Good or evil.  Material or immaterial.  Mind or matter.  Spiritual or physical. Even male or female. As this article from the Jewish Virtual Library describes, many of these “dualism” classifications have been used as the bases of philosophy and religions since primitive times. They seem to constantly reemerge after being subordinated to religious and philosophical principles of “monism” (oneness or wholeness).

Duality instead has nothing to do with two different aspects of reality.  In contrast, it focuses on recognizing that a single, inseparable “monist” reality does almost always have two (or more) entirely separable “dual” descriptions.  It is the descriptions of reality that are dual — like two languages used to describe the same concept — and not the reality itself.

In a way, duality was the key to the anomaly that sparked the entire quantum revolution in physics at the beginning of the 1900′s.  Light had been understood as electromagnetic waves since the work of James Maxwell, published in 1864.  The existence of such waves was a mathematically required consequence of the basic laws of electricity and magnetism that had been easily verified in the laboratory.

But as the 20th Century dawned, observations about light were beginning to pile up that could not be explained by any wave model.  Instead, depending only on the question an experiment tested, light seemed to betray either wave-like or particle-like behavior. Look for wave properties, and the experiment would find them; look for particle properties, and the experiment would find them instead. Even notions of everyday common sense would break down to maintain the insistence on light being both wave and particle.

Worse, when the wave experiments grew sophisticated enough to be applied to good-old-rock-solid matter, matter showed exactly the same stubborn insistence on being both particle and wave-like, too.  Everything in the material world turned out to exhibit the properties of these seemingly contradictory physical models.  Reality could not be so neatly compartmentalized according to the mental constructs humanity had available.

For a time, there was even a trendy word to describe things — “wavacle” — until people realized that giving something a new name didn’t mean we understood it any better.  Quantum mechanics, the science that developed out of these early shocks to our conceptual system, has only one reality.  But it can be described in at least two mathematical languages: the mathematical language of waves, and the mathematical language of “matrices”.

The languages were proven to be translatable from one to another before 1930, and so they must always make exactly the same predictions.  But the value in the notion of duality is that — just as some things are easy to say in German that are extraordinarily difficult to say in Japanese, and vice versa — the difficulty in making predictions in one description is easy for some situations, yet impossibly hard in the other description.  And in some other situation, the utility of the two descriptions is completely reversed.  Scientists needed two conceptually different languages to describe this one reality in which we live.

New examples of duality showed up with increasing frequency as people began to appreciate the explanatory power of the approach.  Some of the dualities that have been recognized are even more bizarre than the wave-particle duality.

Many of today’s best candidate theories for “quantum gravity” that would unite relativity and quantum mechanics into a “theory of everything” are collectively known as “string theory”.  They often have a property called “T-duality”.  In particular, T-dual theories predict that a universe, such as ours appears to be – of vast extent and expanding in size – is absolutely indistinguishable from an infinitesimally small universe which is shrinking toward nothingness. The laws of physics would dictate that exactly the same electrical and gravitational signals would enter our brains in either case.

If these string theories are correct, large and small are alternative languages to describe the same reality.  In fact, for all we can tell, we could all be living in an ultramicroscopic reality right now, with our brains arbitrarily choosing to interpret things so that the universe appears infinite in extent.

Then there’s the “holographic principle”. This idea seems to suggest that there are deep connections between modern information theory — the science that underlies telecommunications, including the internet — and the structure of spacetime itself. In addition to the way we describe reality, there appears to be an entirely equivalent way to describe it using one less spatial dimension. There are even reports that an unexpected effect predicted by the second description has been seen in equipment accidentally optimized for its detection.

So duality is not going away from physics anytime soon, regardless of what the philosophers and theologians have to say about monism versus dualism. Might it be fruitful for the theologians to consider what the concept of duality has to add to their debate?

In a way, duality as the existence of multiple descriptions of a single reality, Jesus Christ – “fully man, yet fully God” — is almost too obvious within Christian history. Indeed, the connection between the Father and the Son, with the Holy Ghost thrown in as a third description for good measure, is another application ripe for exploration.

However, what I’d like to explore in this and future posts is the question of whether and where we can replace the notion of dualism between the physical and spiritual in Restoration theology with the notion of duality, so that we can begin to conceptualize the physical and spiritual realms not as separate arenas of reality, but as two translatable descriptions of a single all-encompassing reality.

If the physical and spiritual are governed by principles of duality, not dualism, then things we do on earth may not just affect what happens in heaven, they may actually be the things that happen in heaven, and vice versa.

For example, in LDS theology, certain significant acts are directly sealed — made spiritually real and binding — through covenants marked by rites, while in CofChrist theology, ordinances are viewed as helps in the physical realm for spiritual purposes. But what if reality is put together to be more than these options? What if every moment of life is inherently sealed into the spiritual realm? If every relationship we enhance here is enhanced there. If every relationship we marginalize here is automatically diminished there as surely as gravity drags us toward the earth?

And what, from the other perspective, if the spiritual is acting as well in an ever present way, to seal the purposes of God into the physical realm?

She was the oldest in my family.  My father was a convert, and always referred to her as “the pioneer” of the family.  Perhaps that is why she liked the song so much.  The last verse is the one that always causes me to think about my sister.

And should we die before our journey’s through,
Happy day! All is well!
We then are free from toil and sorrow, too;
With the just we shall dwell!
But if our lives are spared again to see the Saints their rest obtain,
Oh, how we’ll make this chorus swell-
All is well! All is well!

My sister died from a brain tumor.  She struggled through radiation and chemotherapy for nearly 2 years before succumbing.  I often feel like she died before her journey was through, but I am glad she is free from toil and sorrow too.  I often wish her life was spared again, but it wasn’t.

She left behind 4 small children under the age of 10.  Three of them are in college now, and the other is a senior in high school.  They have coped very well, and are excellent people.

My brother died 4 years ago in a tragic auto accident.  He was about the same age as my sister when she died (36).  He also left behind 4 small children under the age of 7.  At the funeral, the closing song was “God Be With You Till We Meet Again.”

I can remember singing this song at the end of meetings, and thinking it was a nice song to end the meeting.  I planned on meeting everyone the next week at church again.  But when it was played at the funeral, it took on a whole new meaning.  I usually can’t sing the song anymore, but I love to listen to it.

God be with you till we meet again;
By His counsels guide, uphold you,
With His sheep securely fold you;
God be with you till we meet again.

Refrain

Till we meet, till we meet,
Till we meet at Jesus’ feet;
Till we meet, till we meet,
God be with you till we meet again.

I can’t wait to see my brother again.  So, what are some songs that touch your heart?

The emphasis on the “physicality of God” even in the spiritual realm grew in concert with notions of the Eternal Family and its role and function in achieving and living in Celestial Glory. The elaboration of this theology was natural as the early church leadership began to push, even if at first secretly, new forms of marriage and family life, but it was not an inevitable evolution of the theology of the 1830 Restoration. For example, no one in the Community of Christ expects that the afterlife is about progressing to populate new worlds with our own spiritual offspring, as Heavenly Father populated our own world. In one denomination, it is the Heavenly Father; in the other it is Heavenly Father, with the seldom spoken inference that there may be Heavenly Mother lurking in the theology as well.

