I once had the neighbor from hell. I use the expression with theological intent.

Smart and relentlessly treacherous, he was somewhere on the spectrum from malignant narcissist to full-fledged sociopath, and I had no desire to observe closely enough to find out where. I do not know what horror had befallen him — if anything more significant than a stray cosmic ray hitting the genome at the wrong time — but he seemed to be without sincere empathy toward anyone. Worse, he seemed to have grown to love cruelty as the only thing giving meaning to his life. He was Jack Nicholson as the Joker: “So many people to hurt, so little time!” If he was not planning or executing some plot against one person, it was because he was busy with a more hated target.

Our family’s first hostile contact with this guy arose innocently enough. His daughter had a cat. When his daughter was living with her mother — he was, of course, in the middle of a messy divorce — he left it outside in the cold and wet and the hot and dry. My wife, not wanting the cat to suffer, began putting out a bowl of water on our porch in the heat, and a little food and a towel for the cat to shelter under in the cold. Polite suggestions to him that leaving the cat outside wasn’t a good idea led to several conflicted stories about why it was all right, but a clear acknowledgement that the cat was, indeed, his responsibility.

And then, after this had gone on for several months, a middle-aged oriental woman, not speaking English very well, appeared at our door one evening. She asked us if the cat then lurking behind our front bushes belonged to our neighbor, and my wife innocently and honestly answered yes.

And with that simple act, we moved unexpectedly from peace to a full-scale personal war in which our spiritual and emotional health and livelihood was directly threatened.

The woman had purchased the property from a military doctor and his wife when they transferred out of state to a new assignment. She had invested  her savings to make the buy, and then rented the property to our neighbor through an agency. Home prices in our county had been exploding, and she hoped to make a good profit from her investment. Instead, she found a nightmare.

In the year he’d been there, he’d managed to find some loophole each month to avoid paying a cent of rent. County codes here are built more to protect immigrant tenants from slumlords; they really were not designed with what an immoral tenant could do to an immigrant landlord in mind. Heating and cooling systems or plumbing would continually “break” — there were sometimes different heating companies called to the home for repairs on the same day, especially when the first arrivals found the systems to be working properly. He would call for repairs to be made, then deny access to the repairmen. On one occasion, I saw him demand reseeding of grass in his front yard for drainage, and then slip out to the yard that weekend and destroy the new turf.  On another, I saw him inspect a damaged fence, and then, rather than report it, hide the fact from the landlady until another month’s rent was due.

Now, burning through her savings for mortgage payments and repairs  with no end in sight, being harassed by the man by telephone and intimidated by him to the point she was afraid to come to the home without an escort, she saw a possible way to break the lease: it had a no-pet provision. And so she asked about the cat. We answered honestly — and then the neighbor came after us.

My wife had been supporting us by teaching individual piano students from our home for years, and had been the primary breadwinner since my heart attack. He filed complaints that what we were doing instead was a group studio in violation of zoning, and demanded we be shut down. He stole trash during the night and attempted to frame me for illegal dumping of medical waste. He attempted to intimidate parents from bringing children for lessons by rushing to the edge of our property and, without any explanation, taking pictures of the children, and then the license plates of their cars like they were drug dealers. Every night there was drilling into the walls between our homes  or hammering on them, and we never knew if or how he was trying to sabotage our systems. We spent thousands in legal fees just to protect ourselves.

As I began to ask myself who was this guy, and why was he doing this, I found in public legal records that he had a long record of defiance to authority, with a couple of dozen violations, including jail time, for various disputes with neighbors seemingly everywhere he’d lived since adulthood. Simultaneously with his dispute with us and the landlady, he was on trial for phone harassment of his wife, and in a domestic violence dispute with a girlfriend he’d been with less than a month. He sought out potential violations by other witnesses in the neighborhood (such as expired license plates), and threatened to expose them if they testified. He went after the Home Owners Association President, an African-American, by making racial slurs in the presence of her daughter. He went after the county enforcement officials and tried to get their bosses to fire them; he went after the lawyers for conflicts of interest; he tried to get judges removed from his trials. You get the point.

The pressure on us grew more dispiriting, or perhaps I should say dark-spiriting, as months went by with no resolution. And we found ourselves increasingly turning to prayer for deliverance, as we felt imprisoned in our own home, never knowing what we would have to defend against tomorrow. And, as necessary, we were indeed delivered. In a couple of cases, traps laid for us were thwarted by unlikely coincidences. But the darkness, though warded off, was always present.

And then, in one of those deep prayer experiences, I heard in my mind my enemy’s soul cry out in an agony to God to be delivered from the darkness that enveloped him. I do not believe his physical form recognized what his own spirit was doing; he seemed to love the darkness and would cling to his cellphone (from which he harassed victims) like it was a totem of power he could not be without for even a moment. But I heard the Holy Spirit answer: “He is forbidden to remain as he is.” And the word “forbidden” carried all of the undeniable weight of a requirement to choose salvation or doom.

A few days later, entirely unbidden, while I was still trying to understand in my own mind the previous experience,  I heard his soul cry out again that he would be lost. And equally unbidden, my own prayers suddenly changed.

Instead of praying that God would get this guy off my family’s back, I found myself praying that God would get that darkness off this guy’s back. Because I saw that there was truly a predator, and my neighbor was the unsuspecting prey. And I was weeping for him, and praying as hard and as intensely as I have ever prayed for anything in my life.

