silence, I asked him if there was something he would like to teach me. Quietly he said, “We have too many in the Church who deny the spirit of prophecy and of revelation.” That was it—he said no more about it. As I reminisced about the calling of the new stake president that day, it occurred to me then that this Church could not function for even one day without the spirit of prophecy and revelation.

But ours is a day of dwindling faith and increasing skepticism about sacred things. Our time reminds me of the period just prior to the coming of the resurrected Savior to this continent. They were very dark days.

Mormon recorded the roots of the problems that beset the Nephite society when he said, “And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation.”

Later Mormon continues: “And because of their iniquity the church had begun to dwindle; and they began to disbelieve in the spirit of prophecy and in the spirit of revelation; and the judgments of God did stare them in the face.”….

When the appointed servants of this Church speak under the influence of the Holy Ghost as ambassadors of the Lord Jesus Christ, their words are carried by the power of the spirit to those whose hearts are open to revelation.

When, with heavenly power, that witness comes to a person, he or she will soon understand that personal sacrifice is its constant companion. The spiritual witness of these sacred things and the demands of sacrifice inevitably walk the road together. In time, one comes to understand the necessity of this and is filled with gratitude that it is so.” (1996 October conference)

20 Reasons why Latter-day Saint Women are the Toughest and Sweetest Women on the Planet

-->

About 8 months ago, I ran across a Buzzfeed post called “25 reasons why Mormon Men are the Toughest SOBs on the Planet.”  

In honor of the upcoming Mother's Day, I felt like Latter-day Saint Women deserve some props too, so I decided I’d write a version for them. 

20 Reasons why Latter-day Saint Women Are the Toughest and Sweetest Women on the Planet

1. Get your Young Women’s Medallion by age 18. It’s like Eagle Scout rank, but for girls.

2. Don’t swear when you’re mad.  And passive aggressiveness isn’t considered Christ-like.

3. Survive girl-gossip brutality without giving any.

4. Get revelation from God as to whether it is necessary to take an 18-month break from education to preach the gospel 24/7 without pay.

5. Earn the money to pay for that 18-month break.

6. Go to Chile for 18 months, learn Spanish in 6 weeks, and convince strangers to believe in Jesus.   Get rejected a thousand times a day.

Return home and be completely normal.

7. Keep the gorgeous guy interested without using sex or body-revealing attire until he’s desperate to put a ring on your finger.

8. Have 7 children under the ages of 12 and teach a church class full of other people’s teenage girls.

Teach lessons about why celestial marriage and being a mother is the Best. Thing.  Evarrrrrrrrrrr.

9. Be an on-call, stay-at-home mom 133 hours a week and then work 15 hours on a church calling.

10. Teach each of those 7 children the gospel before they can even talk.  Get them interested in ancient scriptural texts before they can even read.

11. Shop for and feed those 7 kids with a 10% lower budget than the Joneses. 

12. Drive a Mormon assault vehicle (van). Parallel-park that thing like a boss.

13. Whip up an extra full-course meal to donate to a needy family with only eight hours notice.

14. Cook that food storage like a Thanksgiving dinner.

15. Drown your sorrows with nothing more intoxicating than chocolate.

16. Making sure teenage sons earn eagle rank = Latter-day Saint mother earning eagle. 

17. Your great-great-grandmother gave birth to her babies under a wagon. In the snow.  And helped hitch the oxen the next day.

18. Your great-great-grandmother also had to share her husband with four other wives, all while the rest of the nation thought she was a slave and a whore.

19. Handle questions about your religion like a champ.

20. Marry off your oldest child while pregnant with your youngest child.

Conclusion?    Latter-day Saint Woman = Grace under fire

What David does once King Saul is dead

1 And it came to pass after this, that David inquired of the Lord, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the Lord said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto Hebron.

2 So David went up thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail Nabal’s wife the Carmelite.

3 And his men that were with him did David bring up, every man with his household: and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron.

David inquired of the Lord if he could move back into Israelite territory once Saul was dead.  One might perhaps assume this should be a no-brainer, but it is admirable of David to go to the Lord about it and even to inquire about what city he should go to, when the ‘yes’ answer is given. 