Today, because of this history, Mormons have a well-integrated belief system about how and why the Divine interacts with the physical universe that, nevertheless, is very different from its “prairie cousins”, let alone in comparison to more distantly related Christian denominations. As a prairie cousin with an abiding interest in the theological role of the physical, this fascinates me. LDS theology raises questions about the limits of acceptable definitions of “children of God”, and what God might do to see His children come out on top that would never occur to me in CofChrist theology. These are the kinds of questions I’d like to ask openly in this post.

Let’s look at extreme cases first, and then try to focus in on cases closer to home.

We know that the universe is a violent place. Creation is violent itself, and often involves destruction on scales we can barely comprehend. My favorite example is the “Death Star Galaxy”. We have in that example a small galaxy – a mere few billion stars is small – that has wandered into a radiation jet being emitted by a larger galaxy. The jet is obliterating thousands of solar systems, and any life there, as we watch by telescope.

What does that tell us? Are planets with life so rare that God can let planets be destroyed wholesale without moral consequences? Or perhaps there are not moral consequences because the life there is not human and thus has no spirits? Either way, would God be able to “write off” a great deal of reality under LDS theology because His “children” weren’t involved? He just has to watch over those special few worlds ideal for humanity. The worlds with just the right size, at just the right distance from stars of the proper temperature and age, with the proper orbital stability and a big brother planet like Jupiter nearby to protect against too frequent impacts from comets. The list of requirements is lengthy, but with infinite space to play around in, they’re bound to pop up here and there even if God doesn’t directly favor them with a helping hand.

Or perhaps God has to actively “weed out” competition for his favored species. You could interpret the evidence that way, too. Consider the destruction of the dinosaurian ecosystems 65 million years ago, or the even more catastrophic Permian extinction scores of millions of years still earlier. Our existence and physical forms today depend in complex, but critical, ways on details of those events. For example, the locations within their general orbits of all the inner planets of our solar system, including the earth, are known to be chaotic on only the order of 5 million years. Start out an orbital simulation with the earth relocated by as little as a millimeter, and in 5 million years, the earth could be on the other side of the sun. A “miracle” performed a hundred million years ago that protects humanity from destruction by asteroid strike or clears the world of big reptilians so mammals (and man) can take over could be too small to notice. Far easier than Moses calling on God to make the sun stand still during battle or parting the Red Sea.

What LDS theology would define to be human gets tougher to distinguish as we get closer to humanity. How close? Well, within the last few weeks, evidence has been published on the results of sequencing Neanderthal DNA. The evidence, first reported in Science, but more accessible here at Science News, shows that modern humans whose lines remained in Africa do not share Neandertal DNA. However, all of the rest of us get one to four percent of our genes from interbreeding with Neandertals that occurred after leaving Africa 45,000 or so years ago. We don’t carry Neandertal body types, but we do seem to carry something important from that population in our internal chemistry and in our brains. Eternal Family reunions might be more surprising than our expectations.

So, did the Neandertals die out because our body type was a little more divine than theirs? Or were the ones who bred with Homo sapiens the more righteous ones? Or do we extend the moral capability and need for redemption to an extinct species at all? Do we instead decide that we are all descended from ancestors who practiced bestiality? Were physical specimens of humans who had no Spirits walking around contemporaneously with Adam?

Look closer now as we get to Biblical or Jaredite times. Now we picture God as acting in detail to favor one nation over another, one individual over another. We try to point to specific reasons for that favoritism in terms of justice, mercy, or obedience in this life or in preexistence, and we can often convince ourselves that such reasons exist. I could argue a very good case, for example, that slaughter of entire Canaanite cities down to the last child might actually produce fewer casualties in the long run.

But the more uncomfortable I become unless I make the case in such terms, the more I realize that tying God’s plan of salvation to things other than intelligence, or justice, or mercy, or obedience – properties that have little to do with the shape or functions of my body – raises doubts. Wouldn’t exalted beings give up such narrow notions of the boundaries of humanity as part of the progression toward exaltation itself?

So I look at the criteria with which we define relationships with God through their physical manifestations – species, race, gender, diet, clothes – and I wonder. Is God really concerned about those things when He decides to claim His children. Or are we just engaging in a very destructive and provincial form of sibling rivalry?

In my Father’s house are many mansions. Maybe some reefs and rookeries, too. Maybe some hives for natural clones or collective minds.

And if that’s true, then certainly there are places for Homo sapiens with same-sex attraction, or childless couples, or singles – every form of Eternal Family we might imagine from the occurrence of those forms here on earth.

I’m 1/16 th Chippewa and don’t even look a little Indian! I figure from my knee down is pure Chippewa and  for whatever reason  I am pretty proud of that. In the afterlife if possible I would like that section preserved if God sees fit.  Below is my Great Grandmother and Grandmother — you can see even from one generation to the next how things change.

I would also like to see my ancestors who are pure Chippewa with all their beautiful dark skin and get to know them as they were living on the earth before God changes their skin colour to white.

We have met an Elder who the sisters of all ages seem to swoon over — he is half Tongan and half Hawaiian. There is no other way to put it but he is a lady killer! We discussed this subject, and it doesn’t seem to bother him if the doctrine does literally mean white and not pure.  He doesn’t mind if he becomes white in the afterlife. It seems to disturb me more than it does him. It’s something he and his family have come to grips with.

I guess I better get down to what has caused my dissonance.   Here are some statements by the prophets about a Book of Mormon passage found in 2 Nephi 30:6 regarding a change Lamanites would experience if they embraced the Book of Mormon.  In every edition save one (1840), the words “white and delightsome” were used.  In the 1981 edition, the editors reverted to the 1840 edition’s “pure and delightsome” wording.

Prophet Statements

President Brigham Young
“You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation …When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people.” (Journal of Discourses 7:336)

W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith:

“It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.’” In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to marry with the “natives.” (Sunstone, November 1993, footnote #5, pg. 52)

Apostle Spencer W. Kimball

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today…. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather….These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.” (Apostle Elder Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967)

2 Nephi 5:21

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

3 Nephi 2:12-15 teaches that dark-skinned Lamanites who converted unto the Lord had their curse taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.

“White” versus “Pure” (Maxwell Institute)

According to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Nephi, speaking of the latter-day restoration, discussed the future conversion of Lehi’s descendants: “And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people” (2 Nephi 30:6). In 1840 the Book of Mormon was “carefully revised by the translator,” Joseph Smith, and in that edition the expression “white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome.” This change seems to reflect the Prophet’s concern that modern readers might misinterpret this passage as a reference to racial changes rather than to changes in righteousness. Possibly his sojourns in Ohio and Missouri had altered his perspective of the racial connotations of the term white in the contemporary United States, particularly among slaves and slaveholders. He may not have gained much understanding of this matter during his upbringing in New England and New York State, where slavery was not as common.