It was the first time in my life that I truly loved my enemy.  Not decided that someone wasn’t really my enemy (six months after he finally left the neighborhood, he came back to see if sabotage he’d previously prepared for the air conditioning unit had, in fact,  caused the system to fail, leaving new renters he’d never even met sweltering in a summer heat wave for two days). Not just trying to treat my enemy with justice. Not simply restraining my self-defense. For once, I knew what it meant to love an enemy, even knowing he would remain my enemy, and that the existing situation was forbidden to continue.

But why was it only “for once”? What makes it so hard for me — for us — to stay in the loving attitude that the fate of the soul of my enemy (let alone the soul of a stranger or a friend) is of eternal significance even if I must oppose that enemy with all my might?

That seems to be something to spend some time contemplating as we remember this weekend a day of great violence.

The conversations were about being worthy, losing faith, and failing to do “all that we can do” to enact our own salvation.  I no longer agree with many traditional members’ views on life being the ultimate, high stakes pass/fail final exam.  So maybe that is why I was so intrigued by their focus on this topic.  In our religious mythology, we have 3 main kingdoms of glory.  These have nice tidy definitions and names.  Unlike many other Christian denominations who focus on just heaven versus hell, saving people from eternal damnation, we are focused on making sure we get the biggest prize.  After all, 2nd place is first loser right?

I think one part of the reason Sons of Perdition exist in our mythology is that the actual conditions of Celestial glory are not well defined.  Yes, we know we inherit all that God has, but what exactly is that?  We can’t comprehend this state of being.  We don’t know what the prize really is, except for vague ideas that it is the best we can get.  We become gods with the power of eternal lives, but we don’t know exactly what that means or how it happens.  This leaves a nebulous sort of feeling.

Another problem of life with such a risky, one-shot chance at the reward is perfection always seems to slip out of our grasp.  The root of the problem lies in the checklist. It is endless and overwhelming. There is always something you could have done just a little bit better, if only you had enough faith and willpower.  Even the most fundamental and literal member senses this deep down I think.  No matter how much they do, or how hard they try, it can’t all be done.  Satan is waiting for them to slip up and fail.  Did they maybe forget to read their scriptures this morning?  Did they only have a half-hearted family home evening last week? Did they not include the monetary value of company-paid benefits in their tithing calculations?  All of these are a lack of perfect obedience and effort.

Here is what I saw:  Sons of Perdition make a convenient floor, a lower boundary to our possible life results that we don’t really have to worry about crossing. We don’t know what it means to become a god. At least we can clearly define the worst-case scenario.  I might have an occasional immoral thought, skip a meeting at Church, or miss a home teaching family one month; but at least I know I won’t deny Christ and become a Son of Perdition.  They have to REALLY try hard to be evil.  I am doing the best I can, but I fail sometimes.  At least I am not THAT!

I think it might be a convenient way for people to compartmentalize their perceived risk.  Sons of Perdition are a tool of comfort in a way.  It helps us deal with processing the loss of a loved one who leaves the Church.  That is what I heard several times.  “Those people lost their faith and became apostates, but they didn’t know enough to become Sons of Perdition.”  If they knew better, they would come back.  They are safe though.  They won’t end up in the Celestial Kingdom, but they also won’t end up in Outer Darkness.  It’s going to be ok.

Just as an interesting tidbit of trivia, it was not always clear if there will be Daughters of Perdition or not.  Brigham Young in his classic style of being on the wrong side of modern sensibilities firmly declared that women were not capable of achieving perdition status.  Fortunately, this right was later restored to women by Wilford Woodruff.  So don’t worry about issues of equality in outer darkness   [Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Sin]

The ICM poll of 10,000 people in the USA, UK, Israel, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Mexico and Lebanon was carried out for the BBC

It reveals that only 46% of respondents in the UK said they have always believed in God – 27% less than the average. Only Russia (42%) and South Korea (28%) were lower. Furthermore just 52% of UK respondents believed God (or a Higher Power) created the universe, compared to 85% in the USA, 83% in Mexico, 99% in Indonesia and 96% in Lebanon.The highest levels of belief are found in the poorer nations of Nigeria (98%), India (92%) and Indonesia (97%).However, the USA – the richest nation polled – has a very high level of belief. Only 13% of those polled in America said they found it hard to believe in God (a Higher power) when there was so much suffering in the world.Yet this compares to more than half (52%) of those polled in the UK – the highest of all the countries – and more than twice the average. The figures for Lebanon were 2% and Nigeria 12%.

The survey found that Only 19% of those in the UK said they would die for their God/beliefs. This compares to 37% in Israel, 90% of those polled in Indonesia and Nigeria, and 71% in the USA and Lebanon.

A staggering 78% of those polled in the USA claimed to have studied religious texts, by far the largest figure, followed by 51% in Nigeria and 42% in the UK. This    compares to an average of 33%.

The poll also looked at the place of religion in the world. Almost a third (29%) of people in the UK believe that the world would be a more peaceful place without beliefs in God but very few people in other countries agreed. Just 6% of those polled in America agreed with this view, 11% in Israel and 9% in India. The average across all ten countries was 10%.Only 15% of those polled in America blamed people of other religions for much of the trouble in the world compared with more than a third (37%) in the UK and 33% in Israel.This figure fell to 8% of those polled in Indonesia, 24% in Lebanon and 17% in India.