Of course, where David goes, all his followers go too.  It must have been overwhelming to Hebron to receive so many people at once, so David distributes his people about “in the cities of Hebron.”  Happily, they were no longer refugees, and they undoubtedly had their goods with them, so the only difficulty would have been finding place for all of them.  (Imagine if two wards worth of people were to move in suddenly.)  I don’t doubt that David did his best to situate his people and negotiate with the Israelites already living there.  His leadership abilities would have been quite clear.

4 And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabesh-gilead were they that buried Saul.

The men of Judah came and anointed David king over Judah.  His skills in battle were known, his generosity with the spoils of war were known (he shared with Israelite cities, even though he was living in exile at the time), his leadership they could see for themselves as well as hear stories from his men.  And they would not claim him king over more territory than would accept him.

David wasn’t a man to usurp power.  He prefers the common consent of his people.

5 ¶And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabesh-gilead, and said unto them, Blessed be ye of the Lord, that ye have shewed this kindness unto your lord, even unto Saul, and have buried him.

6 And now the Lord shew kindness and truth unto you: and I also will requite you this kindness, because ye have done this thing.

7 Therefore now let your hands be strengthened, and be ye valiant: for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them.

David sent messengers to praise Jabesh-gilead for retrieving and burying Saul’s body.  This sent a strong signal that he was not the enemy of those who supported Saul, even though he clearly had reason to be resentful of how he’d been treated.  Those who supported Saul against David would naturally be afraid of retribution, but David preferred to extend mercy and goodwill, since he knew that Saul’s wickedness had forced a lot of people to do what they would rather not have done to prove their loyalty.

He also encouraged them to be strengthened and valiant even though Saul was dead and there didn’t seem to be a clear leader for them to follow.  They could follow him of course, if they wanted to, since Judah had made him king.

8 ¶But Abner the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s host, took Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim;

9 And made him king over Gilead, and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel, and over Ephraim, and over Benjamin, and over all Israel.

10 Ish-bosheth Saul’s son was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David.

11 And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.

Abner, who was Saul’s cousin and captain of Saul’s armies prefers to support Ishbosheth, one of Saul’s sons.  It is interesting that he does this even though in the following chapter we find him stumping for David throughout Israel on the grounds the Lord had said David would save them from the Philistines and that they had previously wanted David to be king.

We can see from the list of places that Abner makes Ishbosheth king over that this was a progressive consolidation of power over time.  Evidently after Saul’s death the confederation of Israelite cities fell apart and had to be gathered up again.  With all this, we can imagine Abner would be thinking about how he might wrest Judah from David as well.

12 ¶And Abner the son of Ner, and the servants of Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon.

13 And Joab the son of Zeruiah, and the servants of David, went out, and met together by the pool of Gibeon: and they sat down, the one on the one side of the pool, and the other on the other side of the pool.

14 And Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now arise, and play before us. And Joab said, Let them arise.

It is very interesting that Abner’s army and David’s army under Joab converges on the pool of Gibeon at the same day.  This looks a lot like it was planned.

By suggesting the young men play, Abner means that this is to be a small-scale fight, probably to determine whether Judah will be under Ishbosheth or not, so that a large-scale battle can be avoided.  Abner suggests it, so we can probably assume Abner planned this out.  To me it seems like he is the aggressor.

So what is the result?

15 Then there arose and went over by number twelve of Benjamin, which pertained to Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David.

16 And they caught every one his fellow by the head, and thrust his sword in his fellow’s side; so they fell down together: wherefore that place was called Helkath-hazzurim, which is in Gibeon.

So they chose twelve men from both sides to fight the little battle, and no doubt they chose the best men they possibly could.

The scriptures say “they caught every one his fellow by the head, and thrust his sword in his fellow’s side; so they fell down together.” In short, they were so strong that they were equally matched, equally determined to win, and they all used similar fighting strategy such that they simultaneously grabbed and stabbed each other.  And when all the 24 die like this, the result of the small scale battle is inconclusive.

The field was memorialized with the name “Helkath-hazzurim.”  Our Bible footnotes say that means “field of foes,” but other commentaries give a range of other meanings, like “field of sharp swords” or “field of sharp blades” or “field of rocky men,” which might describe the determination of those 24 men to prevail at any cost.

