Authentic, Genuine And Real. But Not The Official Position Of The Church.

[Buckeye]

I do not have a lot of faith in civil discourse on this board (sorry to be blunt). But I still have some faith. And I would like to attempt a dialogue regarding the church's increasing tolerance and inclusion of people whose views do not perfectly align with the church's positions. A good example of this phenomena can be found in Elder Christofferson's Q&A on the website mormonsandgays.org:

We’re not endeavoring here to try to cover the waterfront and address every issue that could be, and needs to be, addressed in different settings relating to same-sex attraction. But the idea is to open us, all of us, to greater understanding. And you’ll hear stories, experiences from quite a diversity of people and backgrounds and perceptions. They’re genuine, they’re real, they’re authentic. And while you see some saying “this didn’t work” and “this did” and a progression in life, we feel that this can only lead to greater sensitivity and better understanding, and that’s what we’re about. Our only real hope in addressing these very sensitive and difficult issues is that we are civil and listen to one another and try to understand. You’ll see in these experiences that some people state what you could call the position of the Church – it coincides perfectly – and others not. But again they’re all very authentic, and as we listen to one other and strive to understand, things can only get better.

[www.mormonsandgays.org; emphasis supplied]

Elder Christofferson does not specify which views do not coincide with church positions (and the website notably excludes the authentic experiences of people who find fulfillment and joy in same-sex relationships), but it is nonetheless intriguing that he acknowledges experiences can be "authentic", "genuine", and "real", even then those experiences do not match the official teachings of the church.

Many other examples of this phenomena can be found in member profiles on mormon.org. A few such examples:

• A mormon "gay rights supporter" and "ardent feminist" http://mormon.org/me...TimothyBrowning
  
• A mormon rock star, many of whose songs have lyrics that cannot be played a church dances (at least in my stake) http://mormon.org/brandon
  
• A mormon woman who chose to focus on a career prior to having children and who intends to continuing working outside the home once she has children http://mormon.org/athelia/
  
• A mormon athlete who chooses to work on Sundays http://mormon.org/william/
  

To be clear, I am not judging any of these members. I personally have worked on Sundays by choice, consider myself a feminist and gay rights supporter, work outside the home even though I have young children, and I love The Killers (seriously, if you haven't picked up a copy of Battle Born, what are you waiting for?)

But as a local leader of the church, I can't help notice that many of these member's choices do not match church teachings and yet the church is actively holding them up as role models. In a real sense, these members are our "city on a hill". And while mormon.org contains a general disclaimer, there are no specific notations on these profiles to indicate when a person's behavior matches or does not match church views.

I do not want to discuss the particular church teachings. There are already numerous threads on homosexuality, women's roles, sunday observance, and so forth. Please do not derail this thread. What I do want to discuss are the following questions (and anything else reasonably related):

1. How should local leaders follow the church's lead of including member's experiences that do not conform to church teachings? Should we actively welcome or merely tolerate such views? Should we clarify for other members that the view conflicts with church teachings? Should we acknowledge the genuineness of such experiences? A few examples:
   
   1. 
      
   2. You are the gospel doctrine teacher. A member comments that at one point finances were tight, she stopped paying tithing, the Lord continued to bless and her and she feels that was the right decision.
      
   3. You are the bishop. A member bears a testimony saying that her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock and chose to raise the child on her own rather than place it for adoption. She feels that was the right decision for her.
      
   4. You are the YM president. In a meeting with parents regarding Duty to God, one father explains that his son does not come to mutual during winter months because he is part of ski-club. He says, for him, it is the best use of his time and a chance to share the gospel with non-members.
      
   5. How does one balance an inclusion of differing view points while upholding the church's teachings? Specifically (and perhaps a bit philosophical), how can a local leader acknowledge the reality, genuineness, and authenticity of someone's experiences and continue to hold that the person's views are false because they do not adhere to church standards? From the BOM: “The Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls” (Jacob 4:1) If someone's views and experiences are "real" - to quote Elder Christofferson - how can they also be false?
      