The poll also looked at levels of attendance at organised religious services in the UK compared to the rest of the world. Across the ten countries, an average of 46% regularly attend a religious service but the figure was 21% in the UK, the second lowest behind Russia (7%). The highest figure was 91% for Nigerians, with 54% in the USA.

Furthermore just 29% of UK respondents said they had been encouraged to believe in God by someone outside their family, compared with 57% in the USA.

With regards to prayer, a total of 95% of Nigerians polled said they prayed regularly as did 67% of those polled in the USA with further numbers praying occasionally at times of crisis. 28% in the UK said they prayed regularly and 41% in Israel. However 25% of people in the UK and 29% of people in Israel said they never prayed.

The poll did reveal however that nearly 30% of all atheists polled admitted they prayed sometimes.

Asked whether a belief in a God/higher power makes for a better human being, well over 80% of people in most countries agreed, but by far the lowest figure was in the UK with just 56%.

Furthermore, just 42% of UK respondents believed God (or a higher power) judges their actions and the way they lived their lives compared to 76% in America, 72% in Israel, 81% in Nigeria and an average of 70%.

Exploring the issue of tolerance of different religions the poll found that more than 90% of all respondents in Nigeria, Indonesia and Lebanon believed their God was the only true God.This compares to 70% in Israel and just 31% in the UK.

The majority of those polled when asked if they believed death was the end disagreed. This was the case for more than half of the UK respondents (51%), 79% of those polled in Nigeria, 75% in Lebanon and 74% in the USA.

Looking at how attitudes change across different religions, the poll found that while 85% of Hindus and 83% of Muslims said they prayed regularly, only 65% of Christians did and barely a third (38%) of Jews.

When asked if their God was the only true God, 95% of Muslims said yes, compared with 68% of Christians and 66% of Jews.

But when asked if other religions were to blame for the troubles in the world, 34% of Jews agreed, while only 24% of Christians, 18% of Hindus and 14% of Muslims agreed.

What do you think?

The Young Women took the time-honored tradition of Snipe Hunting to a level of professional theater never seen in all my years among the Scouts.  The girls had the “weenies” (first year campers) apply tooth paste to their arms and legs to help attract wild mountain Snipe.  Apparently there is a chemical in tooth paste that is similar to the mating scent of the species common to my region.  The older girls had some of their comrades positioned in the woods with glow sticks.  The glow sticks were wrapped up and covered so they looked like a pair of eyes in the dark, made to blink by covering them temporarily.   The green eyed ones were the female snipe, the red eyed ones were the males.  Snipe sound a little like teenage girls growling, but don’t let that fool you.  Of course they were only hunting the males, per normal hunting protocol.  One especially theatrical young lady even played up a previous cut on her leg as a “snipe bite,” and was carried limping and wailing to the infirmary.  She went back out to help the new girls after she had been properly bandaged.  I think girls were still running around screaming at 1am in the morning.

I learned an eternal truth at YW Camp:  men take out the trash.  Growing up, the boys in my home took out the trash.  I carried that tradition on in my own family as a father.  What was my main duty as the “priesthood” serving at camp?  Yeah, taking the enormous amounts of trash in a pickup truck down the road to a dumpster three times a day.  We were also fearless spider killers and snake charmers.  The mice were smart enough to run when they heard we were coming.  If the Church programs are all “true,” just like the Church, does this give me a glimpse of what I will be doing in the Celestial Kingdom some day?  I wonder if spiders share a different kingdom or something.  I’m thinking it will be hard to kill resurrected spiders.  Do they make a spray for that?  At least they won’t be gross and gooey when crushed I suppose, having a perfected body of flesh and exoskeleton (no blood).

One of our other roles was to be there in case someone needed a priesthood blessing.  We didn’t get much sleep…  The second night saw the need for 5 blessings.  One girl had a bad dream, which then set off a chain reaction in her friend, and neither could sleep after praying and singing hymns to chase away the evil spirits.  So those were the first two.  Another girl later on was sure she was dying from a snake bite to her ankle, from a little baby snake we had “extracted” earlier in the evening from outside her cabin.  It was after midnight, and she wouldn’t get out of the pickup truck she was occupying.  We couldn’t find any marks on her ankle, or anything else physically wrong with her, so that was a blessing of comfort.  An adult leader needed a blessing for an unspecified lack of wellness, and a new girl had one in the early morning for a slightly sore throat, probably from screaming all night at the snipe hunt.

I finally caught on that the camp leaders in the infirmary were pushing every single girl that came in to them to ask for a blessing.  I later confirmed this by way of my oldest daughter.  She said they were kind of ridiculous about it.  You know what though?  I might be one normally to roll my eyes, but it was a nice experience for everyone involved.  It was a positive experience.  OK … some of the ailments were a little silly, but it was camp.  The girls are crazy there!

I hung out for two days with a member of our bishopric.  We had a lot of chances to talk about the Gospel.  Wow … it was interesting to spend so much time with an uber Iron Rod Mormon.  I decided to make up a new label: Iron Grip Mormon.  That is someone who holds fast to the Iron Rod, with an Iron Grip.  It’s like iron squared, dude!  He was noticeably disturbed by the fact that I brought Persian Islamic poetry (Rumi) and a modern Bible translation as my reading material.  He fell asleep within 10 minutes each night though dutifully trying to follow his “authorized” scripture study program.

