I admit that I believe in God, but for the purposes of this post I want to suspend that belief.  The reason being that I want to compare it with believing in Santa Claus who I know is not real.

The article argues that although some people are against teaching our children something that is false, there is some evidence to suggest that it might serve some important functions.  Believing in Santa helps to teach the importance of reciprocity in relationships, it assists in the development of imagination and helps children cope with stressful situations.  But are these reasons sufficient to teach your child about God even if you knew it was wrong, and more importantly maintain it.

But is such belief a form of abuse, as Richard Dawkins argues.  When asked about the sexual abuse of the young by religious leaders, Dawkins replied that ‘horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up catholic [or in any other faith - my note] in the first place’ [2].  Dawkins also believes that God should be given up at the same time as Santa Claus.

I would be horrified if someone believed in Santa past the age of 16, but I am not sure I could go so far as to say it is a form of child abuse.  I have a friend with a bright child who ‘figured out’ that Santa was not real and to prove it he set up a video camera watching the tree over Christmas Eve.  Knowing what was happening, the father arranged for a member of the Ward to dress up as Santa and bring the presents around.  Now, I personally do not agree with this, but I am not sure it is abusive.  If this continues then I would fear socially for the child, but the same could be said about believing in God.

So is believing in God a form of child abuse, assuming God is not real?

Notes

1. Gail Vines, The Santa Delusion: Is it harmless fantasy or cruel deception? in New Scientist, 22/29 December 2007, pp. 36-7

2. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion [London: Bantam Press, 2006] p. 356.

My interest in the near-death experience began a few years ago as I, with great interest, poured over the subject of consciousness and alterations thereof. Consciousness in itself is an amazing mystery, and sometimes it seems that we’re no closer to explaining it now than we were when Descartes sat befuddled at his desk.  However, the mystery of the NDE struck me as even more interesting, as it seems to incorporate elements of philosophy, theology, and spirituality.

What is an NDE?

A near-death experience is generally characterized as a striking alteration of consciousness associated with a subject being near death.  These experiences range from out-of-body experiences, or OBEs (the sensation of being out of one’s own body, often floating above one’s self), seeing a light at the end of a tunnel, seeing religious figures or family members, even to seeing future or past events in history. Experiencers often receive meaningful information in the NDE, sometimes they see and hear things that seem inexplicable (such as veridical information about events happening simultaneously with their death) and the vast majority view their experience as positive.

How prevalent are NDEs?

It’s hard to pin down an exact estimate (NDE experiencers often don’t share their stories for many years, and reluctantly share them with researchers), but research has suggested that 4-15% of Americans have had an NDE (anywhere from around 12 million to around 45 million people).  A large study in the Netherlands, interviewing those who had experienced cardiac arrest, found that 18% reported at least one common aspect of an NDE.

What are some common characteristics of NDEs?

Raymond Moody, the first psychologist to scientifically study the NDE, published his best-selling Life After Life in 1975.  He found that NDEs were curious in that many of them shared very common elements:

Later, researchers such as Kenneth Ring, Bruce Greyson, and George Ritchie expanded on Moody’s work in subsequent studies and books.  The scientific world was reluctant to accept the NDE, often based on the subjective nature of the experience, and its philosophical and metaphysical implications.  However, the field has grown considerably, and as the number of people who have experienced NDEs grows, science is finding it harder and harder to ignore.

Is the NDE a biological or physical phenomenon?

Well, this is where things get tricky.  Again, science has been reluctant to study the NDE.  When Moody wrote Life After Life, NDEs were filed strictly in the same cabinet as UFO abductions and Bigfoot sightings.  Feeling in the public is mixed, but it does seem that everyone knows someone who knows someone who has had an NDE.  And let’s not pick on the scientists too much:  it’s hard to make testable predictions based on subjective experience.  The mind has been known to do strange things under stress, and is also known to be notoriously unreliable in terms of understanding objective reality.  Human beings are known to hallucinate from time to time, we dream in unreal worlds every night, and when under the influence of certain chemicals we see things that don’t seem to be there for anyone else.  There are indeed materialistic interpretations of the NDE:

1. The NDE is like a dream, a fantasy created by the brain.  People see what an NDE is “supposed” to be like on television and during times of great stress, it retreats into this fantasy world.
2. The NDE is caused by a release of a certain chemical in the brain.
3. The NDE is caused by a lack of oxygen in the brain.
4. The NDE is caused by the brain, from some unknown process.
5. NDEs are fabrications from people who just want to make money.

This last option is a major concern, as there have been people in recent years who have capitalized on their NDE.  Notably, we may have heard of Betty Eadie, whose book Embraced By The Light was a #1 New York Times bestseller.  Certainly there are men and women who have made quite a bit of money by reporting NDEs!  However, even more overwhelming are those who do not make any money off their experience, and often find themselves ostracized, ridiculed, or dismissed for relating their experiences to their faith groups or family.

So are NDEs the result of something biological?  From the International Association for Near-Death Studies (emphasis added):

In a scientific age, it is only natural that people want to understand the biological or psychological origins of experience, and a variety of neurological and chemical explanations have been proposed as the cause of NDEs: lack of oxygen, excess of carbon dioxide, seizure activity in the temporal lobe, the effect of drugs such as DMT or ketamine, hallucination, psychological avoidance of death, normal shutting down of brain activity, and a dozen or more other possibilities.

No scientific explanation so far has satisfactorily accounted for all aspects of NDEs or their effects. For example, numerous patients who were being clinically monitored and were known to be well oxygenated have later reported having an NDE during that time; drugs are not a factor in all NDEs; the characteristics of sleep disorders and NDEs are not identical. Hallucinations are highly individual and produce confusion and hazy memories, exactly the opposite characteristics of near-death experiences, which tend to share characteristics and be remembered vividly for decades as being “realer than real.” For every medical cause that has been put forward, there are reasons the NDE researchers say, “Not quite right.”

Further, despite reports that scientists have been able to induce NDEs through the use of drugs or electrical stimulation to the brain, none of the reports has been altogether convincing. The reports have been based on a partial similarity to a limited aspect of NDE, or they have involved very few people—sometimes only a single individual—in an experiment that does not really replicate a full NDE, or the aftereffects do not coincide with those of a true NDE. After decades of investigation, researcher and psychiatrist Bruce Greyson, MD, has reported, “No one physiological or psychological model by itself explains all the common features of NDE.”*

Thousands of documented NDEs challenge mainstream Western thinking and belief systems. Expectations about an afterlife may be challenged, and some people abruptly develop radically new interests and abilities after an NDE. One subject of debate is whether consciousness (mind) resides exclusively in the physical brain. For example, many people who have had an NDE accurately report events that occurred around their bodies when they were unconscious or even clinically dead—in at least one case, when clinical monitoring clearly showed no brain activity. Some NDEs have revealed family secrets, such as the existence of a never-mentioned sibling.  According to the prevailing belief system of industrialized societies, these things are scientifically impossible.

It seems that finding an explanation for all NDEs is difficult. Pim van Lommel presents a thorough examination of the various medical theories of NDEs, and why none of them quite fully explains the NDE, here.

What is the effect of NDEs on experiencers?

An interesting fact about NDEs is that they tend to be transformative and positive for the experiencer. Though there is often a period of depression immediately following the NDE (often due to the contrast between the feelings of joy in an NDE and the monotony and cruelty of daily life), NDE experiencers tend to be much better off in the long run:

There is one common element in all near-death experiences: they transform the people who have them. In my twenty years of intense exposure to NDErs, I have yet to find one who hasn’t had a very deep and positive transformation as a result of his experience. – Raymond A. Moody, M.D.

There are after-effects generally associated with NDEs, including, but not limited to, decreased fear of death, increased charity and spirituality, increased curiosity and philosophical outlook, and an increased sense of meaning and purpose in one’s own life. These effects are not positively correlated with hallucinations, dreams, or intoxication.

What do you think, Arthur?

After reading many accounts of near-death experiencing, I’m convinced that they are authentic (though subjective) experiences.  For me, this is the most important part of NDE research:  NDE experiencers are overwhelmingly convinced that their experiences were real. To almost all NDE experiencers, they didn’t see a vision of their dead parents, they saw their dead parents. They didn’t have a hallucination of Christ, they didn’t have an open vision of Christ, they saw Christ. The NDE challenges a reductionistic, materialistic world-view so convincingly, that it’s almost comical reading the accounts themselves and the scientific attempts to explain them.  You don’t have to take my word for it, there are huge databases online filled with literally thousands of self-reported NDE accounts.  Some meaningful quotes from the NDERF database:

“Reality” seemed so unreal and boring compared to what I had just experienced and I was disappointed to be back. – Marta G.

I knew during the experience that is real, I knew directly after, I know now and will always know. – Veronica W.

I know it was real. The feeling of being in the light is like nothing that could be recreated – Robert L.

I have never had a dream that was so vivid so I can’t believe it was a dream it was like a dream only 1000 times more real than life itself. – Linda G.

I cannot explain it actually, but I know I really went there and saw Jesus I know. I know, I know. Period. I know. – Linda K.

If NDEs are authentic experiences, what does this mean for Mormonism?

This question continues to fascinate me.  The NDE can be threatening to some Latter-day Saints, when information retrieved from “beyond the veil” seems on its face to contradict LDS teachings.  Often NDE experiencers report that God “didn’t care” what Church they associated with, that there is “no sin,” that human souls reincarnate, or that all religions are equal in God’s eyes.

A quick search of NDERF’s database of NDEs turns up some interesting quotes about the LDS Church and Mormonism, from first-hand NDE accounts.

What was the best and worst part of your experience? The best was talking with our Lord Jesus Christ and finding out truths that the ancient theologians conveniently forgot to put into the scriptures. I also know and it was confirmed to me the missing points could be found in three books that have never been revised or changed. They have only been translated once and revealed only once. Those three books are: The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price and The Doctrine and Covenants. – William S.

I became a Mormon in 1998, but left that Church again in 2003. The Mormon Missionaries told me that I was sent to “Spirit Prison” how they call it, because I was not a Mormon at the time of my death and that the only way to avoid another frightening death would be to become a Mormon myself. So I did. I worked in the Mormon Temple to “save the dead”, because they told me that I could help those other trapped spirits out of that world and I could help them to get to heaven by spending time in the Mormon Temple and doing the ordinances for them. I believed them and worked as an Ordinance Worker in the Temple for 2 full years (amongst elderly people – I was 23). I now feel like they used my NDE to put pressure on me to join their Church. I am glad I am no longer part of it. I am now just spiritual and free. – Dominique S.

I told some of my friends that were Mormon. They believed that I was probably hallucinating. After that, I have told no one until now. – Beth L.