17 And there was a very sore battle that day; and Abner was beaten, and the men of Israel, before the servants of David.

18 ¶And there were three sons of Zeruiah there, Joab, and Abishai, and Asahel: and Asahel was as light of foot as a wild roe.

With an inconclusive small-scale battle, the big one is begun.  I have to wonder who started that.  Regardless of who started it, Abner and Israel were beaten by David’s army.  So even if in a small-scale battle they were even, in a large-scale battle David’s army was superior.

Here we are also introduced to Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, all sons of Zeruiah, who was David’s sister.  Asahel is described as a very speedy fellow, and this becomes very important in the verses that follow.

19 And Asahel pursued after Abner; and in going he turned not to the right hand nor to the left from following Abner.

20 Then Abner looked behind him, and said, Art thou Asahel? And he answered, I am.

21 And Abner said to him, Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay thee hold on one of the young men, and take thee his armour. But Asahel would not turn aside from following of him.

22 And Abner said again to Asahel, Turn thee aside from following me: wherefore should I smite thee to the ground? how then should I hold up my face to Joab thy brother?

23 Howbeit he refused to turn aside: wherefore Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him under the fifth rib, that the spear came out behind him; and he fell down there, and died in the same place: and it came to pass, that as many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and died stood still.

Commentators are full of praise of Abner here for all the high-sounding arguments he uses to try to shake Asahel off his tail, and they come down hard on Asahel for foolishly persisting in hounding such an experienced and clever warrior as Abner.  Abner warned him, they say, and then he killed him like he said he would.

However, they overlook some very important facts.  1) Abner and his men were beaten.  They had already lost.  Hence, the battle was in the mop-up stage.  2) Asahel pursued after Abner.  Which meant Abner was running away from the battle.

The first argument Abner uses to try to shake Asahel is an invitation to kill someone else and take their armor.  That armor was spoils of war.  This makes it seem like Asahel’s motive was merely glory and ambition.  However, Asahel may have also considered Abner the cause and perpetuator of the battle and thus a target of premier importance.  Remove the leader, remove the problem, right?  Asahel was right to stay focused on Abner.

The way Abner tells Asahel to “turn aside to the thy right hand or to thy left” makes me think that Asahel was chasing Abner right through the middle of Abner’s troops, from front to back.

Abner’s second argument to get Asahel off him is “wherefore should I smite thee to the ground?  How then should I hold up my face to Joab thy brother?”  This makes Abner sound like he’s such a superior solder and he doesn’t really want to kill Asahel, but Asahel is forcing his hand and Abner is so kind and concerned about his relationship with Asahel’s family…. 

Bull.  Again, if Abner is so superior, why is he running away?  There is no reason to suggest Abner is superior.  And Abner’s relationship with Joab has been adversarial anyway! What does he care if Joab starts a blood feud?  Abner has chased them from pillar to post under Saul’s regime.  It is all empty words, until he manages to jab Asahel in the gut with the back end of his spear.  Clear, but extremely grisly painful death.

24 Joab also and Abishai pursued after Abner: and the sun went down when they were come to the hill of Ammah, that lieth before Giah by the way of the wilderness of Gibeon.

25 ¶And the children of Benjamin gathered themselves together after Abner, and became one troop, and stood on the top of an hill.

Abner keeps running and manages to gather together a bunch of Benjamites on high ground to face the still-pursuing army of David.

26 Then Abner called to Joab, and said, Shall the sword devour for ever? knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end? how long shall it be then, ere thou bid the people return from following their brethren?

Once again, Abner gives high-sounding rhetoric to try and make Joab and his army think they are in the wrong.

“Shall the sword devour forever” – Remember, Abner was the one who started the whole thing in the first place and now he tries to spin it as a grudge-battle, meant as a way to get revenge on Abner and army.  It is clear Abner thinks Joab is getting one back at them for all the times Abner and army has pursued David.  Abner warns, “it will be bitterness in the latter end,” perhaps thinking of how bitter Saul became over trying to pursue David.  He also asks how long it will be before Joab stops chasing those who are really his brethren.  They are all Israelites, so why should they fight?  Ask Abner; he is the one who started it.  Who is really holding the grudge?

27 And Joab said, As God liveth, unless thou hadst spoken, surely then in the morning the people had gone up every one from following his brother.