Unfortunately for subsequent Latter-day Saint interpreters, following the Prophet’s death the changes in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon were not carried over into subsequent printings, which were instead based on an edition prepared by the Twelve Apostles in Great Britain after a copy of an earlier edition. The apostles, being in England, were not familiar with the 1840 edition. Consequently, Latter-day Saints did not reap the benefit of the Prophet’s clarification until it was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon.  Some critics have been fond of citing statements of earlier Latter-day Saint leaders, who once interpreted 2 Nephi 30:6 to mean that conversion leads to a change of skin color; however, to use such statements today is anachronistic at best and disingenuous at worst since these statements were all expressed previous to the 1981 correction and merely echo a misinterpretation of the Book of Mormon text rather than the authoritative text itself. Moreover, a change in Lamanite skin color was clearly never intended by the “white/pure and delightsome” passage that the Prophet Joseph modified because it does not refer to the Lamanites at all, but to the Nephites and Jews in the latter days who turn to Christ (see 2 Nephi 30:1—7).

But is the Prophet’s change from “white” to “pure” justified in the scriptural context? The answer is yes. The terms white and pure are used synonymously in Daniel 7:9, Revelation 15:6, and Doctrine and Covenants 110:3. They are also found together in a number of passages where they clearly refer to those who are purified and redeemed by Christ (Alma 5:24; 13:12; 32:42; Mormon 9:6; D&C 20:6). Similarly, Mormon expressed the hope that the Nephites “may once again be a delightsome people” (Words of Mormon 1:8).

Poll

[poll id ="146"]

[poll id = "148"]

[poll id = "149"]

[poll id = "150"]

Where I have dissonance or questions

1. Is from how I understand the Book of Mormon and statements of past prophets contradict our view of it being pure today.
2. There has been no church conference talk that I am aware of clarifying the teachings of the past prophets i.e. President Kimball white vs pure. Many members I would suggest aren’t clear on our past beliefs and our current progressive belief on pure.
3. If these were president Kimball’s own personal views why haven’t the church come out with a statement expounding on this?
4. As a church, are we resolute that this was a clarification of the word white — never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would turn white upon a conversion to the gospel; but referring to a cleaner state of heart? This hypothesis in my mind fails to make clear other passages in the Book of Mormon that still make a connection with “iniquity” and skin color. See, for example, 2 Nephi 5:21 as well as past prophet statements.
5. Why did it take God 140 years to clarify this misunderstanding?
6. If we quote what President Kimball said in 1967 conference would we be considered anachronistic today?
7. Is FARMS saying Apostle Kimball’s views are out of date , old fashioned, obsolete?

“Brothers” is a retelling of the story of two of the foremost personalities in the heavenly realms — Jesus and Lucifer.  The two are not named in the play, but call each other “brother.”  Bronson’s striking script is never overstated, and depends upon the intelligence and familiarity of the audience with Mormon and scriptural themes to make connections.  I very much enjoyed this subtlety, which allowed the story to unfold without announcing what was happening or locating where the action was taking place, but let the viewers discover it on their own.

Bronson is playful with Mormon theology in this work, never straying from the bounds of LDS orthodoxy, but sometimes approaching uncomfortable ambiguities commonly found in Mormonism.  It was especially fascinating to follow Bronson’s ruminations on the Plan of Salvation presented by his Satan character as he expounded upon his reasoning for rejecting the plan and his ideas for “improving” it.  Another potent scene again involved Satan mocking humanity’s constant querying about the presence of suffering in the world:

“Why, why, why?”  …mortals waste so much time on the most  pathetic questions.

“Why does it have to be this way?” It doesn’t HAVE to be this way, it just IS!

“Why did Mommy have to die?” Why WOULDN’T she die?  Everybody dies.

“Why is the sky blue?” Who CARES?!

“Why, why, why?”  WHY NOT?? Is there anything more pathetic?

The symbolism in the play was elegant — from the stage set to the four simple and beautiful centerpieces changed with each scene, to the understated change in costume done by removing an outer coat.

Every artistic work has its weak points, and this one was no exception, so as a reviewer I am compelled to present them.  Following the play, the playwright/director and actors made themselves available for questions from the audience.  During this session, Dave Hanson who played the Jesus part explained that he approached the character as being human with touches of divinity, instead of vice-versa, as the Savior is usually presented.  Hanson did an excellent job of portraying this mortality, and the all-too-human sibling rivalry which was a major theme of the play.  However, he never quite reached the spark of divinity I think he aspired to.  His almost spritely excitement about the plan in the pre-existent realm disappeared completely once he entered mortality — and I would have loved to have seen traces of this personality carried over throughout the play.  At times I felt that Hanson presented as morose when he was going for majestic.

Elwon Bakly, who played the other brother, has a rich, gorgeous stage voice.  But since the play was presented in a small (less than 100 seat) theater, it completely overpowered the space.  I wished that he would have expressed strong emotion through more nuance in his vocal range rather than in volume.  Since the theater was in a half-round, the blocking should have been more sophisticated, allowing all of the seats an equal experience.  I sat in one of the side seats, and there were long periods of time during the most dramatic scenes when I never saw either of the actors’ faces.

Nonetheless, I found the play an engrossing treatment of a uniquely Mormon theology of the relationship between Jesus and his brother, Lucifer.  It might give further ammunition to evangelicals who decry this aspect of our doctrine, but I applaud the exploration and am convinced that it will be enjoyable and thought-provoking to both serious and casual purveyors of Mormonism, as well as those with an LDS background.

The actors answering questions following Friday’s showing of “Brothers”

A statement has been circulated that asserts in part that the youth of the Church today “were generals in the war in heaven . . . and someone will ask you, ‘Which of the prophet’s time did you live in?’ and when you say ‘Gordon B. Hinckley’ a hush will fall, . . . and all in attendance will bow at your presence. [You were held back six thousand years because you were the most talented, most obedient, most courageous, and most righteous.]”*

This is a false statement. It is not Church doctrine. At various times, this statement has been attributed erroneously to President Thomas S. Monson, President Henry B. Eyring, President Boyd K. Packer, and others. None of these Brethren made this statement. Stake presidents and bishops should see that it is not used in Church talks, classes, bulletins, or newsletters. Priesthood leaders should correct anyone who attempts to perpetuate its use by any means, in accordance with “Statements Attributed to Church Leaders,” Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1 (2006), 173.

Although this is not Church doctrine, I don’t see much which distinguishes it from the following quotation in our approved Sunday School Lesson #2:

President Ezra Taft Benson taught:

“God has held you in reserve to make your appearance in the final days before the second coming of the Lord. Some individuals will fall away; but the kingdom of God will remain intact to welcome the return of its head — even Jesus Christ. While our generation will be comparable in wickedness to the days of Noah, when the Lord cleansed the earth by flood, there is a major difference this time. It is that God has saved for the final inning some of His strongest children, who will help bear off the kingdom triumphantly. …

“… Make no mistake about it—you are a marked generation. There has never been more expected of the faithful in such a short period of time than there is of us” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [1988], 104–5).