      

[JAHS]

• 2. You are the bishop. A member bears a testimony saying that her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock and chose to raise the child on her own rather than place it for adoption. She feels that was the right decision for her."
  

Not sure why you include this one. While the church might encourage adoption, the choice is always left up to the daughter and family. I personally know of a young women who with the help of her family chose to raise her child. There was no pressure from her Bishop to put the child up for adoption. She later married someone else in the temple and had that daughter sealed to them. For her it was the right decision.

Edited January 21, 2013 by JAHS

[go_utes01]

• 2. You are the bishop. A member bears a testimony saying that her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock and chose to raise the child on her own rather than place it for adoption. She feels that was the right decision for her."
  

Not sure why you include this one. While the church might encourage adoption, the choice is always left up to the daughter and family. I personally know of a young women who with the help of her family chose to raise her child. There was no pressure from her Bishop to put the child up for adoption. She later married someone else in the temple and had that daughter sealed to them. For her it was the right decision.

I am grateful my wife decided to keep her baby. I had the blessing of adopting my son after I married his mother, and being sealed as an eternal family.

[Tacenda]

https://www.itsabout.../site/pregnant/

I don't know of what went on behind closed doors when a seventeen yr. old in my ward kept her baby, but know of a backlash when serving in the RS Presidency and our RS President (amazing woman) gave her a baby shower. I was sad that this occurred. I have heard of others saying that the church encourages unwed mothers to give up their babies, and placing their baby with LDS Family Services.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Tacenda

[Buckeye]

Folks, this thread is a discussion about how local leaders should address members whose genuine experiences conflict with church teachings. It is not about any specific church policy. So if you think I mischaracterized the church's position on something, please just ignore that statement.

FWIW, the church has previously encouraged unwed mothers to place their children for adoption. (See, e.g., Feb. 1, 1994 First Presidency Letter; "... When the unwed parents are unable or unwilling to marry, they should be encouraged to place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Social Services. …") This position is no longer expressly stated in the church handbook, but to my knowledge it has also not been expressly retracted. I conceed it is debatable whether this remains a church teaching, but again, that is not the purpose of this thread.

[Buzzard]

Voice of Orthodoxy here. Of your three examples, the one I could see not being a big issue was #3. As teenagers mature, they acquire a lot of activities such as work, school activities, or....a ski club that can preclude them coming to YM each week. I don't think that's a real issue. Sunday work, which is hard to avoid in the typical "teenage" jobs such as retail and fast food, that's a bit more problematic, but individuals make their own decisions.

The other two, well....I think that too many members of the church let their own feelings override church doctrine. In example #1, their not paying tithing would preclude them from getting a temple recommend. That's an issue. A lot of bishops I have known would counsel you to pay your tithing and if your income really was not sufficient, the ward would help out.

Now for #2. Currently, society says you just keep the baby. I almost all cases, this turns out to be a ruinous decision for the mother and the baby. I really do see wisdom in the prophetic counsel of the church that either the couple should be married, or the child given for adoption.

We want to be nice, we don't want to pressure, and from time to time, there is an exception, such as the one "go_utes" cited. (As an ardent BYU fan, it's hard to even type that). But exceptions are just that. Exceptions. There is a real danger in saying that while the churches doctrine is good, for some reason it doesn't apply to you.

God gives you agency, but it does not free you from consequences. The spiritual, educational, and economic prospects of unwed mothers are statistically dire. On a societal level, when a majority of births occur outside of marriage, not much that is good happens. Government or church assistance can keep one from starving, but there are long terms problems with that as well.

IMHO, following the prophet produces joy. Choosing to ignore his counsel raises the prospect of misery exponentially.

[go_utes01]

Voice of Orthodoxy here. Of your three examples, the one I could see not being a big issue was #3. As teenagers mature, they acquire a lot of activities such as work, school activities, or....a ski club that can preclude them coming to YM each week. I don't think that's a real issue. Sunday work, which is hard to avoid in the typical "teenage" jobs such as retail and fast food, that's a bit more problematic, but individuals make their own decisions.

