Similar to putting hard things on a shelf, sometime we we push them clear until the next life. The messiness of polygamy, and the sealing problems that I wrote about are often explained away by the injunction: God will sort it out in the next life.
I see “putting things on a shelf” as things we don’t understand, but maybe we will learn and understand them after praying, studying, (reading FairMormon?)., or having it explained to us. But other things, like who a woman that is sealed to two men will be with in heaven, we know we’ll never get an answer in this life, so we punt it into the next life (1). But this punting often leads to inaction by leaders, and heart ache for those affected by this inaction.
Take for example global warming, and the bigger picture of environmental stewardship. We as Mormon’s should be at the fore front of protecting our planet, but sadly we are not. It is because Christ is coming soon, and he will destroy the earth with fire anyway (the ultimate global warming!) This will lead to a hard life for future generations, includes our own progeny.
So what things have you punted into the next life? What have others punted away? Should a prophet that speaks to God on a regular bases (nightly at 2 am!) be able to answer these “unanswerable” question, and keep possession of the ball?
(1) I got the phrase “punting into the next life” from a post by Jason K at By Common Consent
Wheat & Tares 
First of all, the image is a kickoff, not a punt!
My paternal grandmother re-married after her husband passed, so I am in that dilemma of sealing. I must do her second husband’s work, because I had a dream of him sitting with me as I helped with his family history.
Several revelations in the D&C encourage us to be good stewards of the earth’s resources, but with very different ideas than what’s put forth today by environmental activists. Hardly any of them bring a religious perspective into their thinking, and the fact that they want to impose change of others without making change in their own lives doesn’t win support from the working-class.
To me, “punting into the next life” or throwing up one’s hands and saying “God will work it out later” indicates an inability or unwillingness to wrestle with challenging but important subjects, for better or worse. For some, it is a way of attempting to cope with an uncomfortable doctrine or policy. For others (especially teachers and leaders) it’s a cop out. It’s also the mantra of many a frustrated genealogist.
I believe a lot of the problems that we mortals often try to punt into the next life are meant to be dealt with in this life. Environmental stewardship is an excellent example, as is poverty/income inequality, and civil rights/social justice/humanitarian issues. Not to mention resolving polygamy and other problematic doctrinal areas.
@Jack Hughes: Jesus’s example clearly supports your assertion that problems are meant to be dealt with now. Want to get close to God? Make this life better. His is a very earthy, messy, get-your-hands-dirty sort of salvation. I love that part of it.
I don’t have a problem with punting into the next life when that’s all you can do. I do have a problem with people insisting that others punt in order to avoid difficulty or maintain an unjust status quo.
There are lots of rules governing what happens after a ball is punted. My favorite is “The punt can be blocked by the receiving team. [This usually leads to a mad scramble for the ball.]…In the odd case that the kicking team catches the blocked punt before it hits the ground, they can run with it!”
The analogy for me is that, since I am part of a dedicated team and an absolutely amazing coach, sometimes, when I punt the ball, my team members block and catch the ball and we get the ball back and gain yards of insight that I didn’t know for sure we could find and that the fans didn’t expect at all.
When I punt, that’s the outcome I’m aiming for.
Makagblog
Is there a religious perspective to climate change? Many of those who oppose doing anything about climate change are religious. I am not sure where your ideas that people who accept that we should contribute to reducing emmisions want to impose change on others but not themselves.
I accept the science that we are producing a problem for our earth and need to follow the advice of scientists on what to do. Generally this also is good financially for the individual, so it is not a hardship for the individual. The main sources of emissions are power generation, transport, industry. These need a government to behave responsibly, and combine with other governments throughout the world. Most countries are doing this.
On an individual level, you can priotise this at election time, but you can also make your house as efficient, and use it efficiently. The same with your transport.
markagblog: on you dilemma of sealing, you seal her to both.
Can the time people put into callings be justified by thinking it is a worthy sacrifice to show devotion to God and the church? Is it in some effect a punt, give away time in this life for a good place in heaven with wife and kids?