I’ve been scratching my head all evening wondering why the Church would come out so emphatically against the “generals in heaven” quote, denouncing it as false doctrine, and yet retain these very similar teachings in the manual. I suppose it might be because of the notion that someone in heaven would bow to anyone other than a member of the Godhead; however, if we become gods when we are exalted that’s not as heretical as it seems. Perhaps the problem lies in the substitution of being chosen as a heavy responsibility for a kind of entitlement or specialness. But this is very subtle. The entire Sunday School lesson, based on Abraham 3 and Moses 4:1–4 expounds our own unique spin on Calvinism and the doctrine of election. In the vision recorded in Abraham 3, the Lord showed Abraham the Council in Heaven that was held before the earth was created. Present at the Council were “many of the noble and great ones,” including (as enumerated in D&C 138) Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elias, Malachi, Elijah, Nephite prophets, Joseph Smith, Hyrum, Brigham, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, “and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times.” These spirits, the lesson teaches, were foreordained to do important things for the kingdom of God during their mortal lives. Including ourselves in that list of scriptural V.I.P.s is heady nectar.

That’s a very careful word — “foreordination.” We teach that even though a person is foreordained to a calling, that calling is dependent on the person’s worthiness and willingness to accept it. We may have been righteous in the premortal “first estate,” but that doesn’t guarantee the keeping of our second estate here on earth. In this way, we stay a pace away from predestination. But foreordination is a loaded word for twentieth-century Mormons.

Episode 22 of Season 7 and the series finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is titled “Chosen.” In this episode Buffy comes up with a plan which involves Willow performing a difficult spell. The magic activates Potentials all over the world, defying the tradition of only one Slayer per generation. As the screen shows a montage of young women, Buffy’s voice-over says:

From now on, every girl in the world who might be a slayer…
A young woman stands at the plate staring at the pitcher, waiting to bat. She looks a little nervous.

will be a slayer.
A young woman breathes heavily as she leans on her locker for support.

Every girl who could have the power…
A young woman is lying across the floor, having fallen out of her chair.

will have the power… can stand up,
In a Japanese-style dining room, a young woman stands up at family dinner.

will stand up.
A young woman grabs the wrist of a man who’s trying to slap her face, preventing him.

Slayers… every one of us. Make your choice.
The girl at the plate changes from nervous to confident, smiling as she waits for the pitch.
Are you ready to be strong?

This scene gives me the same kind of feeling I used to have as a young adult, when countless Church leaders spoke to groups of us telling us that WE were the chosen, saved for the Latter-Days, to prepare the world and usher in the Millennium. That’s the feeling I got when I heard the word “foreordination.” It still gives me shivers, thinking about it. I wasn’t a member yet, but in 1970 I was 11 years old when President Joseph Fielding Smith declared: “Our young people … are the nobility of heaven, a choice and chosen generation who have a divine destiny. Their spirits have been reserved to come forth in this day when the gospel is on the earth, and when the Lord needs valiant servants to carry on his great latter-day work.” I was part of that generation. But then I had children, and they grew, and became the Youth of Zion themselves, and suddenly the leaders were telling THEM they were the marked ones. “This is the greatest age in the history of the world, and its youth are a chosen generation,” President Hinckley told them in 1995. And then in November, my daughter brought forth my firstborn grandchild, and a third generation is beginning to rise up since I heard those words.

OT SS Lesson #2 states that its objective is “To help class members understand the doctrine of foreordination and their own responsibility to help build up the kingdom of God and bring souls to Christ.” Do you think this is the intended meaning of the scripture block in Abraham 3, Moses 4, and D&C 138? Do you think you were part of the Council in Heaven described there? Does the doctrine of foreordination as you have been taught it give you a sense of specialness and entitlement? Were you taught you would usher in the Millennium? Do you feel your day of being a chosen generation of youth has passed you by?

________________________________________________________________________________
*Bracketed portion of the circulated quote not included in the First Presidency letter.

In the following video which lasts about 2 minutes, Jean talks about the stigma some members may feel if they choose a civil wedding ceremony. The other preseding videos last approximately 2 minutes each.

Temple Wedding Petition 3 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 1 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 2 Here

Temple Wedding Petition .org here

The actual petition is found here

I was raised in a part member family and remember when my brother was married my parents were disappointed that they weren’t able to go to the temple and see their son get married. It would have been nice for our family to have seen it. I wonder if it makes non- members, or those on the fringe, feel excluded from the church and may damper future missionary work with families. I live in England and it’s the law that there is a civil wedding which usually takes place in the chapel.

Recently a nephew was married and was schedueled to get married in the Salt Lake temple. Because much of the family couldn’t witness the wedding they decided last minute to have a civil wedding. He and his wife since their marriage enjoy going to the temple but have to wait a year now to be married in the temple.

I wonder if there is a church loophol if you want your non- member family to see your wedding you could get married in America and fly to a country where the church allows civil marriages followed by a temple marriage after?

What are your thoughts and experiences?

Just to make it very clear that there is no advocacy on the part of MM.

I faced my own personal dilemma after my Mother died in March of 2007. While she and my Dad did not disown me for joining the LDS Church, they were not happy about my decision. My Mother, in particular, made sure that she voiced her opinion strongly from time to time. She told me once that she was afraid I would give all the money I received from her estate to THAT Church. And she made it quite clear she was not interested in being Baptized a Mormon after she died. Even though I tried to explain the idea of having the right to choose to accept the ordinances performed for our deceased, she was still adamantly against it.

So, I always wondered what I would do after they were gone. Would I respect their wishes and not do their Temple Work or do it anyway?

I decided to go ahead and do the work.

Here was my rationale:

1. It is better to do as we are asked to do to seek after our dead and perform vicarious work on their behalf.
2. If I didn’t do it, who would? Maybe my children or their children? Could I count on that? At this stage of their lives, the answer is no. So who would do it?
3. They will have the choice to accept or reject the ordinances. This is according to our theology. I assume that my parent’s eternal perspective has changed on the other side of the veil.
4. What is the worst that could happen? Either they yell at me on the other side for not respecting their wishes, provided they even know I did it. Or, none of this true and it doesn’t matter anyway.

But, what is the best that could happen? That their perspective has changed so much, they embrace the Gospel and thank me for doing their work. And that we will be together as a family forever.

Seemed to me it is worth the risk to have it turn out for the best.

Besides, they’ve yelled at me before, I can take it.

As I read the scriptures, listen to conference talks, and other materials about the Church, I get the feeling sometimes that things can be a little vague.  Human nature seems to dictate that an absolute answer is always preferred over ambiguity and vagueness.