Joab says that even if Abner hadn’t protested, Joab would have ended the pursuit in the morning.  (Of course, Abner will have to take it on faith that is the case.)  The army of David is not so vindictive as Abner makes them out to be.

28 So Joab blew a trumpet, and all the people stood still, and pursued after Israel no more, neither fought they any more.

29 And Abner and his men walked all that night through the plain, and passed over Jordan, and went through all Bithron, and they came to Mahanaim.

30 And Joab returned from following Abner: and when he had gathered all the people together, there lacked of David’s servants nineteen men and Asahel.

31 But the servants of David had smitten of Benjamin, and of Abner’s men, so that three hundred and threescore men died.

32 ¶And they took up Asahel, and buried him in the sepulchre of his father, which was in Beth-lehem. And Joab and his men went all night, and they came to Hebron at break of day.

So Joab takes his people home and takes Asahel’s body with them, and Abner takes his army back to Mahanaim.  Both of them march all night to their destinations, which gives an idea of how strong they were.  After their fighting and pursuing and all, they could still march all night.  And we get a comparison body count.  19 of David’s men and 360 of Abner’s men are dead.

However, after all this, 2 Sam 3:1 says there was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David.  Who was continuing this?  Abner was in charge of the army of Saul, so it seems to me that he spun his defeat as rationale to fight David, probably making him into a dire threat.

I think it is interesting how David’s growth continues, even after Saul is dead.  He doesn’t automatically become king of all Israel; he becomes king of a part, and still has to deal with opposition.  All his experience still works together for his good because of his faithfulness.   I think his upward trajectory gives us an idea of how Heavenly Father can help us too if we’re faithful.

Another thing I think we can learn from Joab and Asahel’s experience with Abner is how rhetoric is used to cast aspersions on the enemy.  We see this in moral wars today.  The thing to remember is that no matter what someone says, if you pay attention to what they are actually doing you understand what they are really like.  Abner sounded pious and considerate, but he was cowardly, cruel, manipulative, and rebellious.

Be not afraid of their faces

Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord….

Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them. (Jeremiah 1:8, 17)

As part of the Sunday school lesson a few months ago in the reading of Jeremiah I noticed there were two repetitions of this idea that Jeremiah was not to be dismayed or afraid of the faces of his people.

What does this mean?  What is so scary about their faces?

I realized Jeremiah was worried about how the people would respond to his words, and he was very sensitive to the expressions on people’s faces as an indicator of how they were receiving (or rejecting) his message.  Since his people were very wicked, their response would be opposite of what it should be, and if he was to go by their response, he would be quickly silenced.

We likewise should not be afraid of people’s facial expressions as we share truths.

David & Goliath: Factors in Goliath’s Vulnerability

When I read the story of David slaying Goliath recently I started asking myself some questions that I hadn’t thought of before:

--Was David the only slinger in the Israelite army?

--Why didn’t Goliath have anything to shield him?

--Why does Goliath so underestimate David?

I’ve read different things that say how slingers were an important part of ancient armies.  Judges 20:16 tells of 700 chosen men who could sling stones at a hairsbreadth and not miss, so they were a common part of armies.  So there would be slingers among Saul’s army already.

So why hadn’t some slinger already hit Goliath before David came?

The problem was Goliath had a shield bearer who went before him with a big shield.  The shield bearer wasn’t a glorified coat rack; he was supposed to keep Goliath safe from incoming sling stones.  And he was evidently very good at it because Goliath defied Israel for quite a while.

So how does Goliath go so wrong with David?  Why, if David goes to Goliath with his sling in his hand, does Goliath seem to completely underestimate him?  1 Samuel 17:41 tells us that as Goliath begins to come close to David, the shield bearer went before him, so his guard was still up at the beginning.  But Goliath makes a comment in v43 -- “Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves?”  This tells us that all Goliath could see at first that David had was David’s staff.   It is possible David had his sling in his hand all rolled up or folded up, or even just held in his hand with his staff, so that Goliath could only see the staff and not the sling.  To Goliath’s eyes, David looked inadequately armed, and maybe this is what gets Goliath out from behind his shield bearer so that David can get a nice clear shot.