I learned from him there are only 4 things in life:  Pray, read scriptures, attend all your meetings (yes, all of them, not sit in the halls outside the meetings either), and be obedient to ALL of the commandments.  If you miss any of those for even a split second, Satan will get you!  The dark lord is waiting to snatch you in his fiery clutches the moment you slip up.  The answers to any question you might ever have are all in the four standard works.  Everything else is tainted, being “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.”  If it ain’t in the standard works, it is probably not an appropriate question.

We had fun talking about Gospel topics.  Really.  I don’t harbor ill will towards people like that.  It was kind of refreshing, in a way, to be exposed to hard line Mormon literalism again.  It got under my skin a little bit the first night.  I started wondering if I wasn’t actually going to “make it” and get the biggest, shiniest trophy at the finish line of life.  Maybe I will fail the test and never ever ever never see God again…  I like this brother though.  He is a nice guy really, and has a good heart.  He is just wound up a lot tighter than me.

It was probably good for him to get a little agitated and pushed out of his comfort zone by me too.  I had him running in circles trying to tell me what was scripture and what was not.  I found out the Journal of Discourses is not even though they were talks given by leaders of the Church.  The Ensign is definitely scripture since it contains talks by leaders of the Church, and the Lectures on Faith are scripture too even though they are no longer in the D&C.  The Bible is scripture as long as it is translated correctly.  Modern versions (non LDS KJV) are not scripture even though they are more accurate and “correct” translations.  Go figure … it all made perfect sense to him somehow.  In the end though, the benefit was mutual.  I enjoyed our conversations.  I love heart-to-heart talks about religion and spirituality, and really like hearing how other people see the world.

I had a great time at YW Camp.  I had a good time talking to my daughter and her friends.  They were really funny.  My daughter doesn’t always want to talk to her parents at home.  You know how teenagers are, they are way to cool and omniscient for lame old parents.  So it was nice to spend some time with her when I had a chance.  The YW leaders did an awesome job planning fun activities and also more serious spiritual programs.  The food was good, not like the prison food they serve at the scout camp dining hall.  My next youngest daughter turns 12 later this year, so I will have two girls at camp next year.  I think I will volunteer again.

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Rather than debate that statement, although I am open to discussing it here, I want to focus on an underlying issue within something to which we refer frequently as the “Law of Chastity”.  My primary focus is on the injunction regarding eliminating “lust” – and particularly how it can be avoided no matter one’s surroundings and exposure. This a result partly of the long, interesting discussion we had recently about “naturism” – but I don’t want to rehash that discussion here.  Rather, I want to focus on one of the underlying currents that seemed to flow beneath the discussion.

Rather than being hyper-sensitive to any and all possibilities for sexual stimulation and avoiding all such exposure, I believe the godly way to avoid the type of temptation embodied in “looking upon a woman to lust after her” is found in an expansive definition of “chastity” – one that goes beyond the more limited definition of avoiding “sexual” activity, “sexual” images or sexuality that too many people assume.

First, “lust” is used in this passage as a verb – so, in this verse”to lust” appears to mean:

to express or feel uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; to have have an excessive craving for

Conversely, the definition for “chaste” that opposes this construct best is:

Pure in thought and act; innocent; free from lewdness and obscenity, or indecency in act or speech; modest (as, a chaste mind; chaste eyes).

The interesting association in this definition is the use of the word “modest” – which in context is defined as: “limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc.” In other words, taking both of these definitions in the context of the admonition in Matthew, the underlying characteristic that Jesus appears to be addressing is “moderation” or “control” – being able to see and appreciate physical beauty without going to any extreme, without including “lewdness, obscenity, indecency, lust, etc.” This is a much more comprehensive and fundamentally empowering / liberating view of “chastity” than a simple abstinence from proscribed activities – which manifests itself generally as a negative and constricting principle. Also, and this is critical, the definition highlights being “chaste” as something primarily existing within the individual.

I am reminded of a story I heard once. I don’t know if it is historically accurate, but it illustrates this characteristic in a very simple and direct way. According to this story, a woman notorious for traveling in the nude (Lady Godiva, perhaps) was passing a group of religious leaders (the Pope and some Cardinals, perhaps). One of the Cardinals told everyone to cover their eyes and look away, but the Pope did not do so. The woman saw the reaction her passing had created, including the fact that the Pope did not look away – and she asked him why he did not do so. His response was something like:

You are a daughter of God, and he has blessed you with great beauty. I appreciate that gift God has given and praise him for his gracious gift, so why would I look away?

I believe it is important to remember that Adam and Eve covered their nakedness only after Satan pointed out that they were naked and that others would see it. I mention this simply to stress that the typical restrictions we employ as a part of this mortal existence are in place NOT because physicality and sexuality are bad things, but because we do not want to place undue temptation and stimulation in the path of others – we do not want them to “look upon a (wo)man to lust after her (him)” due to our actions.

However, if all were “chaste” in their thoughts and deeds, such restrictions would not be necessary. In other words, we seek “modesty” (moderation) in dress as an attempt to strike a proper balance between the ideal of chastity we desire and the practical state of lustfulness by which we are surrounded – between where we wish we were (as individuals and/or a society) and where we actually are.