The other two, well....I think that too many members of the church let their own feelings override church doctrine. In example #1, their not paying tithing would preclude them from getting a temple recommend. That's an issue. A lot of bishops I have known would counsel you to pay your tithing and if your income really was not sufficient, the ward would help out.

Now for #2. Currently, society says you just keep the baby. I almost all cases, this turns out to be a ruinous decision for the mother and the baby. I really do see wisdom in the prophetic counsel of the church that either the couple should be married, or the child given for adoption.

We want to be nice, we don't want to pressure, and from time to time, there is an exception, such as the one "go_utes" cited. (As an ardent BYU fan, it's hard to even type that). But exceptions are just that. Exceptions. There is a real danger in saying that while the churches doctrine is good, for some reason it doesn't apply to you.

God gives you agency, but it does not free you from consequences. The spiritual, educational, and economic prospects of unwed mothers are statistically dire. On a societal level, when a majority of births occur outside of marriage, not much that is good happens. Government or church assistance can keep one from starving, but there are long terms problems with that as well.

IMHO, following the prophet produces joy. Choosing to ignore his counsel raises the prospect of misery exponentially.

This is where personal revelation comes into play. I do not believe the prophet has commanded that a mother must give up her baby for adoption. In many cases that may be the best decision for the mother and the baby, and therefore it is good to advise the mother-to-be of her options. But, the final decision should be between the to-be-earthly-parents and the Heavenly parents. Sorry for the thread derail. I think my answer to the OP lies within this response, however. The local leader should follow the spirit in all situations, including those provided in the OP.

[JAHS]

Church leaders speaking from the pulpit are required to impart only true church doctrines generally to all members, but what each member does with that information might be different according to their own situation and their own inspiration from God. When local members ask their Bishop why it's OK for a professional LDS athelete to work on Sunday and the church seems to put them in the spotlight for their accomplishment, they can explain that it was their choice to do that and that they will have to answer to God to someday. Perhaps that athelete believes that his good example of other christian atributes in his chosen field serves the greater good of the Church.

[BlueDreams]

Not sure why you include this one. While the church might encourage adoption, the choice is always left up to the daughter and family. I personally know of a young women who with the help of her family chose to raise her child. There was no pressure from her Bishop to put the child up for adoption. She later married someone else in the temple and had that daughter sealed to them. For her it was the right decision.

Probably because it's not a story that's shared a lot.....and though it's a personal decision, I don't think it far fetched that adoption is strongly encouraged. There are articles and statements such as this or this. Plus articles that I've seen in church publications on adoption have usually been from the same perspective: that of those receiving the children and those who ended up giving the child up for adoption. I can't think of a time that I've read a story that was published of a woman who thought of giving her child up for adoption and decided against it. And I'm a little hyper-aware of the fact that adoption is strongly encouraged....further encouraged by highlighting the many struggles that come from keeping the baby as well.

I was raised by a single mom who went through a string of potential adoptive parents before deciding to keep me. It came down to three couples and the one couple was what she described as the "perfect couple" to her: musical, large, married in the temple, with another child that was biracial and adopted, etc. It was a string of events completely out of her control that made adoption to them impossible. The other 2 neither her nor the LDS worker felt all that jazzed about. They offered to start again, but by then I was 2 months old. My mom just couldn't go through it again. Of course this was in the 80's so it's a different climate....I'm sure circumstances would be different in some regards now....but it is strongly encouraged.

With luv,

BD

[BCSpace]

If someone's views and experiences are "real" - to quote Elder Christofferson - how can they also be false?

A person who commits adultery or fornication, for example, has experienced something real and authentic, but has lived falsely according to the Gospel and if they teach that such is not sin or that God will merely "beat us with a few stripes", then they are teaching false doctrine.

