The Baron of Deseret

Quick Monday Quiz

Quick Quiz:  Find the sentence that doesn't belong in the following announcement made in sacrament meeting on Sunday:

We like everyone to know that the --- family in our branch was involved in a car accident last Sunday.  There were some injuries but all the family members are now out of the hospital and recovering at home.  They were traveling to a concert at the time and it is clear that their choosing not to keep the Sabbath Day holy was a primary cause of their accident.  We encourage all ward members to visit and fellowship this family in their time of trial, and keep them in your prayers.

Quick eBay quiz:

Quick Quiz: as of today (October 4th, 2006) what's the most expensive item on sale at eBay?  Take a guess...

Must be real estate, right?  Perhaps this 23 acre waterfront property at Flathead Lake in Montana?  ($10.5 million)  Or this 20-room Colonial Revival Home in Rhode Island? ($18.9 million)

Perhaps this extremely rare 1928 $1000 Gold Certificate (yours for only $4.68 million)

Nope...the most expensive item on eBay is...(drum roll):

A unique and miraculous manifestation of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary...on a Pool Stick.

Yours for only $21 million dollars!  (Start saving those pennies...)

Answers to Difficult Questions III

[An occasional series containing my personal response to a 'difficult' question about religion--LDS or otherwise.  Questions are taken from actual questions people have asked me, actual questions asked publicly by other websites, or imaginary questions made up by me merely as a rhetorical technique...]

Question: "How should a faithful Latter-Day Saint view the conflict between literal and figurative readings and interpretations of scriptures? How far can one carry ‘figurative’ views of scripture before it becomes difficult to maintain a testimony of the gospel?"

Answer: [see "Literal vs. Figurative Revisited" at M*]

Article: Religion & Politics

Via Volokh, via Washington Syndrome, a brief posting on religion as it intertwines with politics.  Some excerpts and comments:

To claim that the GOP and conservatism rest on the “remnant of religious feeling in America” strikes me as a shaky foundation upon which to base a political theory. At the very least, such a purported lifeline can not explain the many non-“envious” skeptics who enthusiastically endorse conservative values. Support for limited government and a respect for human tradition are simply not dependent on a belief in God or “transcendent reality.”

Many on the left consider the GOP to be merely the party of a small minority consisting of "the rich" and/or "religious nutjobs".  (If so, you might wonder why they keep winning elections, then...)  Clearly, there are many reasons why people might (and do) support conservative philosophies regardless of their wealth and/or religious affiliation. In the case of abortion--and everyone knows many people are aligned to their respective political party based solely on their position on abortion regardless of anything else--one does not need a belief in God, for example, to ponder that the physical state of a six-month old fetus and a newborn baby aren't all that far removed.

In reality, people of religion are dispersed among all political parties...but in the view of the common guy off the street, this doesn't seem to be the case.  Ask an average American which political party is more 'religious' and it's almost certainly going to be 10:1 for the Republicans.  I don't believe the Democrats have appropriately addressed the issue of whether religious people are 'welcome' (or perceived to be welcome) within their ranks.

I...recognize that countless men of intellect light years superior to mine have been drawn to the great philosophical enterprise of Christian theology. But I will treat the truth claims of Christianity just as I would any other proposition about the world....I do not understand why religion should get a pass from the empirical and logical demands that we make towards other factual proposition.

Religious truths are truths just like any other proposition, and shouldn't 'get a pass' from any empirical or logical demands....with the caveat that empirical and logical mechanisms for 'proof' can only go so far. There is no scientific test that will 'prove' that mankind has a spirit that continues to exist after we die, nor are many pertinent facts about the universe capable of being analyzed and experimented upon in the laboratory.  That doesn't mean they're not true, however.  An unbiased scientist should admit the answer is 'maybe--we don't know' rather than 'no', even though the latter seems to be more common.

One of the fundamental paradigms behind religion is that self-discovered, self-proven information is not the only source of knowledge for mankind.  It is possible to know things about the universe gleaned from 'outside' sources that are not dependant on laboratory science for discovery.

The claim that we are overseen by an omniscient, omnipotent God who also loves every human being and treats every human being with justice does not square with the slaughter of the innocents that I see every day.

This is a silly (yet common) bit of "I don't understand it, so it must be false" reasoning.  Those Christian intellectuals she praised earlier have had an answer to this concern for years now.  Can Ms. MacDonald think of no reason why a loving God might not want to control all human beings like puppets on a string to make sure they only do 'good' things?  That there's no benefit from an eternal perspective to allowing humans to make their own choices, even if those choices often make other people suffer?  If given a chance, would she cheerfully submit her free agency to an omniscient babysitter who makes all her decisions for her, making sure she only does things that are 'good' from God's point of view?  I doubt it...

Many people don't seem to think about this question hard enough:  IF there is a God, then why are we here in the first place?  To what end do we exist?  If we're just here as little automotons to be controlled entirely by a divine hand like chesspieces on a board, what's the point of creating the Earth at all?  There is no point to our existence, unless free agency comes into play--where choices can be made without divine control, with full consequences following...