My parents, in Utah, who were temple workers, a temple for the Mormon church, had my name written on the prayer list of names prayed for by those attending the temple that day for all the temples in the western United States that day. Prayer is a tangible force, a power for good here on this earth! Many people ask me what was the 1st thing I thought or felt when I came out of my coma, about 3 weeks after the accident. What I felt, was the incredible feeling of power by being thought of by many and them praying for my recovery to God. I could feel his love and compassion for me, and I believe this communication led to my incredible experience with Christ in that heavenly garden. I now no longer hope that there is heaven and that Christ’s life experience and atonement are real, Now I know! – Derry B.

Many Latter-day Saints have experienced an NDE themselves, and were able to reconcile LDS theology with their NDE.  Betty Eadie speaks at firesides about her experience, and remains a faithful Latter-day Saint (though she has de-emphasized at times her religious affiliation when telling others of her experience). Many have drawn links between “classical” NDEs and early Mormon Visions. Lee Nelson has released a series of books called Beyond the Veil, that feature many Latter-day Saint NDE accounts. Even FARMS has published at least one article comparing NDEs and visions in the Book of Mormon.

When I was a missionary, I tracted into a young Hispanic woman who, in broken English, immediately insisted that we listen to her own account of her near-death experience. I remember with embarrassment, because, though I listened as politely as I could, in my mind I casually dismissed her story as a hallucination, because her Evangelical interpretation of the experience seemed to contradict the LDS Gospel that I was trying to teach her. I feel ashamed now that I could be so callously dismissive of what I now think could have been a genuine experience with Diety. Maybe this just makes me human.

But as for me, now, the NDE is a a fascinating part of my faith.  The more I read about NDEs, the more convinced I am that they might actually represent an authentic experience. Of course, I’ve never experienced one myself, and due to the traumatic circumstances that seem to trigger them, perhaps I don’t want one, either. Materialistic attempts at explaining the causes of NDEs seem to fall very short, especially considering how ferociously the experiencers seem to defend the reality of their experience. But even if the NDE turns out to be a completely physical phenomenon, isn’t it strange that natural selection has provided a mechanism whereby millions of people see lucid, immensely joyful, loving visions of Jesus, deceased family members, other religious figures, God, or angels as they die? Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”
God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin’ you better run”
Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
God says, “Out on Highway 61.” (Bob Dylan)

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) has written about the experience of Faith.  His short book ‘Fear and Trembling’ discusses the experience of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son Isaac, and his subsequent designation as the ‘Father of Faith’.  This is probably not the place for an in-depth discussion of this book but I want to outline his views because it asks some important questions about what Faith is, how we exercise it and its fruits.

The first section of the book, is entitled, ‘Attunement’.  In this Kierkegaard explores a number of different narratives that may have occured as Abraham takes his son up the mount.  In one he characterises Abraham as scared, in another he is fearless, in another he is angry.  To me it seems that Kierkegaard is trying to help us realise that Abraham’s faith was not just in the act itself, but was exercised in every step in his journey?

Kierkegaard then poses a series of questions that the story of Abraham raises: but prior to that he outlines his view of faith as being able to give up everything and trust that you will receive it again on the strength of the absurd.  In other words, Abraham had faith because he gave up his son, but trusted he would be given back to him regardless of how absurd this hope was.  Is faith exercised in the absurd, or does it rest in the rational or logical?  I have always leaned toward the latter because I have been taught to study it out in my mind, but Kierkegaard’s challenge has made me re-think.  Is it not absurd to believe that Jesus has suffered for our sins?

The first question regards whether what is ethical can be suspended?  Can Abraham’s act to sacrifice his son (or Nephi’s act) be considered good despite it being unethical, or even contrary to God’s ‘general’ commandments?  Does faith lead us to do things that are contrary to the commandments?  If not what do we do with Abraham and Nephi, because it seems they are to be damned?

The second question asks whether there is an absolute duty to God?  In a similar way Joseph Smith said ‘whatever God requires is right’!  Is this correct?  Do you believe that God would give you as an individual a specific command that might contradict what is more widely accepted as right?

The final question asks whether it was ethically defensible to conceal from Sariah or Isaac what he was going to do?

In each case Kierkegaard does not give an answer but leaves us with an either/or.  Either the ethical can be suspended,and their is an absolute duty to God and it is ethically defensible to conceal his intent or Abraham is not the ‘Father of Faith’?  My problem then is that I am not sure I can have this kind of faith, because it asks things of me that I feel unable to do.  Moreover, I am not even sure that I would want to have this kind of faith.  This is, probably, Kierkegaard’s intent.

I remember, as a naive Missionary, discussing with someone Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy, which for me has many parallels with how Kierkegaard frames Abraham’s experience .  He argued that it was sinful.  I countered that it was practised in the Bible.  He said that it was for that time only, not now.  I asked, ‘if God asked you to practice polygamy would you do it?’   He said, ‘No’.  I smugly retorted, ‘Then that is why you are not a Prophet and Joseph Smith was’!  Unsurprisingly, he did not let us teach him.  I regret this now, not only because I was an arrogant 20 year old who was supposed to be an ambassador of Christ, but also because I see more clearly the dilemma of doing something so reprehensible to our values that it is absurd, and that this may be the real test of our faith? A test I am unsure I would pass.  But is this something God asks of us at all?  (This is not intended to be a discussion of polygamy).

So what do you think? 

1. Do you have faith in the way Abraham does? 
2. Would you do anything God asked of you? 
3. Do you believe the story of Abraham or Nephi are literal and if so how do reconcile what they did with Christian Ethics? 
4. If they are myths what is the lesson to be learned from these stories?
5. Is Kierkegaard wrong in his logic? 
6. Can faith be rational or is the irrational the foundation of faith?

I’ve always enjoyed books about world religions, especially the obscure and forgotten, but I was expecting something rather bland, or apologetic, or dismissive.  I was pleasantly surprised.  This one was actually very unbiased, concise, and interesting.  It didn’t break any new ground, necessarily, except that it offered interesting comparisons and contrasts with other major world religions.

I found that book packed in an anonymous box last week and decided to give it another read.  As I read about Guru Nanak I was struck by one tiny thing: how comparatively little we really know about him or his life.  How can anyone believe in a prophet whose life we can’t relentlessly scrutinize?

I’m not going to go into detail about his life here.  A quick appeal to Wikipedia will take care of the information you need to get started, I guess, but let me get to the thrust of this post.  How do we test the fruits of a prophet we know so little about?  As I read, my mind went over the prophet I feel I know so well, Joseph Smith, and I was impressed by how we scrutinize his life for tiny details.  Every scrap of information about his life has been scoured by historians, theologians, apologists, and lay-people, for clues as to whether he is a true prophet, and yet no-one to date has really been able to come to a consensus.  Was he a charlatan?  A saint?  A prophet?  A nut?

Right around the time of Christopher Columbus, northern India was embroiled, as it is now, in a theological struggle between Hindu and Muslim.  To be fair, Guru Nanak does have a few interesting sources about his life (all written after his death), but for the most part, we know little about him compared to Joseph Smith.  The people he lived with in the north of India spent their entire lives agonizing and struggling over their age-old question: which religion is right, Hinduism or Islam?  No doubt many people prayed mightily towards Heaven asking for divine guidance.  Is Hinduism worth dying for?  Was Mohamed really a true prophet?  That struggle was personified in Guru Nanak, whose simple initial revelation, “There is neither Hindu nor Muslim,” must have jarred most of his listeners.  “Neither Hindu nor Muslim?” they must have asked themselves.  “What else is there?”

I felt moved with immense compassion as I read about this struggle, especially in light of the invasion of India by the Moguls.  Here was a whole civilization, turned over by wars and religious strife, foreign to Americans, who lived and died struggling with the great questions of the soul, and here was a prophet among them, Guru Nanak, who offered peace, and eschewed outward ordinances in favor of clean living and always remembering God in your heart.

How can I possibly determine whether Guru Nanak is a true prophet if I have so little information about him?  Where are all the documents?  Stanford hasn’t done any word imprint studies on his writings, his mother never wrote a Biography of his life.  There are definitely no Sikhs here in Lexington repeatedly bearing testimony to me, “I know that Guru Nanak was a true prophet.”  Not to say there isn’t any information about him (and, to be fair, there are some Sikhs here in Lexington, if you seek them out, pun intended) but it seems quite lean compared to what we have about Joseph Smith.

Let us swing back a few thousand years and move a few hundred miles to the West to Iran, where we find the cradle of  another world religion, that of Zoroastrianism.  One could easily argue that Zoroastrianism is the grandfather of all monotheistic faiths.  They have been around for thousands of years, though their numbers have dwindled in the last couple centuries.  Want to approach Zoroastrianism objectively, and test the fruits of Zoroaster (Zarathustra)?  What do we know about him?  Well, a quick survey of historians will reveal that he probably lived sometime between 6000 BC and 100 BC.  That’s right, we can nail down his life to a 5900-year period.  Recently, the number has settled right around 1100 to 1000 BC, but how on God’s Green Earth are we supposed to find out if Zoroaster was a true prophet if we can’t even agree on the millennium in which he lived?

And where did Zoroaster live in this period of time?  I’ll quote Wikipedia this time:

Yasna 9 & 17 cite the Ditya River in Airyanem Vaējah (Middle Persian Ērān Wēj) as Zoroaster’s home and the scene of his first appearance. Nowhere in the Avesta (both Old and Younger portions) is there a mention of the Achaemenids or of any West Iranian tribes such as the Medes, Persians, or even Parthians.

However, in Yasna 59.18, the zaraθuštrotema, or supreme head of the Zoroastrian priesthood, is said to reside in ‘Ragha’. In the ninth to twelfth century Middle Persian texts of Zoroastrian tradition, this ‘Ragha’ – along with many other places – appear as locations in Western Iran. While Medea does not figure at all in the Avesta (the westernmost location noted in scripture is Arachosia), the Būndahišn, or “Primordial Creation,” (20.32 and 24.15) puts Ragha in Medea (medieval Rai). However, in Avestan, Ragha is simply a toponym meaning “plain, hillside.”

Apart from these indications in Middle Persian sources which are open to interpretations, there are a number of other sources. The Greek and Latin sources are divided on the birth place of Zarathustra. There are many Greek accounts of Zarathustra, referred usually as Persian or Perso-Median Zoroaster. Moreover they have the suggestion that there has been more than one Zoroaster. On the other hand in post-Islamic sources Shahrastani (1086-1153) an Iranian writer originally from Shahristān, present-day Turkmenistan, proposed that Zoroaster’s father was from Atropatene (also in Medea) and his mother was from Rai. Coming from a reputed scholar of religions, this was a serious blow for the various regions who all claimed that Zoroaster originated from their homelands, some of which then decided that Zoroaster must then have then been buried in their regions or composed his Gathas there or preached there. Also Arabic sources of the same period and the same region of historical Persia consider Azerbaijan as the birth place of Zarathustra.