But in the religious realm, it is not to be.  Vagueness is defined as not clear in meaning or application or, indistinctly felt, perceived, understood, or recalled; hazy.

The fact that there are so many religions and religious denominations seems to confirm this idea. For instance, if there is one God, our Heavenly Father, why does He seem to manifest Himself so differently to different people, to different cultures, and at different times?

For example, In the LDS Church, we believe that Baptism is an essential ordnance to enter the kingdom of God and to progress toward eternal life and salvation.  And there are Christian denominations that echo that same idea.  However, there are just as many, maybe more, who, reading the same scriptures, deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  Vagueness occurs because the scriptures are not 100% clear on that point.  Within the LDS Church, the Prophet Joseph Smith did make it clear, in the Fourth Article of Faith, that Baptism is essential.

In another, more contemporary example, many conservative Christians and Jews, for that matter, look at scriptures in Leviticus to proclaim that Homosexual activity is wrong. (Leviticus 18:22, see also Romans 1:27, 29-31, 32) However, religious organizations and individuals more sympathetic toward the Gay Movement have interpreted those scriptures very differently and say that they do not even address the issue of homosexuality.  (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm) The scriptures do not come right out and address the issue so clearly it cannot be open to interpretation. Vagueness.

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 89, the Word of Wisdom verse 9, “hot drinks are not for the body or belly.” But what is a hot drink?  Anyone’s first read of that verse would lead them to conclude it was ANY drink that was HOT  That does not seem terribly vague.

But wait, there’s more!

In 1842 Hyrum Smith, Assistant President of the Church and also the Presiding Patriarch, provided an interpretation of the Word of Wisdom’s proscription of “hot drinks”:

“And again “hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;” there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.  (Times and Seasons, 1842-06-01, vol. 3, p. 800.

But it does not refer to hot chocolate, hot herbal tea, hot barley drinks, etc. But, many have also speculated as to why coffee and tea?  Could it be the caffeine? If so, that means cola drinks, or anything else that might have caffeine in it.  You mean like chocolate? Wait a minute! I thought hot chocolate was ok? What about Mountain Dew, its not a cola drink?  Here is a case where something seems pretty straightforward but has been made somewhat vague.

Here are a few other topics that have been vague at one time or another:

• Tithing: Net or Gross?
• New and Everlasting  Covenant of Marriage: Plurality of Wives or just Eternal marriage ( Sealing)
• Missouri Extermination Order: Kill them or just run them out of town?
• United Order: Voluntary or the Law of Consecration?
• Blacks and the Priesthood:  Doctrine, policy or  just plain prejudice?
• Many, many more

So why would Gospel Principles be Vague?

First, maybe they are not all that vague.  Maybe, you need to find the right source of information. If the scriptures seem vague, what have the Living Prophets said?  If that is vague, what does the Lord tell you when you pray about it or what does the Spirit testify to you about it?  Still nothing?  What are you willing t o take on faith alone?

Second, We do need to develop faith. “NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  (Hebrews 11:1). Some things have no immediate answer and must be taken on faith alone until a later time.

Thirdly, we are here on earth as a test.  Ultimately, we decide for ourselves the path we walk. Like the verse at the beginning of this post, if we did not have our agency to decide for ourselves and had to be told each and every little detail, we would not progress to reach the goal of living with Our Father in Heaven and His Son throughout eternity.

Sure, things can be a bit vague and uncertain at times.  But it is part of the great Plan of happiness for us to endure to the end.

So, the question at hand is how do you deal with the vagueness and ambiguity? Perhaps you think there is none. Feel free to list your vague Gospel Principles.

Please explain your answer.

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Here is my point – my two points, really.

1) This great sermon was delivered as a higher level discourse to his most dedicated followers – including those who eventually would form the new faith of Christianity.  Its standards absolutely are not easy, and its directives absolutely are not natural.

Sometimes we hold the general population of the Church (and each other and others) to these standards, while Jesus himself took great care not to do so of the general population of his followers. This often is a good example of unrealistic expectations – and of demanding others live a standard we ourselves are unable to master.

2) This great sermon was delivered mostly to the MEN who would form the leadership of his movement, even though there is no reason to believe that the listeners were all men.  (I personally believe there were women present.)

QUESTION:

Did the gender composition of the listening group have an impact on the content of the sermon?

Generally speaking, the list of attributes included in the Beatitudes are considered throughout history to be feminine.  Jesus was speaking primarily to men about how to change and grow (repent) and become godlike.  So,

1) Might the Sermon on the Mount have been different if the primary audience had been women?  If so, how?

2) How can we take the general message of repentance (change and growth and the acquisition of godly characteristics) and use it to achieve the proper balance we need to become “perfect” (complete, whole, fully developed)?

3) Must every individual acquire all the characteristics listed – or can a spouse/companion share that endeavor and, between two, create one united, balanced, “prefect” whole?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” (D&C 101:78)

The entire topic of choice and free will did not originate with the LDS Church. For hundreds of years, philosophers and theologians have contemplated the idea of free will, both in a religious and a natural sense. It is not my intention to discuss these ideas, but if you are interested, you can start at Wikipedia on Free Will and Free Will in Theology . I wish to focus my attention to the LDS concept of agency and how we are affected by its use in our lives.

“Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.  All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” (D&C 93:29-30)”

We are taught that there was a war in heaven before the world was.  That some chose to follow Satan and were cast out.  Those that chose to follow the plan of Our Heavenly Father and Jesus also chose to come to earth, assume a mortal body, and be subjected to the trials of this earth in the hope we would find the Gospel, live a life of obedience and sacrifice and gain our reward to return to live with them throughout eternity.  This simple lesson is taught in primary and by the missionaries to investigators.  But the power to choose and the possible ramifications of our choices are much more complex and difficult than a simple lesson would indicate.

Every choice we make has consequences associated with it.  And while it is assumed that choices are made between good and evil, sometimes choices have to be made between good and good.

“And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. “ (Moses 3:16-17)

When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they were forced to make a choice between two seemingly good things.  That of being obedient to the Father and being fruitful and multiplying, thus creating the mortal human race.  Luckily for us, they choose the later.  But in doing so, they suffered the consequences of their act of obedience by introducing a number of bad things to the world such as death, sin, sickness, suffering, trials, etc.  Many good things also happened like happiness, joy, children, blessings, and the ability to choose.

What can we choose?

There are many basis areas when we have almost complete control of our choices.  We decide which way to go.

• Many Life Choices – Where to live, where to go to school, what kind of career to have, with whom to associate, who we marry (Gay folks notwithstanding for now), whether or not to have children, etc. Those sort of things.

• Our Morality – What kind of person will we be, law abiding, honest, trustworthy, loyal to others. Much of which is driven by:

• Our Religion and Faith – We can choose whether we will follow a set of religious principles or not.  We can choose which religion we want to belong to or identify with and we can choose to be active in that religion or not.  We can choose to follow the religion of our parents or we can go in a different direction entirely.  We can even choose if we want to believe in God at all or not.  I firmly believe that having faith is a choice reinforced by our experiences, both spiritual and temporal.  On the other hand, I can also see that not having faith or losing faith can be the result of the same thing. But, I think the key idea is the choice.  We can choose to believe in spite of the lack of experiences which reinforce our choice. I know this is hard, but as Paul said,

“faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

We can continue to hope those experiences will come.