Nor do I think that serious believers exempt other religions from such demands. Do Catholics, for example, believe that the angel Moroni gave Joseph Smith a pair of magic spectacles in 1827 with which to read the mysterious golden tablets from God? And if not, why not? Doesn’t it matter whether it is true or not, or is it OK to live in error as long as one is happy?

A very interesting question...  A Methodist who comes up to a Catholic and says "According to my interpretation of the Bible, Catholic doctrine is wrong here and here..." can be easily ignored.  After all, who cares about differing interpretations...if that's all they have to offer?  A Mormon who comes up to a Catholic, however, and starts talking about Joseph Smith, Moroni, the Book of Mormon, and modern-day revelation through someone other than the pope can't be ignored as easily. Because if any of that is actually true, it would undercut the Catholic Church's entire reason for being.   What purpose does any other Christian church serve, if the divine origin of the LDS Church happened to be true?  If you're a faithful Catholic, I would think you'd be forced to actively disbelieve the Joseph Smith story, instead of merely ignoring it...  What choice would you have?  The entire foundation of your church's existence depends on the story being categorically false...

I submit, of course, that this is on purpose.  The Joseph Smith story--and the entire history of the Church to the present day--is purposely designed to be audacious enough such that it cannot be ignored.  People are forced to come to a decision for or against basic tenets of LDS doctrine and history...simply because it is based on something far more significant than differing interpretations of the Bible.  Something that cannot be simply dismissed, but solemnly dealt with at some level.

So, Ms.MacDonald's question is a very good one.  Do Catholics (or members of any faith) believe Joseph Smith received direct divine guidance or not?  If not, why not?  The answer to this question should matter a lot...  Questions like this are important and vital to ask, because it treats religion like any other subject: as a vehicle for facts/truths about the universe that, in mankind's quest for knowledge, can be discussed and pondered as to their truthfulness or falseness.

Answers To Difficult Questions I

[An occasional series containing my personal response to a 'difficult' question about religion--LDS or otherwise.  Questions are taken from actual questions people have asked me, actual questions asked publicly by other websites, or imaginary questions made up by me merely as a rhetorical technique...]

Question: I'm a divorced convert with adult children.  I'm active and lead a righteous life, but there seems to be no way for me to be sealed to my children.   Why would Heavenly Father punish me and my children by separating us for eternity?  I feel left out of many of the blessings of the Church...

Answer:  This is a common situation faced by a large number of people within the Church: for those with 'less than ideal' family situations, the blessings of temple sealings seem to be out of reach. How do we reconcile the justice of God with the seeming inability for many families to be sealed together?

First, we should discuss what sealings are...

The LDS Church, to my knowledge, is the only Church that has the concept of 'eternal families'.  This does not mean other Churches believe one will *never* see their loved ones again in heaven, only that family relationships (husband-wife, parent-child) have no relevance or meaning after we die.  The concept of LDS eternal families simply adds to the equation that those relationships will still have a purpose in the afterlife--not only will the husband and wife still exist in perfected form, but their marriage relationship will still have a role in some meaningful sense.

However, even the LDS concept of sealing and eternal families has a caveat:  temple sealings have no power or relevance outside of the celestial kingdom, according to my understanding.  (And perhaps only the highest level of the celestial kingdom, even then).

This means, essentially, that celestial worthiness trumps the concept of eternal families.  In D&C 88, we read:

For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified. (D&C 88:22,38-39)

This implies that in cases where sealed families are of differing levels of worthiness, the good ones will not get 'dragged down' by the bad ones, neither will the bad ones get 'carried up' by the good ones, but instead...they'll be separated.  And it is, in fact, the justice of God that decrees this.  Spirit children cannot abide in a kingdom which is 'unfit' for them.

Now, the unknown question is what level of communication exists between people of different kingdoms (if any) or amongst different levels of a kingdom.  Perhaps the physical states are different, but communication is still possible, meaning a family might still be able to 'see' each other despite being 'separated' through different levels of glory.  This might or might not be the case, but even if so, it seems clear that the previous relationships that existed between them will have no meaning.

What this means--and what I tell people who ask me this question--is that the first priority of any Church member who cares about being part of a sealed, eternal family should be to work toward being celestial-worthy. And, to the extent they can, help their family members to be celestial worthy as well.  Because without that celestial glory, 'sealings' would be meaningless anyway.

Once that celestial glory has been obtained, then, I would be confident in asserting that the justice of God would demand that you and any equally worthy family members would be allowed to be sealed together (eventually).  This may involve adding new members to the family (i.e. a wife in the above situation would presumably be married to a new husband in addition to being sealed to any celestial-worthy children) to 'fill in the holes' due to the above separation due to worthiness.   But the point is: the celestial-worthiness part must come first, as the scriptures are pretty clear that God will not circumvent the laws of justice and consequences in order to keep families together.