The risk to David was that he might not be able to bring his sling into play in time before the Philistine got to him.  Nevertheless, he starts running toward Goliath and as he runs, he prepares his sling for action.  It seems that not only was David excellent with the sling, he was good at the “quick draw” and that too while on the run, with a moving target.

Thus, we can see where David’s courage and faith were.  He knew it was risky to get close to Goliath, but he trusted in God that he would be delivered.  He had previous experience because of the time he trusted in God to help him deliver a lamb out of the mouth of a lion and a bear in a close-up struggle.

Sometimes in our fight against evil we have to get up-close-and-personal in situations with great risk.   David’s story shows us that when we have to, we can depend on God to protect us and then use the skills and training we have. 

King Saul Starts to Take the Initiative (in a good way)

King Saul tends to get such a bad rap with commentaries about lack of initiative and hesitance (not to mention disobedience) that it is cool to read that he wasn’t always like that.  This little bit is almost an afterthought at the end of the incident where Saul is prevented from executing Jonathan for eating some honey.

46 Then Saul went up from following the Philistines: and the Philistines went to their own place.

47 ¶So Saul took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, and against the children of Ammon, and against Edom, and against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines: and whithersoever he turned himself, he vexed them.

48 And he gathered an host, and smote the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of them that spoiled them….

52 And there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul: and when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him. (1 Sam. 14:46-48, 52)

In fact, these verses describe a period when Saul seems to have taken the initiative and conducted what looks like a hit-and-run campaign against Israel’s hostile neighbors.  His army was small and hard to keep together when facing large forces, so it looks like he decided it would be better if they just made surprise attacks and left before the enemy could gather a sufficient force to oppose them.  Guerrilla warfare, perhaps?

Also, it looks like Saul figured out how to deal with the tendency of the Israelites to slip away and leave the army in tough times—by near constant recruiting efforts and looking for strong or valiant men who wouldn’t desert when things looked bad.

So Saul eventually learned how to adapt his tactics to the constraints put on him by the rawness of his army, and he was able to figure out what measures to adopt that would eventually turn his raw army into a force to be reckoned with.  In that respect he was a good leader. 

This was not without cost though.  By adopting a hit-and-run campaign against so many of Israel’s neighbors, Saul made lots of enemies, and if they had decided to retaliate in a coordinated effort, Israel would have had too much border to defend all at once and be stretched extremely thin.  As it was, their war just with the Philistines kept them very busy, since it is described as “sore war all the days of Saul.”   I can’t help but contrast this with Samuel’s life as a judge when Israel had peace with all their neighbors.

Also, recruiting every strong, brave man he could find eventually brings Saul to promote David.  It is only when David is acclaimed more than Saul that Saul becomes afraid of losing his kingdom and begins to feel threatened by David rather than seeing him as the asset he really was.

Thoughts on Samuel’s beginnings in 1 Samuel 1-3

I have a few different thoughts on the prophet Samuel and his beginnings in 1 Samuel 1-3, but there isn’t much connection to them, so I’ll just present them by chapter.

1 Samuel 1 is about Samuel’s mother Hannah and the promise she made as a barren woman that if the Lord gave her a son, she would lend him to the Lord all his life.

We often talk about Hannah’s great integrity that she kept her promise when the Lord gave her a son, but it also has to be noted what great faith she had to lend him when the priests at the tabernacle were not good examples of men of God.  Hard as it must have been for her to leave Samuel with Eli at the tabernacle even if Eli and his sons were righteous priests, think what faith it must have taken her to leave him in the hands of those men when they were hypocrites.  Any mother would be happy knowing her son would be among good influences, but it would certainly be an act of great faith to leave him among corrupted influences, especially at a highly impressionable age.

I think in Hannah’s sacrifice to keep her vow we get a little glimpse of Heavenly Father’s sacrifice to send down His Only Begotten Son among a corrupted Israel with hypocritical priests and religious leaders.

1 Samuel 2-3 is primarily about the contrast between the growing Samuel and the sins of Eli and his sons.  Samuel grows in favor while Eli and his sons wax worse and worse.   I think Samuel sets a good example of choosing the right even when the people around him are corrupted and choosing wrong.  We can be like Samuel today too.