True “chastity,” therefore, includes not only conforming to reasonable societal constraints intended to avoid placing temptation in the path of others but also having our hearts changed to not be tempted no matter our surroundings – to not “lust after her” even when “looking upon a woman” cannot be avoided.

I don’t have a simple solution or suggestion for all – or even for any particular individual. I know it is neither the extreme conservatism of the Taliban in Afghanistan nor the extreme liberalism of South Beach, Florida – but I know that I must be able to walk in either world and be free of “lust” in order to fulfill the standard Jesus holds up in these verses.

In summary, my being chaste in thought and deed is MY responsibility. I can’t blame the environment around me – or those whose appearance “naturally” might tempt me – or claim the devil made me do it. I must change myself ultimately, even if I first must change my exposure and environment until I reach the point where they no longer matter. I shouldn’t dive into tempting situations recklessly, simply in order to test my control, but rather I can change my thoughts and actions until I can face such situations without temptation. If I never reach that ultimate objective, I must continue to structure my environment to reduce temptation, but eliminating all possible temptation can never be the default.

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

In this passage, the woman is NOT at fault for her beauty or her “seuxality” or anything else; the man is at fault for how he reacts. While I believe in modesty in dress, at the most fundamental level the one being viewed is not “guilty” of causing the viewer’s reaction.  There are cases where s/he certainly bears some responsibility when acting in reckless disregard to the sensibilities of others, but at the most basic level the primary responsibility (at the very least) rests with the one “looking” to not “lust”.

At its most fundamental level, I believe “chastity” is NOT a restriction imposed externally; it is a characteristic developed internally.

Thoughts?

As my coach relates this story, she points out the reasoning of fencing moms: if their kid is doing well, it’s because their kid is the greatest thing ever in the world and will become an Olympic fencer. If their kid isn’t doing well, it’s because the coach is terrible and the kid needs to go to a better club. It couldn’t be the case that the fencer is doing poorly because he won’t follow instructions, practice often, keep his arm up, extend first, etc., Nope, it must be the coach.

This is just a specific case of a phenomenon where people take ownership of things that are good and abdicate things that are bad. It is the basis of the self-serving bias.

In the church, things can get a little bit different…sometimes, both good things and bad things are abdicated — after all, it was a “blessing of the Lord,” or it might have just been a “trial.”

But we also learn about our role in the process, especially with agency and free will. So, we point out that faith without works is dead…Some like to say we are saved ‘after all we can do’ (but, what we can do is not that much, since we are rather imperfect). We point out that those who are unrighteous (as an exercise of will) face negative consequences.

I’ve never liked this dichotomy. What is the bottom line? Are we free or are we buffeted by outside forces? How are we supposed to live under two conflicting ideals? A poem by Maya Angelou highlighting grace above action (and in a way giving some sense of disdain, I think, to action) annoyed me and I wrote about it on my blog a while back.

I don’t necessarily think that people are responsible for everything that comes their way. But I don’t think that in the vast majority of cases, we can just attribute things to the mysteries of the spirit or of the adversary. We can admit that we don’t know and what we think, but it seems to easy to fall into a trap of surety about things. It seems too much of a cop-out to say, “Well, I’m not perfect, but I have faith, so everything will be well” which is the vibe I get from the Angelou poem (even though I know that’s misrepresenting what Ms. Angelou was going for.)

…but how does that relate to the church? After all, that generally is a position not taken by LDS people, who recognize accountability and works in the interplay of faith.

Well, there are still some areas where members of the church will push off responsibility, so to speak. In the depression topic earlier here at MM, people were discussing what might be at play. And one comment by Jen set off my dark-side-of-the-moon alarm.

What about LDS people being targeted in a more “front line” approach by the adversary and his followers? Could this be a possibility? Is it possible that those who are striving to live in a “righteous” manner are also targeted more because of the light and knowledge they have?

This kind of thought rubs me the wrong way because it shifts everything away from things we might possibly work at fixing to something that is uncontrolled and uncontrollable. For example, Jen’s original comment might be applied to depression rates in Utah or porn consumption in Utah (both ideas were flying around)…so with both of these issues, it’s easy to think of *material, physical* variables that could be tested. It might not be the case, but we could test for stressful lifestyles…we could test for availability of “social medication” or of whatever factors. We might be way off in our hypothesizing, but at least with tangible variables, we can test things. Even if it’s genetic (something that appears to be something we can’t change), we can still *see* genes and theoretically come to a point where we can change those.

But with the adversary and his temptation, it’s like we give up. If we accept a real adversary that tempts people, then this is a constant of the universe. It’s not something we can work at eliminating (like we could for other factors). It’s not something we can work on improving on, because by default, as we get more “righteous,” the belief is that he works harder to stop us. So what can we do? Apparently, nothing that will be effective.

So, regardless of whether or not the adversary is out to get to us, it seems to me that this is not the place we should be going to for blame. It certainly could be that that little kid has an incapable coach and he needs to go to a different club, but he (and his satellite fencing mom) should look at his own practice and dedication first. He should look at tangible factors around him before attributing to the uncontrolled and uncontrollable.

…But then again, the opposite end (of attributing everything to our actions) gets kinda depressing too. (Your depression is your unrighteousness.)