My mother praised my brother yesterday for spending 14 1/2 hours in church service on Sunday, (a stake councilor). He came home for an hour for dinner and went back.
Once one of his kids asked on a Friday morning, after my brother spent his week going to work early and then to bishop work directly from work then coming home after bedtime, “when will dad come home?”
Maybe I am too lazy or I miss the concept of sacrifice. Just think we should consider what valuable thinks we may be asked to punt away.
I really don’t know that many people who believe simultaneously (a) global warming is real and anthropogenic, and (b) we don’t need to do anything about it because Jesus is coming. With respect to (a), I think it’s true that members of the Church are more likely than average to not believe global warming is on some level “fake news”, I don’t see evidence that there’s a religious connection. What I think is really going on is that our current political climate pushes people who hold some values to adopt other, unrelated, values. There’s no logical connection between opposition to abortion and not believing climate science, but the whole red/blue thing practically shoves people in that direction.
As for punting, if you’re not punting, you’re not thinking. Why does God let bad things happen to good people? Well, we can probably come up with some good responses generally, but when you ask about any particular horrific event in history or someone’s personal life, you have no choice but to either conclude that there is no God or that you will have to wait for answers. We should absolutely struggle for answers, but after a struggle, if you’re on 4th and long, there’s no better option than to punt.
Someone already mentioned that the image betrays the metaphor and I second that. As an engineer missed details like that (kickoff vs punt) bother me.
The global warming narrative has problems. Your use of the term as well as the backing beliefs betrays a certain level of ignorance. The current title by proponents is “climate change” rather than “global warming”. This was a tactical move to reduce the effectiveness of people pointing to cold weather events as contrary evidence. Regardless, the movement has massive gaping evidence holes and no external 3rd party oversight or auditing – which is normally mandatory over fundamental underpinnings in society. Additionally, no proposed plan to rectify it is reasonable nor are they shown to be proven solutions. Given that, I’m not sure how we might effectively support them. While it is popular to appear to be green, time and time again the various methods of being “green” have been proven to be the equivalent of chasing one’s tail and fundamentally ineffective.
I, personally, advise environmentalists to stick to more quantifiable subsets, clean air to breath and clean water ways.
Someone already mentioned that the image betrays the metaphor and I second that. As an engineer missed details like that (kickoff vs punt) bother me.
The global warming narrative has problems. Your use of the term as well as the backing beliefs betrays a certain level of ignorance. The current title by proponents is “climate change” rather than “global warming”. This was a tactical move to reduce the effectiveness of people pointing to cold weather events as contrary evidence. Regardless, the movement has massive gaping evidence holes and no external 3rd party oversight or auditing – which is normally mandatory over fundamental underpinnings in society. Additionally, no proposed plan to rectify it is reasonable nor are they shown to be proven solutions. Given that, I’m not sure how we might effectively support them. While it is popular to appear to be green, time and time again the various methods of being “green” have been proven to be the equivalent of chasing one’s tail and fundamentally ineffective.
I, personally, advise environmentalists to stick to more quantifiable subsets, clean air to breath and clean water ways.
As an engineer also, your post is spot on and your observations appear to be correct, and I agree with your conclusions.
The post certainly is being read into from many ways. I would caution those who take in the great anxiety the climate change and Global Warming arguments being propagated by humanity. Arguments of carbon dioxide emissions as an extreme pollutant I find tremendously faulty in argument. CO2 is a building block for plant matter, it is the air they breathe. So most of the proposals against CO2 as a dangerous gas for the environment must have skipped basic biology. The 97% consensus of scientists is also can be faulty. Now I do not say that they are wrong because I am not a scientist but how many times has collective human brilliance been found to be a dud compared to the foolishness of God. Now maybe you find the third chapter of Malachi talking about Earth burning like an oven or the prophet Moroni talking about pollution as your scriptural evidence but bear in mind these can also be for people going the spiritual purification process or people polluting the Covenant with God. I am a conservationist that believes in being a good steward but I quickly seeing environmentalists are increasingly focusing on the Earth as an Idol rather than a home.