The problem here is that almost no members of the Church have mistreated gays and that a small but vocal group of people have accused the Church of a Church-wide problem. The Church is PR-wise and so it publishes these types of things, but as we have seen, it is fruitless to think the Church will change or has changed it's doctrine in these matters and it is a sign of apostasy to try and make those changes happen.

All these conversations on mormonsandgays.org are designed to lead you only in one direction; the complete and utter nonacceptance of a homosexual lifestyle.

Edited January 21, 2013 by BCSpace

[BlueDreams]

How should local leaders follow the church's lead of including member's experiences that do not conform to church teachings? Should we actively welcome or merely tolerate such views? Should we clarify for other members that the view conflicts with church teachings? Should we acknowledge the genuineness of such experiences?

I don't think it's all too difficult. The scriptures are full of contradictory commands that throw the person out of what they "know" must happen. Abraham and his son, Nephi and Laban, etc....it's the same idea. Generally this is what we should, but the overarching principle isn't "do what's written," it's "do what God instructs no matter what." Sometimes God does not want what is generally expected.

That said, we can have genuine experiences that are very real and may be wrong. But what I get from him is to not go all out and judge. We have no real means to know where their path will end and what will occur. We're quite limited in our vision. Accept their stories, remember what's right and what is most important (Charity), and learn from others as much as possible.

How does one balance an inclusion of differing view points while upholding the church's teachings?

A hierarchy of what is important. Is it more important to prove you're right or to love and encourage them, helping them to develop at their own pace...recognizing that we ourselves are in the exact same boat. I am not perfect. I hold/believe things that are probably wrong. I know I have in the past and God has gently and carefully helped me to let them go. But it wasn't an overnight thing and it certainly didn't come from one person telling me I'm wrong. It came as God intended:

by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By ^akindness, and pure ^bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the ^csoul without ^dhypocrisy, and without ^eguile—

43 ^aReproving betimes with ^bsharpness, when ^cmoved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of^dlove toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy

Generally speaking, I try to give people that same allowance

With luv,

BD

[Freedom]

As has been stated, false is not the opposite of real. Fake is the opposite. Something can be real but false. Stealing a car is real and brings great joy to some people. The issue with homosexuality is that the feeling are real feelings. but just because a feeling is real this does not make it correct. Statistically, children born out of wedlock to children fair much better if they are adopted rather than raised by the biological parents. There is no way to respond to these issues, it depends on the circumstances. If someone chooses not to pay their tithing the bishop must be guided by the spirit and council them based on their understanding and willingness to obey. A gospel doctrine class is not the place to debate such ranges of beliefs.

It should also be noted that profiles on mormon.org are not examples of pillars of the church. They are just examples of real people.

[mfbukowski]

How does one balance an inclusion of differing view points while upholding the church's teachings? Specifically (and perhaps a bit philosophical), how can a local leader acknowledge the reality, genuineness, and authenticity of someone's experiences and continue to hold that the person's views are false because they do not adhere to church standards? From the BOM: “The Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls” (Jacob 4:1) If someone's views and experiences are "real" - to quote Elder Christofferson - how can they also be false?

Truth and falsity I think are too black and white in this context- that is not the issue.

The issue becomes pedagogical. The question becomes what is the best vehicle to TEACH the individual to come closer to Christ.

If one is a drunk on skid row, and the Salvation Army brings that individual closer to Christ- are those teachings "false"?

Of course not! Can the individual have a legitimate "testimony" that the Salvation Army's teachings are "true"? Of course!

If a pagan polytheist is converted to monotheistic Islam and affirms the truth of worshiping God/Allah as opposed to a piece of stone, is that a step in the right direction and "true"? Of course!

One must see it not in terms of truth or falsity but in terms of progression, and authenticity and how genuine the progression is. We are here to progress and none of us will see God as he is until we are on the other side anyway- the journey on this side of the veil is all shades of grey.

Whatever brings us closer to the light is what counts as "true" and nothing more or less.