Satan wanted God’s glory and power. His plan was to force every soul to choose good by taking away our agency. But that would have defeated God’s purpose- to test us.

“And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan… is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

“But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.” Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power… I caused that he should be cast down” (Moses 4:1-3.)

Many of us are non-starters: we just can’t do something unless were pushed.

Here are some comments made on STEAKS OF ZION blog about letting your children choose:

I think even though children hate to be forced to do things, on the flip side I know personally that children/youth do like to be told what to do to an extent.

A friend and I have had a couple chats about parents forcing us to do things that we don’t want to do and it made me realise that even though we often hate our parents forcing us to do things, that having that gives you a real sense of security (although the person it’s happening to doesn’t feel it at the time). If we have our role models authorising us then I think we are more settled and stable we see that there is someone there for us and even though at the time it might seem crap, in most cases I think in the long run we are a lot happier. (house of the poor)

Our perceptions are funny things. There are many occasions where I ‘do not feel’ like doing something but then really enjoy doing it when I do. Fundamentally I don’t think we are very good at knowing what is best for us. (wellabletoovercome)

I think there really is a fine line to giving your child agency. (houseofthepoor)

I agree, this is further complicated by the idea that there is no general rule, that individual differences may change the approach. (wellabletoovercome)

I know we can choose to have a life coach or a personal trainer, but we are really doing this in many ways to take our free agency away – so we’re not responsible to have to get up in the morning and run or lift weights – or so we can have someone push us to make a doctors appointment, fill in our tax forms and do all those things that we know we should do but can’t push our selves to do on our own.

I feel like the child they are describing in steaks of zion. I would love a coach to force me to do all the things in my life that would make me be happier. I would hate it during the process some of the time but would ultimately feel its worth it in the end.

Questions

Wouldn’t I or we have the same attributes of procrastination after this life – maybe forgetting to charge up the sun for a planet?

Don’t we often in our lives put our futures and our spirits in the hands of others, because we would rather them do the thinking for us?

I’ve had some pretty tough bosses. I wonder how tough Beelzebub would have been, and, after it was all over, if I would have thought it worth it in the end?

Discuss.

As the tragedy and outrage of the September 11, 2001 attacks unfolded, we heard news reports about the tens of thousands of people that potentially lost their lives in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and on the airplanes. Estimates as high as 140,000 people came and went to the WTC buildings each day and so, high causalities were a real possibility.

As it turned out, while there were more than 17,500 people in the WTC buildings at the time of the attacks, in the end about 2,800 people were killed in the WTC buildings including those on the planes that crashed into them.

Among the stories of tragedy, harrowing rescues and escapes were many stories of people who were supposed to be in those buildings at the time of the attacks but, for one reason or another, were not.

You can find them here, here and here. The stories included one by my Brother-in-Law, who worked for Merrill-Lynch at that time and was supposed to be in one of the towers that day for training.

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; …..” Ecclesiastes 3:1-2

As I heard these stories, it got me thinking, “Who are the fortunate ones?  The ones who died, or the ones who were spared?”

“And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed.” Doctrine and Covenants Section 42:48

President Kimball in his book, Faith Precedes the Miracle, devoted an entire chapter to the question, “Death: Tragedy or Destiny?”

He says this:

“Why should the young mother die of cancer and leave her eight children motherless? Why did not the Lord heal her?…

Did God take the life of the young mother or prompt the child to toddle into the canal or guide the other child into the path of the oncoming car?…

Did the Lord cause the man to suffer a heart attack? Was the death of the missionary untimely? Answer, if you can. I cannot, for though I know God has a major role in our lives, I do not know how much he causes to happen and how much he merely permits. Whatever the answer to this question, there is another I feel sure about.

Could the Lord have prevented these tragedies? The answer is, Yes. The Lord is omnipotent, with all power to control our lives, save us pain, prevent all accidents, drive all planes and cars, feed us, protect us, save us from labor, effort, sickness, even from death, if He will. But He will not. (Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle, Chapter 8, excerpted)

So, the question remains in my mind:

“Are we better off dead?”

Sort of an unusual way of asking the question, but nevertheless, it is appropriate.  We know that when we die, we go to the Spirit World (See Alma chapter 40:11-12), the righteous to a “state of happiness” called paradise and the wicked to a state of “outer darkness” commonly referred to as Hell or “Spirit Prison” where there “shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil. (Alma 40:13)

So, another fundamental question is: Who are the “righteous” and who are the “wicked?” I asked this of my Gospel Doctrine class last Sunday and everyone had a hard time giving an answer. My first thought is the righteous are the valiant members of the Church, who have lived the gospel as best they can and they, for sure will be in a state of paradise.

“As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great.  And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality; And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name.  All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  I beheld that they were filled with joy and gladness, and were rejoicing together because the day of their deliverance was at hand. “(Doctrine and Covenants Section 138:11 – 15)

And the rest?

“While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful;  And there he preached to them the everlasting gospel, the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance.  But unto the wicked he did not go, and among the ungodly and the unrepentant who had defiled themselves while in the flesh, his voice was not raised; Neither did the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and the warnings of the ancient prophets behold his presence, nor look upon his face.  Where these were, darkness reigned, but among the righteous there was peace; ” (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 138:18 – 22)

Reading this, I would say that those who were good people in this life, but did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel will have that chance and be “promoted” if you will, to paradise. The same would apply to members who, might not have been as strong as they should have been. The unrepentant wicked will stay that way and be judged at the final judgment.