By the late twentieth century the consensus among some scholars had settled on an origin in Eastern Iran and/or Central Asia (to include present-day Afghanistan): Gnoli proposed Sistan (though in a much wider scope than the present-day province) as the homeland of Zoroastrianism; Frye voted for Bactria and Chorasmia; Khlopin suggests the Tedzen Delta in present-day Turkmenistan. Sarianidi considered the BMAC region as “the native land of the Zoroastrians and, probably, of Zoroaster himself.” Boyce includes the steppes of the former Soviet republics. The medieval “from Media” hypothesis is no longer taken seriously, and Zaehner has even suggested that this was a Magi-mediated issue to garner legitimacy, but this has been likewise rejected by Gershevitch and others.

So we know where he lived, give or take a thousand miles, and we know what time period, give or take a few thousand years.  And by the way, there may have been more than one Zoroaster.

Again I ask, how do we know a true prophet?  The Bible says a few things, but let’s focus on one:

Matthew 7:15-20

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

So my question is, how do we test the fruits of these prophets? Not only these prophets, but anyone who has claimed revelation in the past.  What about Mani, who led the people now known as Manicheans, who expanded upon what he saw as truths in Christianity and Zoroastrianism? What of Confucius, whose followers led thousands in Ancient China (all bureaucrats in the government were well-versed in Confucian texts). Do we know as much about Mo Tzu, whose teachings were seen as a real competitor to Confucianism early in its history, as we do about Sidney Rigdon or John Taylor or Thomas S. Monson?

A few possibilities come immediately to mind, some conclusions that easily could be made by the modern reader.

1. We don’t need to test their fruits. Zoroaster was a prophet who lived thousands of years ago, to a people who lived thousands of years ago. These people don’t pertain to us. We know the truth, and we can just forget about these guys.  Besides, if they were so right, where are they now?

Forgive me, but doesn’t this seem like an arrogant conclusion? To dismiss an honest, sincere group of people because of distance or difference seems quite wrong, at least to my heart, especially in the case of Zoroaster, whose religion has endured longer than any other monotheistic religion, and that historians even date to before Judaism (many historians believe that it was actually the Babylonian exile, and the Jews’ exposure to Zoroastrian thought, that really ironed out their concepts of Heaven and Hell, God and the Devil, etc.).  If time is any indication of truth, it’s arguably on their side, not ours.

2. We can automatically dismiss anyone who didn’t teach about Christ.

Fair enough, if you believe Christ really was the Son of God, which I do, for the record. However, how many of Basava’s followers knew about Christ or His teachings? Guru Nanak’s world was divided into Hindus and Muslims, and the wars between them. Christ, to them, was some obscure prophet, mentioned in the Qur’an, or maybe a Bodhisattva, but not really someone whom the average person knew about. Furthermore, is it useless for a prophet to teach about loving one another in a land where Christ’s name is not mentioned? Is a prophet not “true” if he teaches that we should cease our murders and contentions and try our best to live a holy, charitable life?

3. We can dismiss them because we don’t have any useful information about their lives, like we do about Joseph Smith. We simply can’t test their fruits, and thus we can see that God doesn’t want us to know about them. If God wanted us to know about them, information about them would have fallen into our (or Joseph Smith’s) hands.

Pleading ignorance?  Really? “We don’t need to know something because we don’t know something.” This may be precisely the reason why most people in the world don’t know who Jesus Christ really is. “If God wanted me, here in Urumqi (or Jakarta or Chongking or Tokyo or anywhere else not predominantly Christian), to know about Jesus Christ, God would have sent that information here, but He hasn’t.”

4. We can dismiss any religion whose followers are a tiny group compared to the whole. For instance, why study the teachings of Alevi Muslims if they are such a minority in the world, even amongst the Muslim world?

For the record, there are probably more Alevi Muslims in the world as there are Latter-day Saints, and the Alevi are a tiny minority compared to the Muslim World as a whole. Secondly, when has truth been determined by the majority? And what was the result?

5. The particulars of a prophet’s life aren’t important, what matters is the fruits we see in the followers.

Take quantum mechanics as some sort of analogy here.  By the 1800s, Newtonian Physics had pretty much permeated all of the scientific community.  Edmund Halley’s orbital prediction of what is now called Halley’s Comet was regarded as an ultimate triumph of Newtonian Physics, and the philosophers finally concluded that if one could know the starting positions of all the atoms and matter in the Universe, one could calculate all of history over billions of years.  However, when we really started to dissect the atom, Newton’s ideas broke down on the quantum level.  We discovered entanglement and particle spin and all sorts of new, amazing, sometimes counter-intuitive facts about how things work on a tiny scale.  Yet, to this day, we haven’t seemed to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with the Universe on a large scale, and the search for a Unified Theory is one of the most interesting searches in physics.

So the resulting Universe we see has emergent properties that seem (we’re still working on this) different than the properties on the Quantum level. Are prophets the same way? Does the whole of a religion have emergent properties that aren’t explained by the life of a single person who founded it? Can we test the “truth” of a religion by these emergent fruits, ignoring what the prophet did?

This seems a bit more plausible, considering there are so many prophets we don’t have information about. Except, is that really what we’re taught in the Church? Furthermore, what if the religion died out many years ago, so we can’t necessarily see the fruits of it now?

6. We can test a prophet by the book they brought forth. If we ask if the book is true, then we can know if the prophet is true. No book? Then see #3.

Does that mean that if you can’t read, then you’ll never know? Does that mean all the prophets in history who didn’t have a book are not true? Literacy is truth, and illiteracy is damnation? What about the Christians in the Middle Ages who didn’t have access to the Bible because the Bible was restricted to the clergy? Were they doomed, never having a true testimony?

7. Those prophets taught some truth, we know that from Latter-day revelation. Therefore, we can just accept that they taught some truths, but reading about them, knowing about them, or studying their teachings is unnecessary. All truth is contained in this Church.

This is pretty much what our Church teaches us, right? Certain prophets had access to the Light of Christ at certain times in history, and did much good, but we really needn’t concern ourselves with the particulars. I can’t help but thinking this is still being overly dismissive of other teachings, other cultures, and other people. Shouldn’t we search diligently for truth wherever it can be found? Joseph Smith seemed to snatch up truth wherever he saw it, whether it be in the rituals of the Masons or papyri he thought belonged to Abraham. This has led me to #8, which is closest to what I consider to be the truth.

8. The truth is complicated.

The older I get, the closer #8 seems to reality.  However, I thank God that I’m in a religion right now that can tie the Human Family together in a way that accepts and appreciates truths everywhere and anywhen.  In the darkest times at night, and on Sundays when I listen to what’s taught from the pulpit, and when I travel and see people of all different colors and faiths and nationalities, and when I read history books full of brave men and women who sacrificed their lives for their faith, even faiths much different than my own, I don’t have to accept on blind faith the conclusion that the majority of my family (the Human Race) is damned for Eternity for not knowing the name of Christ.  There isn’t a privileged time or place for personal salvation.

And this is very comforting to me.

Heston, a religious devotee, comes along and hears Yanna’s revelation. Heston sprints to the shore, leaps into the surf,  and gets knocked down and dragged around in the waves. Heston crawls back onto the beach  soaking wet, covered with cuts and bruises. He mutters “God is powerless in the waters or is cruel.  Yanna is a false prophetess! My robes are a torn up mess.”

Wessley, a scientist, also heard Yanna make this factual assertion. He immediately does a detailed chemical analysis of the environment around her. No molecules of ocean salt water are detected in the atmosphere or on the ground near the tree. Her clothes are perfectly dry. He writes a report explaining “Yanna the Prophetess made false statements concerning God. No evidence of an ocean was detected during her experience; therefore, it can be assumed with accuracy that she did not talk to God.”

Here lies to rest the body of our expectations, a sacrament of bread and wine, a digestion of flesh and blood.  Our Church is true and false and irrelevant.  Some of us find truths.  Some of us see lies.  Most of the world didn’t even know we were looking.  There is nothing more vital to being human, and swimming in an ocean.

YHWH is an ocean.

There is no such thing as being normal

If Kaimi were in dire straits, he would prefer to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s

Apparently, marriage is hard work

Gayby Boomers? Silly name, interesting phenomenon

An explanation for Utah bankruptcies

I don’t think PETA would approve of this

Aren’t you glad we have calculaors?

Even Orson Scott Card realizes that Mormonism is a culture

Another reason to have more kids – Placenta Helper

The Bible & Book of Mormon don’t teach of THIS Holy Ghost

New Dehli: New gay rights in a deeply conservative country

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Articles of Faith 1:4)

Another of the unique doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the gift of the Holy Ghost as our constant companion, received following our baptism and during our confirmation as a member of the Church.

Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:17)

…The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have, whenever one is worthy, the companionship of the Holy Ghost.  More powerful than that which is available before baptism, it acts as a cleansing agent to purify a person and sanctify him from all sin.  (Bible Dictionary, Holy Ghost:Entry)

When we are close to the Holy Ghost, we can expect to receive personal revelation for ourselves and our family, special promptings to act, and confirmation of truth.  At times, when our personal worthiness is in question, we may feel far from the Holy Ghost and not receive the answers we seek.

But what happens to those who, through acts of sin, unbelief, or other reasons, distance themselves from the companionship of the Holy Ghost? After all, it is the very first commandment we are given after our baptism, to “Receive the Holy Ghost.”

And there were no gifts from the Lord, and the Holy Ghost did not come upon any, because of their wickedness and unbelief.”  (Mormon 1:14)

When the Spirit leaves:

• Can a person discern the things of God without the Holy Ghost as their guide?
• Do we lose our eternal perspective?
• Do we allow the things of lesser consequence to overshadow the things of greatest consequence?
• Do we feel a sense of loss from not having the Spirit with us constantly?
• Do we care?
• How do we get it back when we are troubled by doctrinal and historical issues?

Spirituality—being in tune with the Spirit of the Lord—is the greatest need of Latter-day Saints. We should strive for the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost all the days of our lives. When we have the Spirit, we will love to serve, we will love the Lord, and we will love those whom we serve. Spiritual-mindedness does not come without effort. We live in a very wicked world. We are surrounded with propaganda that evil is good and good is evil. False teachings abound that affect us. Almost everything that is wholesome, good, pure, uplifting, and strengthening is being challenged as never before.  One reason we are on this earth is to discern between truth and error. This discernment comes by the Holy Ghost, not just our intellectual faculties. (Ezra Taft Benson, Come unto Christ, p22)

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:5)

“My name is Kate. I was raised Catholic, but converted to the Mormon church in 1999 in a hippy branch at Cornell University. Since leaving that branch, I have struggled to find my voice within the LDS world. Where does a politically liberal, PhD-holding, working mom fit in? I created the Myriad Mormon Musings blog in an attempt to find my niche as I struggle with LDS culture versus doctrine.”