As far as practical considerations are concerned I think we need to understand this as a people and all progress toward that understanding. If we are admonishing a man for showing up to sacrament meeting in a shirt and jeans, that says something about OUR progression, not his.

We need to see all our brothers and sisters as fellow-travelers on a path, not those who have "made it" vs those who have not.

Edited January 21, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If you over-ride an individual's sense of what is "right" for them then you are denying them their own ability to have a testimony and to progress.

If you want obedience, demand orthodoxy and forget about agency. But guess what? That is the way of compulsion and that was the plan rejected in the council of the gods.

On the other hand, if we allow people to progress according to their own testimonies, there are going to be rough spots and inconsistencies in leadership. What works to bring someone closer to Christ might not work for all. Those rough spots can only be made smooth if everyone understands that principle and lives by it and does not judge others.

Elder Bednar, not surprisingly, hit it right on the head:

A Latter-Day Learning Laboratory

The capacity to conquer offense may seem beyond our reach. This capability, however, is not reserved for or restricted to prominent leaders in the Church like Brigham Young. The very nature of the Redeemer’s Atonement and the purpose of the restored Church are intended to help us receive precisely this kind of spiritual strength.

Paul taught the Saints in Ephesus that the Savior established His Church “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12–13).

Please note the use of the active word perfecting. As described by Elder Neal A. Maxwell, the Church is not “a well-provisioned rest home for the already perfected” (“A Brother Offended,” Ensign, May 1982, 38). Rather, the Church is a learning laboratory and a workshop in which we gain experience as we practice on each other in the ongoing process of “perfecting the Saints.”

Elder Maxwell also insightfully explained that in this latter-day learning laboratory known as the restored Church, the members constitute the “clinical material” (see “Jesus, the Perfect Mentor,” Ensign, Feb. 2001, 13) that is essential for growth and development. A visiting teacher learns her duty as she serves and loves her Relief Society sisters. An inexperienced teacher learns valuable lessons as he teaches both supportive and inattentive learners and thereby becomes a more effective teacher. And a new bishop learns how to be a bishop through inspiration and by working with ward members who wholeheartedly sustain him, even while recognizing his human frailties.

Understanding that the Church is a learning laboratory helps us to prepare for an inevitable reality. In some way and at some time, someone in this Church will do or say something that could be considered offensive. Such an event will surely happen to each and every one of us—and it certainly will occur more than once. Though people may not intend to injure or offend us, they nonetheless can be inconsiderate and tactless.

You and I cannot control the intentions or behavior of other people. However, we do determine how we will act. Please remember that you and I are agents endowed with moral agency, and we can choose not to be offended.

During a perilous period of war, an exchange of letters occurred between Moroni, the captain of the Nephite armies, and Pahoran, the chief judge and governor of the land. Moroni, whose army was suffering because of inadequate support from the government, wrote to Pahoran “by the way of condemnation” (Alma 60:2) and harshly accused him of thoughtlessness, slothfulness, and neglect. Pahoran might easily have resented Moroni and his message, but he chose not to take offense. Pahoran responded compassionately and described a rebellion against the government about which Moroni was not aware. And then he responded, “Behold, I say unto you, Moroni, that I do not joy in your great afflictions, yea, it grieves my soul. … And now, in your epistle you have censured me, but it mattereth not; I am not angry, but do rejoice in the greatness of your heart” (Alma 61:2, 9).

One of the greatest indicators of our own spiritual maturity is revealed in how we respond to the weaknesses, the inexperience, and the potentially offensive actions of others. A thing, an event, or an expression may be offensive, but you and I can choose not to be offended—and to say with Pahoran, “it mattereth not.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/and-nothing-shall-offend-them?lang=eng

If you want to be authentic genuine and real, that is the key. The gospel doctrine teacher needs to learn that, the bishop needs to learn this principle and most importantly every member of the church needs to learn it too.

Until then we will always have the same problem.

[mfbukowski]

We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.

Truer words were never spoken.