Elder James E. Talmage said this:

“…many other great truths not known before, have been declared to the people, and one of the greatest is that to hell there is an exit as well as an entrance. Hell is no place to which a vindictive judge sends prisoners to suffer and to be punished principally for his glory: But it is a place prepared for the teaching, the disciplining of those who failed to learn here upon the earth what they should have learned…No man will be kept in hell longer than is necessary to bring him to a fitness for something better. When he reaches that stage the prison doors will open and there will be rejoicing among the hosts who welcome him into a better state.” (Conference Report, Apr. 1930, p. 97 as taken from Latter-day Commentary on the Book of Mormon compiled by K. Douglas Bassett, p. 342-3)

So, I go back to my original question, When our lives are “spared” by God to remain in this earthly life, are we “better off” than those who are taken from this earth?  We know that this is the “time to prepare to meet God.” Are those who are taken prepared or not?  Or, do they, as we teach, continue to grown in knowledge and truth? Eternal progression.

What are your thoughts?

In analyzing these aspects of retention in my personal activity, I feel that responsibility is the largest draw for me.  Social interaction is extremely important in my life, but it’s easy to have that need met by neighbors, family, and community members.  There have been times at Church when I have felt very ideologically isolated, and it hasn’t affected my desire to be active in the ward.  Likewise, spiritual education is a priority in my life, but on the whole, my needs have not been met at the ward level.  Classes, meetings and worship services at my local level have been boring and less challenging than I would like.  I meet my needs by personal reading and sometimes on the internet.  So in my case, it is my callings which bind me to the Church.

Mormons take their responsibilities seriously, and I am no exception.  Once I am called to a position, it becomes part of my identity.  I am a Primary teacher while acting in that position.  The choir director job is part of how I define myself, and so forth.  It would be hard to pull myself away from the Church while deeply immersed in a calling, although intellectually I realize that if I were gone, any given person could step forward to fill the spot quite adequately.  I’m afraid that if a long enough period went by without my having a calling, I might feel less tethered to my local congregation.

Additionally, I feel a responsibility to attend Church as a believer.  Since I am a member with a testimony, I am obliged to attend my meetings.

What about you?  Is one or more of President Hinckley’s three points important to you  in remaining active?  Or is it something completely different?  What would be necessary to keep you firmly bonded to your ward?

Do you believe that God the Father, the Son, and maybe even the Holy Ghost visited Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820?

Or did Joseph have a vision of them?

Does the difference matter? Do you base your testimony, your faith in the existence of God, your continued participation in Mormonism, on a visit of Deity to a young farmboy?

Hearing about the First Vision growing up, I thought if only I had a time machine, I could go back to the spring of 1820 to the grove of trees where Joseph had his epiphany and observe the same thing I saw depicted in LDS paintings, stained-glass windows, and Church films about Joseph’s history: Two Men in white descending amidst brilliant light, talking to Joseph.

Now, after reading accounts of other visions Joseph and others had, I think that if Joseph had this experience as he recounted in his final written version, and if I had been able to time travel back to the First Vision, I would have seen Joseph talking into thin air. Why I still believe Joseph Smith told the truth about what he saw has to do with the understanding I now have not only of church history, but of visions in general.

As regards Church history, every primary account I have read of visions occurring in the first generation of the restored Church, including the Angel Moroni visiting Joseph while his siblings were in the same room, has been an entirely subjective one, where others present report not seeing the phenomenon.

As regards visions in general, scientists have performed experiments to determine that visions can be induced from a variety of stimuli, including lack of food or sleep, stress overload, imbibing liquor or other mind-altering substances, schizophrenia, and of course, meditation and prayer!

So, given the different accounts of the First Vision, it’s apparent to me that Joseph had an experience where he saw spiritual beings around the time he said he did. I believe Joseph entered a forest, knelt down, prayed aloud, had oppressive feelings followed by the overcoming of those feelings accompanied by a vision of heavenly beings, whether those beings were angels, Jesus alone, or Jesus and God the Father. That he remembered his vision differently at different times based on later spiritual experiences and theological reflection is very likely.

Now listen carefully to the varying language used to describe this experience by later commentators, who are usually trying to make a theological point (the Father and the Son are separate, corporeal, look alike, etc.) which Joseph never made in his History. “The Father and the Son appeared to the young farmboy”, “God the Father and the Son came down to Joseph”, “Joseph saw God”, etc. These are not all saying the same thing, although life-long Church members have been conditioned to ignore the differences.

In essence, did God the Father and Jesus Christ ride a celestial elevator downwards from Kolob to Palmyra , or did Joseph have a vision? I have no trouble accepting the latter interpretation, especially since the later accounts of heavenly visions followed the same pattern.

I can even accept the possibility that a naturalistic explanation of Joseph’s visions may be valid, in that his experiences may have had physiological roots. God can still be the ultimate cause of these experiences, no matter their immediate trigger.

What do you think?

Mormons are certainly not the only ones out there who are guilty of “seeking for a sign.”  Many faiths use stories to illustrate evidence of God’s approval or disapproval.  And this is not to discount the idea that prayers are answered.  But it seems that there is a distinction between answers to prayers and requesting divine intervention or a sign from God that something is the right course of action.