Recently, my husband and I attended a marriage and family retreat. One of the speakers described three phases of the marriage relationship as the honeymoon, disillusionment, and joy phases. The honeymoon phase is where your spouse can do no wrong, and is perfect.  The disillusionment phase occurs when you start to realize that your spouse is not perfect, and ask yourself “what have I done?”  However, it is only with a full understanding of the other person, warts and all, that you can reach the “joy” phase, where you love one another despite (or even because of) their failings, and this makes the commitment that much greater.

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about how this concept applies to my walk with God. It will be 10 years ago in September that I officially joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons).  Before joining the church, I thought I had done a lot of research into my decision. I had spent 4 years looking at other churches, learning their doctrine and attending their church services. Surprisingly, not all of my academic efforts led me to the decision to become Mormon. It all came down to the Holy Spirit and what it was telling me God wanted me to do.

When I was meeting with the missionaries, they talked a lot about the Restoration, and how we are the only church with authority on the earth. The talked about how other churches have light and knowledge, but how ours is the only one with the fullness of the Gospel. In Conference talks, there is a lot of focus on our church Fathers, the Pioneers who lead the way across the Plains to Utah to settle Zion. In our Sunday School lessons, Church history focuses exclusively on Joseph Smith’s first wife (Emma), and ignores the “less-savory” aspects, such as polygamy, blacks in the Priesthood, the expulsion of the intellectuals, the Church’s role in the ERA, etc.

I knew that there was a lot of history that has tripped up the testimonies of others in the church. For that reason, I have really pushed off learning about it, in an effort to build my own faith before trying it. This past year, I made the decision to open that historical can of worms and found… worms. Yes, it wasn’t as bad as I was afraid of (it wasn’t snakes). However, it still has been enough to change my perspective and shake things up a bit for me.

I know that all churches have things about them that they would prefer to ignore. The Catholic church has the Inquisition and its relationship with Hitler. Muslims have the fundamentalist view of Jihad. Mormons have polygamy. The problem I am having now is that for years I have thought that our church was perfect. That the Prophets would never teach anything that was incorrect or untrue. Then I find statements from Brigham Young saying that interracial marriages are, in God’s eyes, punishable by death. I find contradictions, where early church leaders taught that the “new and everlasting covenant” meant polygamous/plural marriage, whereas now we teach that only monogamous marriage is acceptable. While my faith in fundamental Gospel principles and doctrines remains firm (I still believe in the Restoration, for instance), my ability to blindly accept everything the Prophet says as true has been shaken.

It may not sound like that big of a deal, but in a lot of ways it is. It’s like being married to someone and then finding out that they aren’t what they appeared to be when you married them. You still love them, but some of the being “in love” has worn off. You find out that they have imperfections where you once found them perfect. They have fallen from a pedestal you had placed them on. My hope is that this disillusionment phase can only lead to a final joy, where I can rest in my stronger testimony of God and His Apostles.

Another thing that I realized recently is that there are several non-doctrinal “ways to faith” that the Mormon church doesn’t really emphasize. For instance, meditation and devotion are largely undiscussed in our faith culture. Yet, these are some of the ways that I have felt closest to God in the past. I have been rediscovering them, and realizing how much my own spiritual growth has suffered without them. How does one learn about these things, when they are not taught or an active part of the faith culture you are in? Does the fact that they are not taught make them wrong?

Another example is the idea of a personal ministry. In the Mormon church, you are called by a priesthood leader, through no power or act of your own, to different responsibilities/ministries in the church. There is really no place for someone who feels God calling them. Typically, it is said that if you aspire to a calling, then you are unrighteous. It’s as if God must work the hierarchy; if you haven’t been called by a priesthood leader, it doesn’t count.

Recently, I have been feeling more and more like God has been trying to call me to a specific ministry. But I can’t determine what it is. Moreover, it is somewhat impotent when I feel like there is not a church program or mechanism for me to reach that ministry, no matter what it may be. I felt strongly that I was supposed to go to the Marianist retreat. Now I feel that I should be exploring other faith cultures again, to “find” this ministry. But to what end? If I know the Book of Mormon is God’s word, then what else and where else can I go?

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?

I am well aware of most of the controversial issues (Book of Abraham, DNA, Book of Mormon historicity, polyandry, etc.). Some of them occasionally bother me. Others do not. Although according to statistics I am very educated, I probably could not win an argument defending the church on any of those points. I could not support the church on Prop. 8, (if you want to specifically comment on that, please go here). I will probably never understand in this life why we are discouraged from praying to our Heavenly Mother, or why women are no longer allowed bless the sick. I am sure I could go on, and so could many of you.

I occasionally get asked or read questions like, “If Joseph Smith made claims that were false, how can you believe any of his claims?” “When you line everything up, how can you still logically believe it to be true?” For anyone questioning the faith, or those who have left the church who may be reading this, feel free to mentally insert other questions here. They are all good and valid in my opinion. I do not fault anyone for asking them, nor for being disturbed enough by them to leave the faith. Although my path is different, I wish you the best.

How do I explain my belief and activity in the church? Have I put “feelings” above reason?

I was raised by a saint of a mother and an intellectual yet very spiritual father. Church books lined the shelves: Quinn, Compton, and even Bagley’s Blood of The Prophets and Southerton’s Lost Tribe made appearances. On hunting trips my father would sometimes shoot his buffalo in the name of Allah (in Turkish) so our good Muslim friends could enjoy it with us. As bishop, he helped countless families regardless of legal status, blessed a neighbor’s sick cat, and was a safe haven for gay members to turn to. My parents left their ward a few years ago to attend a Hispanic branch, where they can do a lot more than debate in Sunday School over gospel minutiae. They taught me by word and example that serving and loving others always trumps theology.

As a priest I loved blessing the sacrament. It was probably the first time I felt a significant sense of the sacred–it was intoxicating. I loved seminary and institute, even when I was taught that Darwin was Satan’s answer to Joseph Smith (that one still makes me smile). I often felt a sense of awe watching the RMs come home. I wanted what they had. My father called it “spiritual muscle.” My mission in Japan was the right place at the right time for me, for many reasons. It was the best investment of time I had ever made (up to that point, of course!).

The Book of Mormon has a special place in my life. One experience reading King Benjamin started what became a small series of nearly indescribable subjective positive spiritual experiences, (I once tried to describe what it was like to an inquiring non-member/acquaintance and was mocked for it, so I hold close what is most sacred–let’s just say that a few of them were more than just a “tingling down the spine” or “warm feelings”). I have also felt what I interpret to be the infinite love and patience of God, for me and for all of his children. These “feelings” are as important and special to me as my “feelings” for my wife and son.

I love having a community wherever I go. I generally enjoy responsibilities at church, (currently the strengthening marriage instructor) and I have found that if I’m prepared and attentive, the meetings are usually more than worthwhile. I love General Conference, and agree with the teachings almost all of the time. Some people (both in and out of the church) seem to think that a prophet is either always right or not a prophet at all. I was not brought up that way, and have a difficult time understanding it now. Like Henry Eyring (Sr.) said, I think that prophets are wonderful because sometimes they speak for God. It is for those special moments of elevation and insight that I respect and listen to them.

Certain aspects of Mormon theology also fit me better than any religion or philosophy I know. This will have to be a later post, but marriage and personal growth are two of the most important things in life to me, and Mormonism fits those quite well, (I am definitely open to other views or ideas on this, if you have some).

I love symbolism, and enjoy the temple ordinances–I expect that they will continue to evolve, and look forward to it. I see Christ and relationships in everything in the temple. It can be different, even awkward at first, but looking deeper provides inspiration and insight that is a moving and a stabilizing force in my life. I believe in Christ. He inspires goodness. He is the answer to the question of evil and tragedy and suffering. He unconditionally loves everyone. That is a God I believe in. His revelations are in the Church, in books, in the rocks, and hopefully in my dissertation in a few years. None of those conduits are free from error.

This is not an argument for Mormonism. I am not telling others how they should approach faith, or activity in the church. This is simply how I am doing it. I could not be more logical: Some stuff bothers me, some of it really inspires me, gives meaning to my life and family, and has been the source of experiences (not always just feelings) and growth that I cannot reject. I do not have my head in the sand. I am not plugging my ears and yelling “faith! faith! faith!” at valid and logical arguments against the church’s claims.

Some people may think that if I have concerns or disagreements I should drop the church. Others may think I should try harder to procure some answers for my questions and concerns. I have pondered the first option and tried out the second for a while. In one of the clearest insights in my life, I found that neither option is even remotely satisfying. I believe in the gospel, and I am not an apologist. So here I am, in the church, good and bad, best and worst, inspiring and awkward.

What is your story?

• How do you handle issues that are difficult or perhaps impossible to reconcile?
• What are the best parts of your experiences in the church?
• Why have you ultimately decided to stay or leave? (Please keep these in a spirit of sharing and mutual understanding.)

Do you know of any good related posts (by those who have stayed OR left–again, written with some humility, please). Next week there will be a guest post by a friend of mine who left the church a while back. Here are a few others, from various perspectives:

• Why I Am Not a Disaffected Mormon
• Not ashamed
• The atheist hiding within the Mormon
• I Have Always Been A Pagan

OK Paul technically isn’t exactly an international DJ, not unless you consider that you can listen to his interviews on line.

He’s a returned missionary and member of the Grays Ward in the Romford Stake Essex England.  Paul got the show after being a presenter at Hospital Radio Chelmsford for a year and chased a local station for airtime:

“When I was asked to join Phoenix FM the station manager warned me that radio presenting wasn’t all easy but in fact involved a lot of voluntary service too.  I responded that I was a missionary in France for 2 years for the church and was used to giving service to others, as well as being actively involved in the church weekly.  The station manager was intrigued by this and I was invited to the station to explain more about my religious beliefs and the voluntary service I had done in France.  I was then offered the chance to begin a brand new religious show once a week that they had been wanting to start but couldn’t find anyone with the religious background to do it.  I put together the idea for a chat show where he would bring in local religious leaders and ask them about their beliefs on air and their views on current issues.”

Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson from the Church of Scientology – Listen   here

Highlights:

10 million members around the world. Their anti-drug program “Say no to drugs say yes to life”.  Human rights educational programme and other great work they do in the community.  We discussed the 8 dynamics, the founder of the church L. Ronald Hubbard and where the word “Scientology” comes from.

The core beliefs of the church of Scientology are:

Man is a spirit, he has lived before and that man is good. Through wisdom and knowledge man can improve any area of his life he wants. Scientology is all denominational and non-conversionary and members bring with them their own beliefs.

Great Interviews ( All the ads and music have been stripped out)

Habibur Rahman & Forad Edu – Islam / Alfurqaan Foundation
Father Matthew Bemand – St Thomas Church of England
Councillor Dudley Payne – Mayor of Brentwood
Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson – Scientology / Jive Aces
Ed Wellman – PhoenixFM Monday Classics
Richard Burch – Brentwood Buddhist Society
Chris Day – Crown Street Christian Fellowship
Reverand Peter Thomas (Baptist)
Reverand Trevor Jamison (United Reformed Church)
Julian May – ELIM
Father Paul Keane – Brentwood Catholic Cathedral
Bishop David Barter

The show can be seen at www.phoenixfm.com/proverbs98.php

Let us know your views

My home teacher (who is very cool) came by yesterday to drop off some starter cables for my car and as one does in that short interlude we discussed the celestial kingdom and being Gods after this life. He believed that those who don’t make it to the highest kingdom in the Celestial Kingdom won’t have any sexual relationships and if you don’t have sexual relationships their will be no need for sexual organs.

Its interesting talking about controversial stuff but I was finding this unnerving!!

Eunuch
1: a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2: a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3: one that lacks virility or power <political eunuchs>

In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288.)

Joseph Smith said that even the telestial Kingdom was thousands of times better than this world and if we had a glimpse of it we would kill ourselves now to get there. I think many of us now would disagree with Joseph Smith Jr in light of reading the more current views of Joseph Fielding Smith.

In the family proclamation we learn that Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. But the family proclamation is not kingdom specific to whether will still have our male or female gender if we don’t make it to the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom.

I thought I was being unique (pun) in this post but as I have researched,being a so called  EUNUCH is a phrase used in the Bloggernacle since 2006 its called  TK SMOOTHIE

It has two definitions

1. The logical conclusion for JFS, then, was to say that the people in the TK would not have male or female genitalia.
2. If a doctrine of the church seems like it has been created in order to “fix” or explain another, it might be a TK Smoothie. The TK Smoothie is eponymous for all doctrines that are probably bogus but exist in order to clarify some other doctrine or speculation.

Bishop Young Spanish Fork 401st Ward

In Mormonism, we have an expanded picture of life that extends before this mortal life and then on into the eternities. However, when you really dig into this, it turns out that we have very few details on what to expect after this life, and the details we do have come mostly from talks given almost 175 years ago. And to say that our expectations of ‘Heaven,’ have changed quite a bit since then is a gross understatement.

Despite all the speculation, one detail that we know for sure: unless you make it to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, there will be no eternal sex. Basically, you’d be turned into a Telestial/Terrestrial Kingdom Smoothie (TK Smoothie). I like to imagine these lesser-Kingdoms as the Barbie & Ken Kingdoms. Everyone walking around looking beautiful and perfect for eternity, but having a smooth under-carriage like Barbie or Ken.

Parley P. Pratt

The object of the union of the sexes is the propagation of their species, or procreation; also for mutual affection, and the cultivation of those eternal principles of never ending charity and benevolence, which are inspired by the Eternal Spirit; also for mutual comfort and assistance in this world of toil and sorrow, and for mutual duties toward their offspring. Key to the Science of Theology, Ch.17, p.169

I would like to believe as Parley P Pratt describes that this mutual affection will not only be for this life but carried through to all the kingdoms after this life to all of our Brothers and Sisters who have lived on this earth.

Questions

1. If you make it to the Celestial Kingdom how would you feel when you visit a Parent, Grandparent, Brother, Sister, Son or Daughter in the Terrestrial Kingdom with out any Gender?
2. Do you believe Joseph Fielding Smith is correct?
3. Is there any current doctrine that overrides his beliefs?
4. If JFS doctrine is correct the word Brother and Sister takes on a whole different meaning in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom?
5. Is it silly doctrine we should jettison?
6. If it is still true do you think if we emphasised it more it might motivate members to push harder for the Celestial Kingdom?
7. Doctrines of Salvation is most of it safe doctrine we can use in our talks and lessons ?  Is some of it suspect and if it is how do we know what that is? Do you think of it as interesting reading not really fiction but not really solid doctrinally? How would you describe it?

Here’s the parable:

51 Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field.  (What exactly are they digging for?)

52 And he said unto the first: Go ye and labor in the field, and in the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my countenance.  (So, rather than a team huddle and off they go, he talks to them one at a time.)

53 And he said unto the second: Go ye also into the field, and in the second hour I will visit you with the joy of my countenance.  (What if the guy is skylarking?  I don’t think he’s going to get “the joy of his master’s countenance” in that case.)

54 And also unto the third, saying: I will visit you;

55 And unto the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.  (So, is this about the twelve apostles specifically and seeing the face of the Savior?  Otherwise, why 12?)

56 And the lord of the field went unto the first in the first hour, and tarried with him all that hour, and he was made glad with the light of the countenance of his lord.  (Light and joy seem to be synonymous here.)

57 And then he withdrew from the first that he might visit the second also, and the third, and the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.  (So, he withdraws from the first.  He can’t visit everyone all at once.  Only one at a time.)

58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season— (They received it, but it was time bound when it was “expedient”?)

59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the ^alast, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;  (This only showed from the first to the last, but then it goes on to add from the last to the first and the first to the last.  Does he do this 3 times in reverse order in between?)

60 Every man in his own ^aorder, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.  (So, they got a full hour with the lord in which they and the lord were both glorified.)

61 Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these ^akingdoms, and the ^binhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.  (Earthly kingdoms or 3 degrees of glory?  Are these planets?)

62 And again, verily I say unto you, my ^afriends, I leave these ^bsayings with you to ^cponder in your hearts, with this commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall ^dcall upon me while I am near— (So, the Lord is not always near?  Does that mean sometimes he won’t hear us?)

• Who are the servants?  Everyone?  The 12 apostles?  Prophets through time?  Those that are called or who seek the Lord’s face?  Only those who have received the second comforter?
• Why are the workers sent out one at a time, each in his season?  Are the workers all working alone like the kids in “Holes”?  Does this mean it refers to our time on earth?
• What is the significance of the workers digging in a field, but with no other specified purpose?  Is the digging symbolic of something (e.g. seeking for treasure, preparing the ground for planting), or is it meant to signify a meaningless and mundane yet difficult and dirty task?
• What is the “joy of my countenance”?  Seeing the face of God literally (the second comforter)?  Receiving inspiration?  Obtaining a testimony or other spritual experience?  This is a phrase unique to this passage of scripture (“light of thy countenance” is also in Psalms; “full of joy with thy countenance” is found in Acts.)

Discuss.

Aloysius’ proclamation of self-declared hetrodoxy made me ask myself: Is he really at odds with Church doctrine in rejecting the notion that the LDS Church is “an exclusive conduit to God”? In other words, does the LDS Church even claim to be “an exclusive conduit to God”?

But first, what exactly does it mean to say the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”? Does it mean you have to be a member of the LDS Church to receive divine inspiration? Or to have your prayers answered? Or to receive a divine calling or mission in life? Or to be worthy of being considered a servant of God? Or to develop a relationship of discipleship with Christ? Or to receive peace, joy, and glory in the hereafter? What does it mean to say the LDS Church claims to be an exclusive conduit to God?

After giving this matter much thought, I’m still not sure of Aloysius’ exact intended meaning when he says the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”, but of one thing I am sure: numerous statements from LDS leaders and publications over the years create wide enough latitude in LDS doctrine for any active and faithful member of the LDS Church to comfortably reject the notion that the Church is “an exclusive conduit to God” or a “sole avenue to God”, and to feel completely in harmony with Church leaders in doing so.

For example, LDS leaders and publications have made the following statements about God’s communication and relationship with mankind in general, and with non-Mormons in particular:

1. “[W]e claim that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Latter-day Saints.” -Elder James E. Faust [1]

2. “All men share an inheritance of divine light. God operates among his children in all nations, and those who seek God are entitled to further light and knowledge, regardless of their race, nationality, or cultural traditions.” -Elder Howard W. Hunter [2]

3. “[T]he Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have.” -Book of Mormon [3]

4. “The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered.”-Elder Boyd K. Packer [4]

5. “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. . . . We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.” -Elder Orson F. Whitney, quoted by Elder Ezra Taft Benson [5]

6. “We believe that most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve him to the best of their abilities. We are indebted to the men and women who kept the light of faith and learning alive through the centuries to the present day. . . . We honor them as servants of God.” Elder Dallin H. Oaks [6]

7. “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. … We believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation.” Elder James E. Faust [9]

8. [I]ndividual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.” [8]

The quotes above make clear that the LDS Church teaches and claims:

• that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Latter-day Saints;
• that “all men” receive “divine light” and that “God operates among his children in all nations“;
• that the Lord grants to “all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his [i.e., God's] word“;
• that the Light of Christ and the Holy Spirit were present, and that the prayers of the righteous were answered, even during the period of time referred to by Latter-day Saints as “the Apostasy”;
• that Latter-day Saints are not the only people in the world accomplishing God’s “great and marvelous work“;
• that non-Mormon religious leaders are “servants of God”;
• that “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others,” have had moral truths “given to them by God“;
• that “God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way toeternal salvation“; and
• that “there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb [i.e., Jesus Christ] because of their loyalty to him and his life-style”.

What, then, could somebody possibly be referring to when he says the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”? It seems likely that such a statement would be based on statements by LDS leaders like the one quoted below, which are made frequently:

This is the true Church, the only true Church, because in it are the keys of the priesthood. Only in this Church has the Lord lodged the power to seal on earth and to seal in heaven as He did in the time of the Apostle Peter. Those keys were restored to Joseph Smith, who then was authorized to confer them upon the members of the Quorum of the Twelve. [9]

Based on the quote above, and numerous statements like it, there is no doubt that the LDS Church claims to be the exclusive holder of priesthood keys necessary to authoritatively perform priesthood ordinances (and therefore the “only true Church“).

Which brings us to the $10,000 question: is the LDS Church’s claim to exclusive possession of priesthood keys the same as a claim to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”?