If we look at what Eli does, we see some semblance of righteousness—he blesses Hannah and then the Lord honors Eli’s blessing and gives her more children.  Eli chastises his sons, but it is sadly not enough.  He teaches Samuel how to recognize the Lord’s voice and respond, but the message from the Lord to Samuel doesn’t mean good for Eli.

It is sad that Eli’s failed parenting has such far-reaching consequences for Israel’s spiritual well-being.  He allows his sons to be pushy and greedy when taking their portions of the sacrifices and this made it so “men abhorred the offering of the Lord” (1 Samuel 2:17) because they hated dealing with them and didn’t want to offer sacrifices.

When his sons were committing adultery/fornication with the women who were gathered at the door of the tabernacle, Eli just gave them a verbal slap on the wrist when their lack of repentance merited removal from the priestly office at the very least and death according to the Law of Moses at the very most.   It is possible that Eli was worried about who would take care of him in his old age if he alienated his sons or had them executed or excommunicated for their crimes.  Sadly, this was honoring his sons more than God.

Who can fix this situation?  The Lord lets Eli know by two different people—an anonymous man of God and later by the boy Samuel—that he’s gone too far and there will be terrible consequences.

How does the fact that Samuel is given the message of warning for Eli fit with our understanding of revelation being given only for those in our stewardship?  Samuel is in Eli’s stewardship, so why does Samuel get the message? 

I think this is one of those extremely rare cases when the revelation had to come to Samuel because Eli had so deafened himself.  “the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision” (1 Samuel 3:1).  If Samuel had awakened in the morning and said to Eli, “By the way, I had a dream that God talked to me and told me you’re in big trouble, blah, blah, blah,” would Eli have accepted it?   But instead, the very circumstances of the calling voice and Samuel’s confusion and asking Eli three times what he wants are meant to alert Eli that something unusual is going on and God is about to speak to Samuel. 

There is some sad irony in the fact that Eli tutors Samuel how to be responsive to revelation from the Lord, yet Eli himself doesn’t obey and repent after being warned. 

After Samuel has received the disturbing message about Eli from God, Eli wants to hear about it.  He says to Samuel, “What is the thing that the Lord hath said unto thee?  I pray thee hide it not from me: God do so to thee, and more also, if thou hide anything from me of all the things that he said unto thee.” (1 Samuel 3:17)

Eli is so eager for revelation and prophecy from the Lord, and you might say that here he is still tutoring Samuel on the principles of acting prophetically, teaching him to not hide any part of a message God gives, even if it will hurt the hearers.  How sad that he won’t live those principles himself when he should have done something more about his sons.

I also think it is interesting that after all the time Samuel has ministered at the tabernacle, it is said, “Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.” (1 Samuel 3:7)

He heard the Lord calling, but he didn’t yet know who that was.  There is something kind of encouraging about that; it implies that we may serve the Lord for a long time before we know the Lord.  That spiritual privilege evidently requires a great deal of preparation, like service and obedience and diligence and faithfulness.  If we want to know the Lord better, we’ll need to follow Samuel’s example and not Eli’s example.

The message the Lord gives to Samuel is not a pleasant one.

11 ¶And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.

12 In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.

13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.

14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever. (1 Samuel 3:11-14)

As said before, Eli insists on hearing every bit of the message and his response is kind of odd—“It is the LORD: let him do what seemeth him good.” (1 Samuel 3:18)  It sounds pious, but if he believed it, he’d be more distressed because it is a message of condemnation.  Rather, he doesn’t seem to think it can happen and he is going to carry on as usual.

For Samuel that must have been a pretty amazing beginning to a prophetic ministry, to deliver such a sad message to a high priest, the man who had been training and mentoring him all those years.  Yet he did it, and that likely increased his moral courage.

So principles we can get from this:

--Sometimes keeping promises and covenants with the Lord may seem like it will not bring the best good for our family.  We need extra faith at those times to do as promised.

--We can choose the right even when others around us are choosing wrongly.

--Priesthood leadership positions are not an opportunity to gratify lusts of the flesh.

--Lack of reverence for sacred ordinances among priesthood leadership will eventually infect members too.

--Courageous parents restrain their children’s iniquity.

--God has ways of warning religious leaders of their sins.

--It takes faithful preparation to hear the voice of the Lord.

--Prophets must communicate hard truths.

--It takes humility to listen to hard truths and change.