So when does living prayerfully by faith turn into seeking for a sign?  Here are some thoughts:

• Providence:  This idea is that God guides everything for the wealth and growth of His kingdom and church.  What it might sound like:  “God wanted me to be in that car accident so that I could give a Book of Mormon to the other driver.”
• Aggrandizing Stories:  The premise is that divine or occult sources “testify” of the truth of the gospel.  For example, Satan’s forces have been “witnessed” surrounding the MTC, ready to destroy the missionaries if they leave its protection.
• Wanting to be “commanded in all things.” Some things are either obvious or just too trivial for God to care about (I think).  What it might sound like:  “And so I said a quick prayer in my heart about whether I should order the beef or chicken, and I got a clear feeling I should go with the chicken.”  Now, I suppose if the beef turns out to be rife with mad cow disease, perhaps not so trivial.
• Projection. Projecting what you want on God; making your agenda His.  What it might sound like:  “Sally, I know you don’t see this yet, but God wants me to take this job and move our family across the country.”
• Fatalism. When we become something “acted upon” vs. something that “acts.”  The argument goes:  “If God wanted things to be different, He’d make them different.  Therefore, submitting myself to His will means I don’t have to do anything, and it will all work out.”

I’m perfectly willing to concede that inspiration occurs, and that we can be directed by the Holy Ghost.  But, at times, there seems to be a fine line between intervention and invention.  There are two main views on divine intervention:

1. that miracles occur frequently and God intervenes freely in our lives
2. that miracles occur, but are limited in frequency and only occur in accordance with natural laws

I fall firmly into that second camp.  So, if I’m right, why might people sometimes imagine more divine intervention that there is?  Here are some possible reasons:

• We seek confirming evidence.  Everyone wants to “prove” a belief they hold is right.  This happens all the time on the b’nacle (and pretty much everywhere).
• We want to feel personally important. If God’s involved in my life, I must be remarkably important out of the billions who’ve lived.
• We want to absolve ourselves of responsibility. We can rationalize:  “This isn’t about what I want–it’s what God wants.”

According to McConkie, signs come according to the will of God and not the will of man.

• Signs can cause the wicked to fear and tremble.  (Being struck dumb I suppose.)
• Signs can help the weak in faith begin to develop faith in God.  (But “faith precedes the miracle,” right?)
• Signs strengthen the faith of those who already believe in God.  (Vindication?  Proof?)
• Signs can symbolically teach us of Christ and the gospel.  (I’m thinking serpents on a stake in the desert as a type of Christ, as well as the medical profession).
• Signs can tell of important impending events in the world.  (Signs at the Savior’s birth and death in the BOM and NT).

So, what do you think?  How do you tell the difference between real miracles and signs and what we want to believe to make ourselves feel better (proven right, important, or doing God’s will)?  Is the way we gain an LDS testimony (a spiritual witness) ”seeking for a sign”?  Discuss.

“I know that the Devil lives in outer darkness surrounded by concourses of ghastly minions amidst weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth”.

Why don’t we hear this from the pulpit in LDS testimony meetings? It’s just as much an article of faith as the existence of God, right? There must needs be an opposition in all things, as Lehi said.

Here’s the problem: many modern LDS leaders have told us that truth feels GOOD, and that we can recognize spiritual truth by the good feelings it engenders in us. Barring a rational way to arrive at a conviction of the existence of Satan (which I have yet to find, although both Hitler and Hannah Montana could be cited as evidence of Old Nick’s meddling in our world), the spiritual method appears to be the only method for being sure that Scratch exists. But to have GOOD feelings about the existence of our ultimate adversary, the being of pure redolent evil whose every thought and action is bent on our destruction, physically and spiritually? So I would bet a lot fewer LDS folks have firm convictions of the devil based on spiritual subjective evidence like the kind mentioned above.

I say this knowing that many people have had experiences which they interpret as Satanic, from possession narratives to bump-in-the-night phenomena to mysterious movings of Parker Brothers’ Ouija Boards. Creepy feelings may convince many LDS folks that the devil is real. Or the ubiquitous references to Lucifer in Holy Writ and LDS culture fulfill the same function. But aren’t we supposed to gain a testimony for ourselves of spiritual matters, and not take the word of others as our deepest source of conviction?

Evil makes sense to me. The Devil does not.

Here’s why: For the concept of the Devil to make sense, you have to posit that he or she (do you capitalize references to the Anti-Deity?) chooses to be evil not just once or twice, or even as an overall pattern of life. He ALWAYS chooses the wrong. To choose the right even once after becoming the devil would render one unfit for the post, and another powerful sub-demon would angle for your position. Think of Satan’s blood pressure! Which means Lucifer misunderstands God’s ultimate design and needs help to clearly understand (metaphysically stupid), or is genuinely convinced that the cause he is advocating is right, in which case he is mentally confused and again needs our sympathy and help (metaphysically ill). If Satan desires his own ultimate unhappiness, because it makes him happy, I confess I just don’t get it. For a being to be absolutely evil, I can see no other option. In either case, the Devil is something less than he is made out to be in our tradition.

I believe that evil is real, but am not sure that it can be personified the same way that good can. Not usually believing in things that don’t make a bit of sense (but sensing that I’m expected to), can you help me gain a testimony of the Devil?