Interestingly, the quotes that appear below, which were published in recent Church curriculum, seem to indicate that at least one of Mormonism’s founding prophets, Brigham Young, would have rejected the notion that the LDS Church is “an exclusive conduit to God”:

It has appeared to me, from my childhood to this day, as a piece of complete nonsense, to talk about the inhabitants of the earth being thus irretrievably lost—to talk of my father and mother, and yours, or our ancestors, who have lived faithfully according to the best light they had; but because they had not the everlasting covenant and the holy Priesthood in their midst, that they should go to hell and roast there to all eternity. It is nonsense to me; it always was, and is yet (DBY, 384).

So far as mortality is concerned, millions of the inhabitants of the earth live according to the best light they have—according to the best knowledge they possess. I have told you frequently that they will receive according to their works; and all, who live according to the best principles in their possession, or that they can understand, will receive peace, glory, comfort, joy and a crown that will be far beyond what they are anticipating. They will not be lost (DBY, 384).

If [people] have a law, no matter who made it, and do the best they know how, they will have a glory which is beyond your imagination, by any description I might give; you cannot conceive of the least portion of the glory of God prepared for his beings, the workmanship of his hands (DBY, 385).

I say to every priest on the face of the earth, I do not care whether they be Christian, Pagan or [Muslim], you should live according to the best light you have; and if you do you will receive all the glory you ever anticipated (DBY, 384–85). [10]

CONCLUSION:

The LDS Church’s claim to exclusively possess priesthood keys — and the relevance of that claim to the eternal salvation of mankind, particularly to the 99.99% of humanity who are not, were not, and will not be Mormons — is a complex and nuanced claim. That exclusive claim to priesthood keys is inextricably intertwined with the Church’s universal doctrines about God’s universal love, concern, inspiration, and operation among all mankind, as well as the Church’s universal doctrines that all persons who lived by whatever moral law or light they received in their mortal lifetime — “no matter who made it,” “whether they be Christian [or] Pagan” — “will will receive peace, glory, comfort, joy and a crown that will be far beyond what they are anticipating.”

Bearing in mind these complex, nuanced, and intertwining exclusive-yet-universal LDS doctrines, if we say the LDS Church claims to be “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God,” I think we risk stating an innocent-but-careless half-truth at best, or an intentional deception at worst. Furthermore, based on the numerous quotes from LDS leaders above, I feel perfectly comfortable rejecting the notion that the LDS Church is “an exclusive conduit to God” or “a sole avenue to God”, because I do not believe the LDS Church makes such a claim in the first place.

To be clear, my purpose in writing this post is not to engage in semantic nit-picking in attempt to make Aloysius “an offender for a word”. (For the record, Aloysius and I are official Facebook friends; a bond stronger than the cords of death.) Rather, my purpose is to illustrate the complexities and nuances of LDS doctrine on this topic, which make it extremely difficult to accurately summarize the Church’s claims, or stated conversely, make it very easy to unintentionally mischaracterize or overstate LDS claims by making them sound more exclusivist than they really are.

SOURCES:

[1] Elder James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, May 1980, 12 (emphasis added).

[2] Howard W. Hunter, “The Gospel-A Global Faith,” Ensign, Nov 1991, 18 (emphasis added).

[3] Alma 29:8 (emphasis added).

[4] Boyd K. Packer, “The Light of Christ,” Ensign, Apr. 2005, 11 (quoted on Church website at: http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/) (emphasis added).

[5] Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59 [quoted by Ezra Taft Benson, "Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints," Ensign, Jul 1972, 59] (emphasis added).

[6] Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign, May 1995, 84 (emphasis added).

[7] Elder James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, May 1980, 12 (emphasis added).

[8] Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61 (quoted on Church website at http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/) (emphasis added).

[9] Henry B. Eyring, “The True and Living Church,” Ensign, May 2008, 20–24 (emphasis added).

[10] “Chapter 39: Eternal Judgment,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 285 (emphasis added).

First of all, here’s what it says:

64 Whatsoever ye ^aask the Father in my name it shall be given unto you, that is ^bexpedient for you;

65 And if ye ask anything that is not ^aexpedient for you, it shall turn unto your ^bcondemnation.

Expediency.  The definition of “expediency” is:  1. fit or suitable for the purpose; proper under the circumstances. or 2.  conducive to advantage or interest.  Expediency is a big JS word.  It appears 52 times in the BOM and 27 times in the D&C.  It only appears 7 times in other scripture:  John uses it 3 times and Paul uses it 4 times.

• Do people pray for things that they don’t think are expedient?  Don’t they ask for something because they think it’s what they need?  So, is this a caution against being too specific in what you ask for?  Or against misunderstanding what’s proper under the circumstances or advantageous to you?  Doesn’t that notion contradict this one:

Luke 11: 11-13:  11  If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?  12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?  13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give ^athe Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

• Is something expedient for some people and not for others?  Can I ask for something and get it, but if you ask for it, it will turn unto your condemnation?
• How expedient is expedient?  What if something is kind of expedient, but then the time has just passed?  (Like OC translating was no longer expedient, “Sorry time’s up, thank you for playing.”)

Condemnation.  This doesn’t specify whether you will get it or not if it’s not expedient, just that it will be for your condemnation. 

• Does that mean that if God doesn’t give you what you asked for (I keep picturing a vending machine), that it wasn’t expedient and now you’d better duck because condemnation is coming?  Can nothing happening or just not getting it be the ”condemnation”?
Does God ever give you the thing that wasn’t expedient, and him giving it to you is in fact how it turns to your condemnation?  (An ironic twist – that’s how it works on Fairly Oddparents anyway).
What kind of condemnation is this we’re talking about?  Full-on raging condemnation or something mild that goes away with an over-the-counter salve?

Discuss.

The only time I have seen Big Love is on a transatlantic flight back home to Salt Lake.  My initial thoughts were how amazing to have a church just like ours (almost) right in our back door and no one seems to know of it, as they keep it fairly discreet on the show.

From what I saw these Josephites seem to be very similar (i.e. Family Prayer, FHE, Family Council, even similar programs and auxiliaries).  They even seemed to act like Mormons I grew up with.

Since there was a split of Josephites from the Brighamites, wouldn’t most of these branches have similar temple ceremonies to ours?  If so shouldn’t they be the ones who are offended, not the Brighamites?

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creator and HBO assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons.

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The HBO series “Big Love” will show its version of temple rites belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The episode is scheduled to air Sunday, March 15.

Here

‘Big Love’s’ promise to show LDS temple rituals has many crying foul

Richard Cowan, a BYU professor of church history and doctrine, said:  ”It isn’t something that we want to keep away from everyone who isn’t a member of our faith, but rather something we would like to share with those who are personally and spiritually prepared to appreciate it.”

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding.  Last week some church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which (like HBO) is owned by Time Warner.

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

If you want to build a ship, don’t herd people together to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.

Today’s post is from guest poster Melodrama.  As I thought about the ramifications of the ideas in different realms of my life and particularly in my worship, I was struck, because the point of the quote actually seems so opposite of my experience with the corporate nature of the church. Most lessons or talks focus on checklists or commandments or assignments: the ABC’s of revelation, the 4 steps to repentance, lists on chalkboards of how to keep x commandment better.

Is it because they are afraid that if they teach us the longing for what Joseph Smith claimed to have had, a very personal relationship with God, that they can’t deliver? Or are the checklists and assignments necessary for the institution of the church to survive and thrive?

I thought of K, a little girl I taught in Primary. At her baptism, her excitement got the best of her as she literally ran from the chapel to the font when it was her turn. Or a woman I watched baptized in the inner-city ward I used to attend. She could not contain her joy as she was raised out of the water, and it was manifest in a boisterous shriek of happiness. Her active participation in our church was short-lived, typical for the baptisms in that ward. I used to complain that the people the missionaries brought forth were not ready to fully commit to the church and its teachings, but who can deny the joy in her heart that day and who can tell the power it had in her life?

Others express their joy in a more subdued and quiet way, but these examples of those whose emotions were oblivious to procedure and protocol made me reminisce of my own baptism. While I don’t remember the details, and I’m certain I was not a runner or a screamer, I do not recall being assigned to baptism. I like to think I am pretty typical, that I chose baptism, not because I was commanded to do so, but because even as a little girl, I sensed the love of God and had a longing for the divine.

And nearly 30 years later, as I sat in church one Sunday in my ward in December, I was notified we would unexpectedly end one hour early due to problems with the facilities. When the bishop came in to announce it, one woman physically clapped at her excitement. As everyone went to find their children and leave, one man said, “I’ve never seen a happier bunch of Mormons”. It sort of begs the question, why build a boat if you have no desire to set sail to sea? If church is supposed to answer those longings for us, why are we happiest when we are freed from our obligation of attending? Must we have herdings and assignments because our longings are not enough to sustain us in the work of building a ship?

I wonder, are we efficiently building boats only to turn around and build another one and never recognize the endless immensity of the sea?

I always have struggled to pray formally and daily on a personal level. For as long as I can remember, I have had a hard time kneeling alone and praying vocally. For most of my life I didn’t understand why, and, although I tried to recommit numerous times, I never could “conquer” that particular habit. My struggle continued through various church callings, including stints in a Stake Mission Presidency, as a Ward Mission Leader, in a Bishopric and to this day as a High Councilor. I still have a hard time, but now, at least, I understand why a little better.

I have struggled with “formal prayer” all my life, largely because I have not struggled with “informal prayer” at any point in my life. All my life, I have prayed regularly; it simply has not been on my knees and vocally, on a set schedule. I naturally commune with God; I just do it silently, in my own head. I understand the following passage from Amulek in Alma 34:18-27, since it resonates with my own experience:

18 Yea, cry unto him for mercy; for he is mighty to save.

19 Yea, humble yourselves, and continue in prayer unto him.

20 Cry unto him when ye are in your fields, yea, over all your flocks.

21 Cry unto him in your houses, yea, over all your household, both morning, mid-day, and evening.

22 Yea, cry unto him against the power of your enemies.

23 Yea, cry unto him against the devil, who is an enemy to all righteousness.

24 Cry unto him over the crops of your fields, that ye may prosper in them.

25 Cry over the flocks of your fields, that they may increase.

26 But this is not all; ye must pour out your souls in your closets, and your secret places, and in your wilderness.

27 Yea, and when you do not cry unto the Lord, let your hearts be full, drawn out in prayer unto him continually for your welfare, and also for the welfare of those who are around you.

I truly do naturally have a prayer in my heart always, and I truly do pray by actually forming words in my mind often throughout each day. I struggle, however, to vocalize those prayers and to offer them in a formal manner. I have reached a degree of peace with that conflict, since I believe it is more important THAT I pray than HOW I pray, but I still am not comfortable completely with my inability to remember and schedule formal prayers. I see it as a weakness that I still have to overcome, even as I see my tendency to pray “continually” as a great strength.