• How we react – We can choose how to react to things around us.  In spite of the hand which we are dealt (see below), we can let the things we cannot control, control us, or we can choose to take control of our situation and make it better.  As a child, this is not always possible or we may not have a sufficient maturity level to fully comprehend it. As an adult, we can gain complete control over most of the circumstances and the ill effects of our life.  In some cases, it requires incredibly hard work, sometimes alone or with the help of others, God and our faith, but many people have overcome horrendous circumstances to go on to lead highly productive, happy lives.

What we can’t choose?

While we have this ability to control our choices for most of our lives, there are a few things we cannot choose or where we lose our ability to choose.

• The circumstances of our birth – As far as we know, we do not or cannot choose who our parents will be, the circumstances of our birth, such as where we are born, whether our parents are rich or born, whether they will be good parents, and whether we get to be brought up in the Gospel or not.  We cannot always control the health or condition of our physical bodies.  We may have chronic problems or physical limitations.  It appears we just have to deal with it one way or another.

I’ve always been somewhat bothered by the seeming randomness of it all, whether it is part of God’s plan or just luck, good or bad.  And if it is part of God’s plan, why some people never find the gospel in this life?  Isn’t that what we are supposed to do?  In other words, “Jimmy, you promised!”  But can he really deliver?  I know we are given trials in this life to help us improve, but some folks just seem to get a disproportionate share.

• The consequences of our own decisions – If we have the complete freedom to choose, we do not have the freedom to choose what happens as a result of many of our choices, good and bad.  For example, the economy.  We could have done everything right with regard to preparing for a “rainy day” and still suffer some effects of the bad economy we now face, like losing a job.  We could have mitigated the effects substantially by following the things we are taught at Church, like having a year’s supply, staying out of debt, saving our money, etc.  If we become addicted to drugs, alcohol or other harmful things, we lose the freedom to choose to do it or not do it without a lot of painful effort. If we choose to be dishonest or commit a crime, and get caught, we cannot control our punishment. If we stop following the commandments, turn our back on the church and leave it, we cannot control our eternal consequences. That is, if all we have learned is true. If not, then maybe we will be OK after all.

• The consequences of the decision of others – If God is truly watching over us, then the actions of others should be mitigated by what God has planned for us personally.  That is, IF that is the case.  But, if God allows the actions of others to affect our lives in spite of “the Plan,” then we are subject to other’s poor choices.  Such as we are driving down the road, minding out own business, following all traffic rules and we are hit and killed by another driver, who is not following the rules. That sort of thing happens every day.  Part of the Plan?  Perhaps so, but we had no choice in the matter.  I suppose we could have chosen to stay home and in bed that day. But, as my grandmother used to say, “Who knew?”

There would be some who might say, “well, if you are really in tune with the Holy Ghost, He would warn you that a bad thing might happen and to avoid that spot at that time.”  Yeah, right.  Yes, it could happen, it might happen, but sometimes does not.  Seemingly, good, God-fearing people die all the time under circumstances they did not or could not control.  Part of the Plan?  Maybe.  There are a million other examples I could cite.

As I stated in the beginning, I think choice is among the most important gifts God has given us. We can use it wisely or use it foolishly.  Our happiness on this earth and in the eternities seems to depend on the choices we make.

Do you think choice is that important?

He was the Bishop of his ward, and his wife had been cancer free for just over a year.  His son flew home for the weekend, after which he returned to finish his mission. I spoke with his wife briefly at the viewing, and something she said has been weighing on my mind ever since.  She said, essentially:

He lost his mother about six weeks ago, and his aunt passed away five days later.  We had reached peace with death and were focused on life. I know it will be hard in a couple of weeks when everyone gets back to their own lives and I am alone to deal with not having him here, but I believe in the Atonement, the Plan of Salvation and the promises of the temple.  It will be hard, but I will be OK.

What I want to share from this experience is not related directly to those things she mentioned at the end (the Atonement, Plan and temples), but what she said at the beginning – being at peace.

As much as anything else, when I die I want to be at peace with death – but I also want to be at peace with life.  I don’t want to be bitter or angry or upset before I die – and I don’t want to live in that state, either; I want to be at peace.

I believe that is up to me – that it is my responsibility.  The natural man inclination is to blame others for our feelings – for whether or not we are at peace.  I understand the necessity for anger, grief and/or cognitive dissonance when certainty is shattered, ambiguity accelerates and testimony is tried.  I really do get that need.  However, I believe reconciliation of some kind that leads to peace and charity is critical.

I wish I had an easy answer.  I wish I had a universal, practical method that I knew would work for every individual.  The only answer I have is that there is peace in letting go – that there is peace in cutting others slack – there is peace in real charity – there is peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  There isn’t always peace in the human organizations in which that Gospel is interpreted and taught, just as there isn’t always peace in even the most ideal families, but the peace the Gospel brings can influence and strengthen the peace that then can be brought individually into the Church – the community of spiritual family.

I hope I or my wife never has to deal with what this good Bishop’s wife is experiencing right now and in the near future.  I hope we die together, at a ripe old age.  More than that, however, I hope that when either of us dies, the other is at peace – because she or I simply has become a peaceful person.

As I strive to be a peacemaker and, thereby, to be called a child of God, I understand that the first peace I must influence and create is within my own heart and soul – that I can’t spread peace externally unless I am at peace internally.  For those who now are NOT at peace, I hope they can look for peace even before understanding.  That might seem counter-intuitive at first, but I believe peace can bring understanding – and that understanding, in and of itself, rarely brings peace – largely because the quest for understanding never ends.  Peace, on the other hand, can last and endure even during circumstances that cannot be understood – like the unexpected death of a good Bishop.

God bless you, Denny.  You will be missed.

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

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).

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.

So where do these medical miracles come from?  Certainly, from the minds and work of Doctors and medical researchers.  In most cases, many years of study, trials and treatments bring about these things. But, really, who is the author of these miracles?

The first thought that comes to my mind, is that these things come from God.  That He has given the gift of intelligence to the people to discover medical miracles that prolong life.  That He inspires them and allows certain positive things to happen to make these advances a reality. Because all good things come from God.  I don’t think you’d get an argument about this from a religious person.  Secularists would argue otherwise, but then they argue anything that has to do with God and religion.