[CV75]

I do not have a lot of faith in civil discourse on this board (sorry to be blunt). But I still have some faith. And I would like to attempt a dialogue regarding the church's increasing tolerance and inclusion of people whose views do not perfectly align with the church's positions. A good example of this phenomena can be found in Elder Christofferson's Q&A on the website mormonsandgays.org:

RE: #1, I think a local leader needs to make sure his flock understands Church teachings whenever they are available. Sometimes this takes a direct question and sometimes discernment; always charity and generally tact. The website has a very different and specific purpose.

RE: #2, I think a Church leader also has a responsibility to invite all to Christ, and this can be done no matter what unorthodox experience one of his flock may have had. There is always a better way or a truer way, and Mormonism is all about progress and building upon the light we have, no matter how little that might appear to be. Most real-life situations are not a matter of being completely true or completely false.

[canard78]

In terms of how local leaders can have attitudes towards the 'unconventional' members or belief systems. I appreciate what Elder Holland said a few years ago.

This is specifically about belief in the Book of Mormon, but I think it can apply to any level of engagement with the church:

PBS: You say there are stark choices in beliefs about the origins of the book. Explain why there's no middle way.

Elder Holland: ... If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...

I think you'd be as aware as I am that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html (2007)

[rpn]

I don't think they are held up as role models at all. I don't think that they represent the church. What they do do is express how they are trying to live the gospel and reconcile their understanding of it. That is what is authentic, real and genuine. It is a bishops job to see that orthodoxy is taught, not to criticize or shun those who are not orthodox.

If we cannot hear someone else's experiences trying to understand and live the gospel, we are doomed to not just be intolerant, but also be sanctimonious and self-righteous which may be far worse than the genuine, authentic and real experience of another saint just doing the best they can to serve the Lord in the way they understand Him and His expectations and teachings.

[Sky]

I'm rather surprised with the amount of latitude that the Church seems to be allowing the members to express themselves, even if their views on some things don't coincide perfectly with the doctrine. We are human beings after all, not robots. And God allows us to make mistakes, so we can learn from them. We don't always think the same way about things. We are all hopefully on the same path (leading back towards our Heavenly Father), but none of us has reached our destination yet. When somebody stumbles, we try to help get them up.

The fact that we are even seeing the words "gay" and "lesbian" in official Church websites is a sign of how things are changing. I don't see the Church ever getting to a point to where it could accept homosexual relationships, but at least now we are able to have a more civil, reasoned conversation regarding homosexuality, minus the shame and stigma, or simply ignoring it or not talking about it. I see that as a good thing.

[The Nehor]

Many people are genuine, authentic, and real and are still idiots.

PS Did not want you to be embarrassed so decided to bring in some uncivil discourse.

[Damien the Leper]

IMO, authenticity, genuineness and being real far outweigh the position of any church.

[The Nehor]

IMO, authenticity, genuineness and being real far outweigh the position of any church.

What does that even mean?

[Damien the Leper]

What does that even mean?

It means that no person should sacrifice personal conviction or individuality in favor of church position or policy.

[Duncan]

if I understand correctly I will relate a story I read about in the Elder Nelson biography by Elder Spencer J. Condie. I am paarphrasing and going on memory. It seems that both Elders Nelson and Conide were in Russir some Eastern European counrty to do some Church business. Elder Condie had gottena female lawyer to handle some work that needed to be done. They all met with some others and it seemed the lawyer wasn't prepared for what legal matters was needed but agreed to meet the enxt day with everything that was requested. So they met the enxt day but she was dishevelled, apparently hung over, not looking her best, she made a few misatkes but got through everything that was needed. Elder Condie apologized to Elder Nelson and felt bad about contracting someone who was all over the place. ELder Nelson said to Elder Condie basically, don't worry about it, she is a woman in a male dominated profession, being a lawyer in Russia isn't at all easy, basically look at her context. What Elder Nelson isn't saying is drink your problems away or be sloppy in your dealings but basically can you blame her?

[DavidB]

The Kingdom of Heaven has many mansions. We learn line upon line, precept upon precept.