Recently, as I was contemplating this irony, it struck me that it has been easy to excuse my difficulty with formal prayer by thinking what I do (pray continually) is obeying a higher law – that if I have to choose one or the other, it is better to pray as I do than as I don’t. I actually believe that, but I have come to realize that I still don’t pray “completely, wholly and in a fully developed manner”. In other words, I don’t pray perfectly yet. That is the goal for which I am striving – not necessarily to pray “perfectly” right away, but rather to be able to learn to pray more completely by finally praying more consistently in a formal manner – at the very least in a manner than can be considered “regularly”.

I have no driving desire right now to do more than that, and, honestly, I’m not sure I ever will – since I truly am satisfied overall with the way and regularity with which I pray. All I know is that I need to learn to pray formally (and, perhaps, vocally) more easily than I currently do.

As I considered all of that this past week, I was left to ask:

Why then do I struggle so much with formal prayer? Other than what I articulated above (the fact that I really do carry a constant prayer in my mind and heart), is there some other personal characteristic that “gets in the way” of kneeling and vocalizing prayer?

First, some of the paradox behind the struggle:

I have no inhibitions whatsoever with public speaking or one-on-one conversation. I have performed in public since the days of my earliest memories. I sang a public solo for the first time when I was six years old (I think; it might have been eight, but I believe it was pre-baptism.) – “I Hope They Call Me on a Mission” in Sacrament Meeting for a cousin’s missionary farewell. I gave my first public speech in First Grade, when I received an award for reading a ridiculous number of books during a contest. I sang in solo competitions and vocal groups from 4th – 12th Grade; I’ve played piano solos and accompanied others hundreds of times; I played the saxophone for eight years in school; I was the Drum Major of our High School Marching Band. I was a school teacher. More recently, I’ve been in Sales and Marketing for nearly twelve years. I don’t remember EVER being nervous or shy about speaking or performing in front of people. A shrinking violet I am not.

I also am not shy about expressing my thoughts and feelings – as anyone who knows me in the Bloggernacle can attest. When it comes to group participation, I am more likely to be highly visible and audible than quiet and invisible. Communication skills and inclination are not a problem for me.

It hit me just a couple of days ago that I simply am not a very “formal” person. I am totally comfortable interacting in formal situations, but, for me, doing so is an artificial way to concede to the need to “play the formal game”. In a past job, I walked the corridors of the Ohio Statehouse and talked about million dollar funding projects with executive directors of major philanthropies, but my actions in those discussions were “artificially” formal for me. I would have been much more “at home” and “natural” in jeans and a t-shirt, sitting outside on the grass and just having a heart-to-heart chat. I’ve conducted formal interviews for years, but I’d rather sit and rap with someone than grill them in a formal manner.

Also, I am a natural tease, and I tend to take lots of things less seriously than many others. For example, I’m not sure the member of the Stake Presidency who heard my talk last Sunday expected the quote from “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (on charity: “Be excellent to each other.”) or the description of listening to someone learn to play the bagpipes as similar to hearing someone kill a cat – in context of being charitable as people learn to play their souls (although I did mention in the talk that I probably shouldn’t say “kill a cat” in Sacrament Meeting). I’m a country boy at heart, and the sociality that exists in a small town tends to be a bit less formal than at a country club or in a middle-upper class suburb.

I’ve known all of that about myself for a long time, but it never really registered in the context of formal prayer. Simply opening up my mind and heart and talking with God works for me. It’s who I am. I’ve had some incredible spiritual experiences in my life, but I’m having a hard time thinking of one that occurred during a formal, vocal, personal prayer. (Priesthood blessings are a different story, but I’m distinguishing them as “ritual prayer” from “personal prayer”.)

What struck me is that the most powerful experiences I have had in my life that are associated with prayer have come when I was being most “true” to myself – when I wasn’t engaged in an activity that was “foreign” or “unnatural” to me, but rather when I was doing what I do best. Those experiences all have come either when I simply was chatting with God (talking with him informally in my head and/or heart) or when I was involved in a ritual of some kind – like a Priesthood blessing or an ordinance.

This insight has been a revelation to me, and I am contemplating the implications. At the very least, it has reinforced the need to be careful of requiring all God’s children to speak with him in the exact same way – of over-simplifying and communalizing something that might be better left complex and personal. Sometimes, unity of purpose and result might be better than total unity of form and function. At the very least, it’s given me more to ponder – and it’s made me even less inclined to judge others with regard to how they pray and how/if they feel they get their own answers.

I have lived here in the UK -London for 20 years now and when friends and family come over they sometimes comment on how green we are over here. They observe that most of us dry our clothes on the  line, drive much smaller cars, live in shoe box’s compared to the average size of an American home, walk to the shops, use long life low wattage low energy bulbs, changing windows over for double glazing, doubling up on insulation, are becoming more obsessive about recycling, drive low emission high mpg diesel cars, save left over food, food portions at restaurants smaller and public transport used far more often and readily available.

It amazes some of the Brits when they go to Utah to see how big the houses are especially in many cases for so few people who live in them.  Huge Ford Explorers, steak dinners that could feed a typical family of four.  When they go for the first time they come back thinking that it’s a land of excess.

I know there have been many of the changes I have described above happening in Utah and throughout the states but there is not quite the buzz or emphasis on it that I see here at least IMO!

I also have this theory that Mormons aren’t into green issues because

1. Many believe the second coming will be coming soon (God the creator of this earth will be able to clean up the planet in a second, our efforts are pointless.
2. We have to get our priorities right – family, missionary work, ward service, temple work.  Being green is definitely not a priority now
3. If it was important the prophet and apostles would be vigorously emphasizing it during conference.
4. It would be stressed and accentuated in the manuals
5. Gas guzzling cars – God created fossil fuels for our use.  He created this earth and when we run out God will inspire man to come up with an alternative fuel – he always provides for us.
6. God made fossil fuel for our use and we are fortunate to be Americans and live in a place where fuel is cheap and are blessed to be here.
7. We have proven ourselves in the pre-existence and in this life and we deserve the just rewards for being faithful members
8. An attitude of the more physical stuff I have cars, houses, boats shows were being blessed abundantly
9. We have been hearing a lot about fuel and energy—about their high cost and limited supply, our unsafe and unpredictable dependence on their suppliers, and the need for new and sustainable sources of energy. I leave the discussion of these complicated issues to leaders of government and industry. The fuel I want to discuss is spiritual fuel. Elder L. Tom Perry

Please discuss

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/23/why-arent-mormons-green/feed/ 56 http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/21/what-is-the-holy-ghost/ http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/21/what-is-the-holy-ghost/#comments Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:00:51 +0000 Arthur http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4253 One of my favorite parts about BYU-Idaho, or rather, one thing I actually liked about BYU-Idaho, was the religion classes.  Systematic, academic study of the Standard Works was something I’d never experienced before and I loved it.

One thing that hit me like a ton of bricks in the middle of a religion class at BYU was this:  I don’t know who the Holy Ghost is.  Even my religion instructor admitted ignorance on the subject, though speculation abounded.

The identity of our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, is a big deal to us, so much so that it is one of the defining characteristics of our faith.  The first Article of Faith asserts the separate identities of the members of the Godhead, turning 1700 or so years of theological history on its head.  From the Bible Dictionary, under the entry for God:

We learn from the revelations that have been given that there are three separate persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. From latter-day revelation we learn that the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone, and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit without flesh and bone (D&C 130: 22-23).

Fair enough.  So in the scriptures we learn about Heavenly Father:

1. He is our Father in a very literal sense.
2. He has a physical body (hands, arms, legs, eyes, etc.).
3. We worship Him.
4. We pray to Him.
5. He is a God.

Similarly, Jesus Christ is very similar to His Father.

1. He is our spiritual brother.
2. He obtained a physical body during His time in mortality on Earth.
3. We worship Him.
4. We pray in His name.
5. We do ordinances in His name.
6. He is a God.

The Holy Ghost is a “personage of spirit.”  We can conclude from this and a couple other passages in the scriptures that a personage of spirit looks like a man, but has no physical body.

To illustrate our ignorance, and the relative scarcity of information on the subject, I took the liberty of interviewing myself about the Holy Ghost:

1. Is the Holy Ghost our spirit brother? A: Umm.  I would guess so?  I think?

2. Is the Holy Ghost a “God”? A: He’s in the Godhead, right?  So I would have to go with Yes.  I think.

3. Do we worship the Holy Ghost? A: Not really.  It’s not the Church of the Holy Ghost.  We don’t pray in the name of the Holy Ghost.  We definitely use the Holy Ghost.  He’s our constant companion.  But we don’t worship Him.  If I prayed to the Holy Ghost, I would definitely feel like I’m doing it wrong.  So the answer is no, probably.

4. Will the Holy Ghost obtain a body? A: That would only be fair, right?  I have no idea.  Maybe?

5. So that means the Holy Ghost is inferior to God or Jesus? A: That doesn’t sound right.  Maybe?  It would seem so.

6. Is there only one Holy Ghost? A: Probably?

7. Why don’t we know anything about the Holy Ghost? A: Good question.

See what I’m getting at here?

Now, before this turns into another “Unbridled Speculation” thread, let me say that I’m not necessarily looking for the answers to these questions, per se.  What I’m really wondering is, why do we know so little about the Holy Ghost, his identity, his relationship to the other members of the Godhead, etc. compared to Christ and His Father?  Or if the information’s out there, why don’t I know it, even in light of me being a 25-year-old member who has served a full-time mission and has studied the scriptures pretty darn well for my whole life?  Is his/her/its identity so irrelevant that we simply don’t need to know?  So the Holy Ghost’s identity is just majorly de-emphasized in our curriculum?  And yet the Holy Ghost’s function is fundamental to our theology, our search for truth, people joining the Church, finding out its truthfulness, etc.  Take the following things into account:

1. The Holy Ghost is our constant companion.  We don’t know the identity of this being that is supposedly with us always?  Not only that, but the Holy Ghost “dwells within us!”  How comfortable are you with the idea of a being you don’t know living inside you?  Is this figurative or literal?

2. The Holy Ghost is essential for salvation, in a roundabout way.  We must have a testimony of Jesus Christ in order to be saved, and the only way to truly have a testimony of Christ is through the Spirit.  Yet we don’t know what the Holy Ghost actually is?

So why the mystery?

For me, I’ve found that if, for some reason, I discovered that if the Church isn’t true, I probably would join another faith.  Why?