Here is the LDS Church position on prolonging life:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe that allowing a person to die from natural causes by removing a patient from artificial means of life support, as in the case of a long-term illness, falls within the definition of euthanasia.  When dying from such an illness or an accident becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence.  Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable.  These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer. ” (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/euthanasia-and-prolonging-life

But, on the other hand, I wonder if God, in His infinite wisdom and perfect Plan of Salvation would allow unnecessary prolonging of a life that might, through the natural progression of things, pass away from the infliction.  It seems that He allows those inflictions as part of the cycle of life.  Could it be that these medical miracles actually thwart the Plan of the Father?  Could these seemly positive things be the product of him whose purpose is to put obstacles in the way of God’s children who try to realize their greatest reward, that of Eternal Life?  Could these medical miracles be his work? 

Could it be Satan?

Kind of a crazy premise I know, but I can think of a number of reasons why it could be so.

For an older person, at the final stages of his/her life, it would seem cruel to intervene medically to prevent that person from passing through the veil to the other side to a possible reunion of loved ones, an assignment and peace and rest from the trials of this life.

For an infant, born prematurely with a life threatening condition, needing only to gain a mortal body, being hooked to wires and tubes, treated for months to receive a partial life, with multiple challenges and a difficult existence.

Think of the resources, both time and money that go into prolonging a life. The millions of dollars poured into research.  The profits made by huge corporations.  The fact it can drain a family’s life savings, leaving them in debt forever.

Now, there are many, many examples of lives being prolonged that are fruitful and worthwhile.  There is no doubt about that. 

There are many stories about miracles that have happened to cure someone of an infliction.  But, in many of those cases, they are without medical intervention and a mystery to medical personnel.  That is very different than what I am discussing.  Those non-medical miracles are given to us by God.

So, what do you think?  Again, I know it is crazy, but it is something I thought about.

You dropped down into this crazy, frenetic, gloomy world; stumble and trip in the darkness, trying to feel your way through the valley of shadows.  Nothing seems to work right.

.

.

.

You make mistakes, some of which cause deep pains of regret.  If only you had known better …  but then again, how could you have known?  You had to experience it first hand to understand.

People have done wrong to you!  They hurt you.  Where is the justice?  They should be made to pay.  Somehow, an eye for an eye does not satisfy.

Two people are blind now.  The pain remains.

.

.

.

.

If only you could go back and become a little child again, innocent, hands and face cleaned up, band aid on your skinned knee, clothes mended, and a warm meal in your belly.  Is there a way to go back in time, hit the cosmic reset button and do that over again?  No.  The road has many lanes, but they all go one direction.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.

It’s going to be ok.  God knows you are making mistakes.  You are loved.  You are good.  You are totally accepted as you are.  Let go of your anger and your hurt.  Lay down your guilt.  Can you do that?  Do you want to?  The decision is yours when you are ready.  You may have to do this many times.  Don’t let it paralyze you, afraid to continue walking.  Don’t carry that heavy burden like a cross.  Give it to Him.  He will trade you for peace.

Follow the path of the Savior through the valley.  He made it to the other side.  You will get there too.

The majority of the lesson centers on section 76 of the Doctrine & Covenants, which relates a vision received by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in the John Johnson home in Hiram, OH (where both were tarred & feathered by the mob, injuring Sidney Ridgon’s head in the process, which always made me wonder if he was quite right after that.  But I digress.)  The photo to the right is the actual room in which they received it.  Joseph Smith had been working on his translation of the Bible in 1832 (in the actual room in the picture).

“From sundry revelations which had been received,” the Prophet later said, “it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body, the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one.”  (1832)

Joseph had just read John 5:29:

And shall ^acome forth; they that have done good, unto the ^bresurrection of life; and they that have done ^cevil, unto the resurrection of ^ddamnation.

When he and Sidney were pondering what this meant, a vision opened to them in which they saw God the Father, Jesus on his right hand, the three degrees of glory, and Satan separated from the rest with those who follow him.  This is an interesting example of an effort to translate resulting in an entirely new revelation, similar to the Book of Moses and Matthew 24 in the POGP.

Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.  [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.  (1844)

This manual is just chock full of King Follett discourse.  Just sayin’.

Q:  Is this idea intimidating or does the idea of progress make it easier to handle?

Q:  In our eternal progression, why do you think we need to improve “from one small degree to another”?  Is this how you learn and grow?  Why do some people stop progressing?

• they are they who received the testimony of Jesus, (received meaning accepted or just heard it?)
• and believed on his name (so, must be Christian, at least eventually)
• and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—that by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;  (so, correct ordinances are necessary.  Because of the rite itself or because of making a commitment and promise that changes your demeanor?)
• and who overcome by faith,  (rather than by logic, brute force or personality)
• and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. (sealed in marriage or through being endowed?  does this mean communal salvation – e.g. being sealed to all the Saints?)
• They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.  (I always wonder if we’re talking about Jesus or Adam on this one).
• They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things— (given all things in this life or the hereafter?  things meaning “truths” or actual things?  This seems to contrast with the telestial people below who are getting tripped up by God; maybe this is just a byproduct of being free from the snares of our own bad behavior.)
• they are they who are priests and kings,  (but HUMBLE priests & kings, priestesses & queens)
• who have received of his fulness,  (what is ‘his fulness’?  shrank not to drink the bitter cup?  being aware of and accepting the fulness of truths?  something else?)
• and of his glory;  (so, to receive of his glory, we have to be sanctified enough not to be consumed by it)
• and are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.  (why does Melchizedek always get so much credit?  BOM usually just lists the order of the Son of God.  Where are the editors?)
• Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— (does “sons of God” qualify or soften the meaning here, making it clear we are not “equal” with God?)
• wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.  (much better version of community property.  It’s all about who’s pitching in, after all.)
• These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
• These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.  (This doesn’t refer to men as “judges in Israel,” so maybe those guys are less empowered subordinates with a multi-level hierarchical approval process for damning people; or maybe it’s like an interview process and God & Jesus are the ultimate decision makers).
• These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.  (I love that phrase “just men made perfect.”  Not perfect men made judges.)
• These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.  (More on the bodies in a moment).

Terrestrial – Pepsi Glory (We’re #2, so we try harder!)

There’s a list of those who will receive Terrestrial glory in D&C 76:  81-85, 100-106, 110-112:

• “Behold, these are they who died without law; (so, like those guys in the Blue Lagoon? Does this mean they can’t inherit celestial under any circumstances?  That doesn’t sound quite right.)
• and also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.  (So, what if they never heard it in the first place or had really bad missionaries?)
• “These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.  (Unwitting dupes?)
• These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.  (Interesting word choice.  So, what is “his fulness”?)
• These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.  (Christians who reject theosis?  ‘Cause that’s what it sounds like.)
• “Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.  (That makes me wonder – are our resurrected bodies better or worse based on degrees of glory – e.g. no cellulite in Celestial?  That’s motivating!)
• These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.”  (“not valiant” means what?  And “crown over the kingdom” implies we rule rather than being subjects.)

Q:  How can we avoid being “blinded by the craftiness of men”? What can we do to help others avoid being blinded?

Telestial – Back of the Bus!

