A Friend In Deed

They say a friend in need is a friend indeed. I've always taken that to mean that your real friends are the ones who will help you and stand by your side when you're going through major trials. But there is at least one person who I know would be there for me if I were in serious trouble but isn't when I'm just a bit bored or lonely or find something amusing I want to share, and I'm not sure that his availability during the times of need is enough to make him a friend without the rest. But maybe the saying is including all the needs friendship is meant to meet, in which case he doesn't meet the test. But then I'm not sure any one person could.

Before writing this out I wanted to make sure I had the saying right. So I googled "A friend in need is a friend in deed" to see if that brought up any results and found this site that says the evidence suggests the original meaning was that during trying times a true friend will prove his friendship by his deeds. So the in deed spelling probably is right but is less popular these days. Either way, the basic idea is the same. And either way the question remains - is this person I'm thinking of really my friend, when his deeds right now aren't very companionate but he would step up and do the good deeds if I were in crisis?

Social Hierarchy

I've read in several different places that boys' relationships are built largely around hierarchy; when a group of boys first gets together, they quickly establish a pecking order. I don't completely understand it, mainly because I have trouble wrapping my head around how you can have a true friendship if you are always aware that one of you has a higher standing than the other. But I figure I don't really need to understand it. That's not the way I see my friends so I don't have to be able to reconcile it.

But I do wonder: when I was in elementary school, playing sports with the boys at recess or being the only girl at Randal's birthday party, did I have a position in the social hierarchy that was understood by everybody but me?

Heavenly Nicknames

Potenial spoiler alert: I briefly discuss something major that happens at the end of the season one finale of Once Upon a Time.

That They May Have Rest

A while back in our fifth Sunday combined Priesthood/Relief Society meeting (must have been March) this verse from the Book of Mormon came up:

And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

This led to a discussion because spirits in paradise are busy - we know this from people who have had contact with the spirit world. How is that rest?

One idea that came up that I liked is that maybe the state of rest isn't that they are resting, but that they are well rested - they have energy enough for all they need to do.

Believe in Christ

Some time ago I saw a headline on a magazine cover saying something like, "What do we really know about Jesus?" Intrigued, I later looked up the article online. I was disappointed to discover that instead of telling about what the historical record does have to say about Israel during the time of Christ's life it focused on apparent Biblical inaccuracies, lack of consistency, and conflict between what is written vs. traditions - or even finding contradictions where none really exist, by using lack of Biblical evidence as proof that the traditions are incorrect.

But in the comments section somebody left a link to a response by a Christian columnist. He actually planned to write a series of responses but the main argument of this one is that we should build faith in Christ first and believe in the Bible because of Him, not believe in Him because of Bible. If an inaccuracy seems to come up in studying details of ancient Israel, he argues, then God's purpose for writing the Bible maybe wasn't to provide a good historical account.

We are taught as children that the first principle of the gospel is faith. But not just faith in general, and not faith in the scriptures. No, the fourth Article of Faith specifies that first comes faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This concept is also in the Book of Mormon. Helaman's advice to his sons from the twelfth verse of the fifth chapter of the book bearing his name was referenced a couple times already this conference and I will repeat it here: It is upon our Redeemer, who is Christ, the son of God, that we must build our foundation... a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they will not fall.

The very last sentence from the title page of the Book of Mormon directly addresses the arguments used by the author of the magazine article I read against the Bible. Well, it is specifically about the Book of Mormon, but it applies to both. The sentence? And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgement-seat of Christ.

And just prior to that sentence is a segment setting out the purposes of the Book of Mormon, which is "...for the convincing of the Jew and the Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God..." The Book of Mormon is intended as a means to gain a testimony, not as the most important thing to have a testimony of. And that is not the only place it says so. In 2 Nephi, Nephi states, "And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good."

So, from that scripture, I think it is worthwhile to ask, is our testimony of Christ because he is spoken of in the scriptures or do we believe the scriptures because they testify of Christ?

Relations

There are 31 cousins on my mother's side of the family with an age range of about 20 years. I am number 16. Right in the middle.

People speak of middle child syndrome often enough that I expect all my American readers to have at least heard of the concept. Is there a middle grandchild syndrome that I should be displaying signs of? No? Okay, then.

Anyway. My cousins.

When I was small I remember the oldest of my cousins seeming so far away from where I was, and I'm not referring to geographic distance. They were so high above me that it didn't even occur to me to try to really connect with them. My experience with the younger cousins was similar - they were too little so we had nothing in common. I pretty much ignored both groups a lot of the time because our worlds were just so different.

But now the age difference doesn't seem nearly so large. I feel like I can relate to them, older and younger. Not perfectly, of course, but enough to be friends.

Someone Unlike You

Adele's song Someone Like You has always struck me as a bit problematic. In case you don't know the song, a woman looks up a man from her past and finally accepts that things are fully over between them. So she says that she is going to look for another man like him.

Well, if she does manage to find someone like him I see one of two things happening: either she will find someone who reminds her of him but doesn't quite live up to his standard or she finds someone like him but better. In the first situation she would be always disappointed in her new guy. And if she is as stuck on the old guy as the song indicates I can't see her really believing the second to be possible. And if by some odd chance she really does find someone exactly like him, well, that would be just plain freaky.

I think she'd be better off looking for somebody radically different to love so any comparisons would be apples and oranges.