Though it’s not very chic these days to say so, I love religion AND organized religion.  I believe that there is a power in organization that simply can’t be found in a loosely-knit group of believers, and this is due to a recent visit to another faith that I will describe below.  I think organized religion brings people together and makes it easier to send relief when an emergency happens.  I don’t think I can believe in a “do-it-yourself” religion where you just completely pick and choose what beliefs to have.  That’s why I feel that if I found out the Church isn’t true, I’d definitely go SOMEWHERE.  I’ve also spent a great deal of my life studying other religions and faiths because I love to know how other people think and feel.  This has led me to compile a list of possible places to go if I were to discover that the LDS faith were not the true faith.

Feel free to make your own list here!  My favorite religions, in no particular order, that I would consider joining if I left Mormonism.

1. Islam

My parents have always been very supportive of my learning about other faiths, and my mom encouraged me to learn about Islam.  I love the simplicity and beauty of Islam.  I like the idea of Islam because they don’t claim to know who God is or what he looks like or what our purpose is here.  The idea is that we just obey Allah, we will be blessed and have peace.  In fact, the word Islam means “submission,” and the root of the word (SLM) in the language family has ties to the concept of “peace” (think “salem” in Hebrew).  I like the mandatory prayers.  Though repetitive, I love how they are required to take time out of their days and offer a peaceful tribute to Allah.  These prayers give the faithful the time to focus their thoughts on God.  It’s like a Sabbath moment, three times or more a day.  Fasting during Ramadan seems like it would be a great way to be thankful for the food God has given us.

If I found out the LDS Church isn’t true, I would be tempted to try Islam.  It would be my way of letting go and just trying to do what God asks me to do.  I admit, I do not like the organization of Islam.  The lack of any centralized authority means there are fundamentalists and extremists that put a violent spin on the Qur’an, and have become terrorists and murderers.  I would have a hard time dealing with these members of my own faith, as I consider myself to be peaceful and pacifistic.  Would I join the Sunni or Shi’ite sect?  Actually, I would probably join the Alevi.  I love the peaceful and accepting attitude of the Alevi in Turkey.  Though not “mainstream” Islam, they are a peaceful group of 10 million and as part of their beliefs, they believe that we should not judge others on their beliefs.  I love their ideas of trying to “perfect” yourself.  There is no Original Sin and our consciousness is perfect, therefore we search through our lives to understand and embrace this perfect consciousness.

2. Eastern Orthodoxy

I have often said that if the Book of Mormon weren’t true, I’d have a hard time believing in Jesus of Nazareth.  It was the Book of Mormon that led me to believe in the Bible.  I wish we had books written by Jesus, or at least copies of the books about him from the original authors.  The idea that we only have copies of copies leaves me a bit queasy as far as evidence goes.  That having been said, if I wanted to stick with Christianity, I’d go for Eastern Orthodoxy.

I remember on my mission I got in quite a few “bashes.”  This wasn’t because I sought them out, of course, but because I was in West Texas, and there were many preachers and pastors out there who were attracted to us, just so they could argue.  Most of the time I feel like I did a great job of holding my own (thank you very much) but the only time I got floored, schooled, and beaten up in a bash was with a priest from an Orthodox Church.  His knowledge of early Christianity amazed me.  At the end of our “discussion,” I could have easily found myself saying, “Almost thou persuadest me to be an Eastern Orthodoxian.”  Or whatever they’re called.

I loved the idea of authority coming from the Apostles themselves.  The Orthodox Church seemed to be everything I loved in the Catholic Church without a couple of the annoying things that bother me about Catholicism (a more open canon, no pope, all Bishops are equal, less of the Church leadership is celibate, a “different” or more fluid idea of the Trinity).  To me, Orthodoxy seems like a purer, more mystical form of Christianity.  To find out more about Orthodoxy, read this excellent recent MormonMatters post.

3. Baha’i

Russell and I recently visited the service of a local Baha’i congregation.  It was small and it was in a local “Commonality House” that can be rented by whatever groups wish to attend.  I loved Baha’i because, while I was there, I truly felt loved and appreciated.  The whole idea of Baha’i is the unity and brotherhood of man.  They accept the teachings of Christ, Moses, Mohammed, and most other holy men.  However, they also accept the teachings of Bahá’u'lláh, a prophet of the 19th Century in Persia.  I love this religion because of how included I felt.  There was no dogma to speak of, just love for one another.  If any group truly demonstrates Christlike love for one another, I found it here at the Baha’i church.  The amazing thing I found is that when my Baha’i friends came to visit me at the LDS church, they were amazingly good at interfaith discourse.  They participated in lessons, they understood what was taught, and they were well-liked and loved by the people they met.  They’re truly an amazing group of people to say the least.

However, the advantages of this Church, I believe are also the disadvantages.  Russ and I have been putting off a full write-up of the Baha’i faith, but the thing I noticed overwhelmingly is that the faith had no teeth.  There were few rules, the congregation was encouraged to be themselves, attend other churches, and find what’s right for them, and search for truths everywhere.  I almost got the feeling I could be Baha’i and Mormon at the same time.  The few “rules” that they DID have seemed to only be suggestions.  A faith that doesn’t require any sacrifices and didn’t really teach a “way to live” seems impotent, at least to me.  If there were a natural disaster in town, I’d much rather trust the Catholic Charities than the Baha’i, unfortunately.  I loved all my friends from the Baha’i church, though, and would love to visit them all again sometime.

4. The Community of Christ

Ah, good old familiarity.  If I wanted to join a church and still have Nephi and Moroni and Joseph and Emma, I’d join the Community of Christ.  If somehow (I’m not sure how, but if somehow) the LDS Church were proven untrue in a way that still left the possibility open for Joseph Smith to be a prophet, I’d definitely visit the Community of Christ.  I love the Community of Christ because I’d still have Nephi the First (one of my personal faves), and I’d still be able to believe in Priesthood and Prophets.  The Community of Christ would give me a chance, not only to believe in these things, but explore them in new and interesting ways, because they are much more free-wheeling than the LDS Church.  They tend to place much of the search for truth in the hands of the believers.  This is easy to like, for me.  However, for the purposes of this discussion, I think choosing the Community of Christ might be cheating a little.

There are many other faiths I like to read about, but I’ll leave the rest of the discussion to you.

If the LDS Church weren’t true, and you DID have to join another Church, where would YOU go?

When most of us hear the word “jihad” or “holy war”, we immediately know that a jihad is not what God wants.  Most of us feel the same when we hear the word “crusade.”  Really, does anyone think God wants people to fight in his name?

In the book of Joshua, Joshua claims to be commanded by God to destroy everyone and everything in what is now the land of Israel.

“And they utterly  destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and  ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So Joshua smote all  the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the  springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly  destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And  Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country  of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.” (Joshua 10:40-41)

In an interesting twist, the prophet Jonah wanted God to destroy the city of Nineveh, yet God felt those people were to be spared.  Were the Ninevites really more righteous than the Jericho-ites?  Does God command genocide, yesterday, today, or in the future?

Orthodox History

First, let’s go back about 400 years or so before the time of Joshua, to the time of Joseph, Israel, and the 12 tribes. Israel and his sons left the “chosen land” of their own free will. They were not forced out of the land by foreign invaders. They were forced out by drought.

As we know, Joseph was sold into Egypt as a slave, and then ended up saving the whole family of Israel. Israel, and his sons freely settled in Goshen, Egypt. They liked the place so much, that they had no desire to leave.

Probably due to changes in the government, and the Israelites growing numbers, the Israelites were later viewed as a threat, and ended up becoming slaves to the Egyptians, so the nation of Israel (which was formerly just a really big family) longed to return to the “promised land.” Of course, this brings up the whole Exodus story, and wandering for 40 years, etc.

So they left the “promised land” for 400 years, which was resettled by 6 nations.  I’d say that if Israel really wanted the land back, they should have returned after the 7 years of drought-they’d have a much stronger claim than waiting 400 years.

Ok, so now the land is occupied by these six “squatters.” Are they are just supposed to get up and leave because Moses/Joshua said so? A modern equivalent would be the Muslims claim that God wanted people to fly planes into the world trade center. Just as Christians and Jews just don’t understand “God’s will,” from the Muslim point of view, these six squatter nations didn’t understand “God’s will” telling them to pick up and leave the promised land.

How did Joshua negotiate? Cleon Skousen justifies Joshua’s actions by saying,

“each city or tribe was given the opportunity to submit peacefully and become citizens of Israel with the condition that they would follow the rules and laws set forth by the new central kingdom, including giving up their idolatry and immorality.”

Excuse me? They’ve lived there for at least 300 years, and now Joshua tells them to submit peacefully? What kind of negotiation is that? It sounds suspiciously like Jihad or Crusader “convert or die” kinds of negotiation. If someone gave me that kind of a choice, I’d probably put up a fight too.

Unorthodox History

Some scholars claim that Joshua and Moses never existed.  The accounts of the Old Testament (especially those of the Pentateuch) were not written until centuries after their narratives had ended. Most of these were carried on through oral tradition and were later compiled into a written and collaborated form.

Scholars, such as William Dever of the University or Arizona, claim that (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/18/1679514.aspx) the Land of Canaan was not taken over by conquest – rather, the Israelites actually might have been Canaanites who migrated into the highlands and created a new identity for themselves. “Joshua really didn’t fight the Battle of Jericho,” Dever said. These scholars say the Exodus never happened, but was invented to create a new identity for a new group of people, with the new religion of Yahweh.

I know there is some problems of dating the city of Jericho to the time of Joshua. However, in my mind, it seems as if Joshua (or whoever he really represents) is glorifying war. From that point of view, I have no reason to doubt that the Israelites probably used God as a weapon to destroy their enemies, whether they were fellow Semites or the six heathen nations. I see this reasoning as very similar to the Crusades, and Jihad, and have no reason to doubt whether genocide happened in the time of Joshua. It seems that the story of Jericho is a way the Jews used God to justify atrocities.

My take is that Joshua was a prophet.  He felt he was inspired.  However, I do not feel that God wanted all the inhabitants killed.  I do not think God ever commands genocide, and I feel that this action was wrong by Joshua.

Comments?

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.

The onset of 2009 brings an opportunity for young people of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to renew their commitment to their faith while participating in a program of instruction, song and dance that reviews the activities of 2008. The program also introduces their theme as Mormon youth for the new year: “Be thou an example of the believers” (1 Timothy 4:12)

Wow I had never seen such a sleek production done by the church some blogs have compared it too watching High School Musical. See you tube video here (please click high quality when you watch it).

Its a whole new media style and attitude I have never seen in our church.

Click here to see the News Press.Click here to Brand New Year Website – I found the videos pretty up beat and interesting. My English daughter who is out of young women’s found it cheesy-she thinks most American things are.  My wife thought it was a little too manufactured and OTT but she is English to.

What do you think?

Have any of the youth in your wards seen in it live or watched it ?

Did they enjoy it or not?