Here’s the description of Telestial glory folks from D&C 76:

• These are they who are liars, (Are they all going to be confused when they start talking to each other and don’t know who is lying and who’s not?  Will it be like a cutthroat soap opera?)
• and sorcerers, (Like David Copperfield?  What about Houdini?)
• and adulterers,  (Wouldn’t it be weird if you’re all saving your DH’s seat in the CK, and he just doesn’t show, and then you find out this way?)
• and whoremongers,  (Pimps? Words like “whoremonger” make me think we could use a NIV of LDS scriptures)
• and whosoever loves and makes a lie.  (I always wonder if that means “loves a lie” or “lies about love”?)
• These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.  (So, God’s tripping them up on earth?  Is that because they lost the light of Christ and had to deal with the natural consequences of their bad choices?)
• These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.  (Although, as we’ll see below, this is more like “they feel horrid” than Hell = Guantanamo 2).
• These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work.  (So, they just suffer until then.  There’s an end in sight apparently.)

Q:  Is this a better alternative to traditional notions of “Hell”?

The True Nature of Hell

“The great misery of departed spirits in the world of spirits, where they go after death, is to know that they come short of the glory that others enjoy and that they might have enjoyed themselves, and they are their own accusers.”  (1843)

“A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.  Some shall rise to the everlasting burnings of God, for God dwells in everlasting burnings, and some shall rise to the damnation of their own filthiness, which is as exquisite a torment as the lake of fire and brimstone.”  (1844)

Q:  How can a man be “his own tormentor and his own condemner”?   Does this make Hell seem more just?

To the teachers:  Please share any other thoughts or tips you have for fellow teachers out there.  Most of this lesson is just reading from D&C 76 about the different kingdoms; it might be fun to do a puzzle to get through the material (e.g. a “fill in the blanks” as you read through D&C together or a “sorting” puzzle to put the descriptions in the right kingdoms).

To the rest of you:  What are your thoughts about the 3 degrees of Glory and the insights from D&C 76?  Personally, this is one of my favorite aspects of our theology because everyone’s a winner (comparatively)!  Discuss.

For purpose of this discussion, the site was not questioning the existence of God (or in the case of Hinduism, Gods or entities), merely asking what the practical point of religion was, even with the existence of God.  Surely God does not require human worship, and humans can judge right and wrong without religious leaders telling them how to behave.  Individuals can pray in times of need and can care for one another without a formula telling them how to do so.  So, in responding, assume that there is a God, and consider only what the point of religion is.

Blogger Reema poses this scenario:  “Imagine just for a minute that if there had been no religion since the time Homo Sapiens became civilized how would have the world turned out to be? By no religion I mean none at all!  So the concept of God entered in, but why did it divide into so many different religions which I feel are nothing but different ways to please the same entity?  Why did the concept of God get mixed up with the concept of worshiping? If I believe in some entity why is it required that I need to please him with flowers, incense and all the jazz instead of my activities? Why are the right and moral things defined by a code of mythological stories centered around God and in case of Hindus, so many gods? Can’t we humans (being the most superior and intelligent species) behave and act out of our own conscience, judgment and discretion? Do you think if religion wasn’t there we wouldn’t know that it’s bad to kill other living beings or that it’s bad to disrespect one’s elders or that it’s bad to steal or to be greedy or to drink alcohol?

I mean if the right and wrong acts had been simply documented over ages, wouldn’t the result be the same but without the religious angle?  What is the necessity of religion to define the code of living for humans? Why should religion dominate the way of living of a person?  Why  should going to a temple or a mosque or church label me as a good person? What is the necessity to belong to a religion, any religion to remember God, given one believes in the entity?  Why should a particular method be specified to worship the entity?  Why should there be a need to worship at all?”

“We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.”  (Jonathan Swift)

“All religions are the same:  religion is basically guilt, with different holidays.”  (Cathy Ladman)

“Man is a Religious Animal.  He is the only Religious Animal.  He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them.  He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight.  He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven.”  (Mark Twain)

“An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest:  “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?”  “No,” said the priest, “not if you didn’t know.”  “Then why” asked the Inuit earnestly,” did you tell me?”  (Annie Dillard in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek)

Is religion just the place where we as human beings have chosen to list the rules for living (the right and wrong acts)?  Without religion, would we still know right from wrong and act accordingly?  Does religion make us better human beings or merely divide us (or unite us into divisions)?   Does God thrive on our worship or is this for us and not for God?  What do you think the point of religion is?

Discuss.

I will dispense with the more general notions that are not unique to our religion; for example, one can believe in being saved through the grace of the atonement without being Mormon.  One can enjoy prayer and weekly worship services (plus donuts & coffee in other churches!).  Instead I will stick to unique claims of the church.

So, which of these aspects of the church is most important to you?

• Truth, being right, being “the one” true church (in fairness, this is not a unique claim of Mormonism; most churches claim to be the one true way)
• Having access to saving ordinances through the priesthood; being able to attend the temple
• The practical benefits of living an LDS life:  service, callings, the Word of Wisdom, temple worthiness, family focus, tithing, commandments; having a framework to make you a better person
• Personal spiritual experiences; the gift of the Holy Ghost; access to personal revelation
• Layers of meaning and depth; a theology with evolutionary value over a lifetime (the richness of our unique doctrines)
• Social support and edification; communion with other Saints
• Guidance and inspiration from church leaders; prophets and apostles who provide counsel to members

Would the loss of any one of these be enough to cause you to leave the church or to discontinue practicing our highly committed lifestyle?

What if you could only have one of them (and not any of the others)?  Would that be enough for you?  Why or why not?  Which one would you need to stay active and live the highly committed lifestyle we live as LDS?  Is there more than one that would independently create enough value for you?

Discuss.

Of course, I find that I tend to be reflexively liberal too if discussing a topic I haven’t given much thought to.

Why is that? Why do we tend to gravitate to one party, or one ideology, or the other?

Most political philosophers begin their treatises exploring the state of nature – that is, the condition of mankind before the creation of the state. This natural state justifies the creation of the state – either to primarily ensure equity and fairness (see Rawls, for instance) in the liberal vision or to primarily protect property and rights from people who are by nature greedy and devious (see Nozick, for example) in the more conservative viewpoint.

Mormonism is not lacking for “state of nature” theories. The Apostle Paul made mention of man’s natural carnal state, an idea well-supported by latter day scripture .

However, latter day scripture also confirms that, while we are fallen beings, we are truly “children of the most high”, created in the image of God with the potential to become like God.

When you think of our natural state in a Gospel context, do you tend to think in terms that Paul would recognize, or terms that Joseph Smith emphasized? And does your fall-back idea of man’s natural state color your political view? That is, if you tend to think in Pauline terms, do you tend to agree that the state exists to primarily protect our property and persons and if you think of man in more Smithian terms, do you see the state as a means of assisting in achieving equality and potential-fulfillment?

(N.B. Students of philosophy: Please forgive my unschooled references to philosophical concepts. Feel free to clarify or add upon my interpretations in the comments.)