Unfortunately, the possibility of separation from loved ones on Earth appears to be inevitable for many in this situation--and in reality there seems to be very little that can be done if one or more family members has an eternal destiny that is fundamentally different than one's own.  If I am not worthy to continue to be the husband of "The Baroness", or father to my children in the eternities, then that's regrettable...but a fundamental (and seemingly necessary) part of the plan of salvation.  I don't see any way around it, according to the principles in D&C 88.

The key with everyone (single sisters, divorced members, new converts) is to strive to lead the most righteous, Christ-centered life possible, and then trust that the Lord will provide all blessings that you and your family members are entitled to...

Today's Legal/Ethical Question...

I'm going to 'steal' two scenarios for discussion from this interesting thread at Concurring Opinions, and add one of my own.  Discussion can center around either the legal or the ethical issues surrounding these situations...

Situation #1:
"Bob" has an IPod which is broken, and has no means of fixing it.  He throws it out with the trash one day, where his neighbor "Larry" sees it and takes it.  Being an electrical engineer, Larry is able to diagnose and fix the problem, and now has a working IPod which he keeps for himself.  Later, Bob sees Larry with the IPod and finds out that it was his old broken one, and now wants it back.

What should happen?
(A) Larry can keep the IPod, since Bob relinquished any claim to it by throwing it out.
(B) Larry gives the IPod back, since it was originally Bob's and he had not specifically given it to Larry.
(C) Larry can keep the IPod, but should pay Bob a fair amount of money for it--essentially 'buying' it from him after the fact.
(D) Larry gives the IPod back, but Bob should pay a fair amount of money to Larry in return for fixing it.
(E) The IPod should be put back in the garbage.  The original owner (Bob) put it specifically in the garbage for the purpose of throwing it away, and Larry had no standing to change the IPod's fate as decreed by its lawful owner.

Questions:  Should Larry have asked Bob before fixing the IPod whether he (a) could keep it afterwards, or (b) if Bob wanted to 'hire' him to fix it for him? Or does Larry have no responsibility to mention anything to Bob after finding it in his trash, even to ask if it was thrown out by mistake.

Suppose Larry asks Bob as he's throwing it away if he can keep the IPod instead (without any discussion of fixing it).  Suppose Bob says 'no'--even if he (Larry) wants it, Bob is not willing to give it to him and, as its owner, has determined that it will be thrown out.  Is Larry in the wrong if after this happens, he goes back and grabs the IPod out of the trash and keeps it, anyway?

Situation #2:
"Mike" takes his dog to see "Jim", a local vet, who diagnoses the dog with a severe health problem that can only be fixed with a surgical procedure costing $7,500.   Mike decides, instead, to have his dog put to sleep.  Mike signs the authorization forms and leaves.  Later, Jim decides he likes the dog himself, and pays for the surgery out of his own pocket.  The dog lives and Jim keeps him.  Later, Mike sees Jim with his dog and demands for its return.

What should happen?
(A) Jim returns the dog to Mike--it was Mike's dog originally, and he had never specifically given it to Jim.
(B) Jim keeps the dog--Mike has no claim on the dog since he signed the authorization form to get rid of it.
(C) Jim keeps the dog, but pays Mike some monetary value for the dog.
(D) Mike get his dog back, IF he pays Jim the $7,500 he spent on the surgery.  Otherwise, Jim keeps it.
(E) The dog should be put to sleep immediately, healthy or not, because that is the fate that the dog's original owner decided for him, and Jim had no standing to alter it, since he agreed upon the original transaction with Mike for the dog to be put to sleep.

Questions: Does it matter whether Mike decided not to pay for the surgery because he didn't have the money, or because he didn't feel it was worth the expense?  What if Jim had asked Mike if he could keep the dog himself if he paid for the surgery.  If Mike said no--that he's decided the dog will be put to sleep and that's the agreement that the two of them made, then it must be honored--and Jim would be wrong to go behind his back to pay for his dog's surgery anyway...

These are the two situations discussed in the original post.  After deciding upon the answers in the first two, here's the third situation.

Situation #3: "Mary" goes to see a doctor "Mark" at a clinic for a late-term abortion.  After signing the forms and being put under general anesthetia on the operating table, Mark surreptitiously delivers the baby instead, and places him/her in a nursery in another room before allowing Mary to awaken.  Mary goes home unaware of what happened, and Mark then takes the baby home and raises it himself.  Later, Mary finds out about it.

Now what?

Questions:
Who's the baby's legal guardian?  Would Mary responsible for child-support payments to Mark?  Does Mary have a right to ask for the child back?  If Mary does end up getting the child back, can she then ask the baby's father for child-support?  Can Mark ask for child-support payments from the baby's father if he keeps it?    Or, should the baby be put to sleep immediately, since the 'contract' that Mary and Mark agreed upon (which Mark 'broke') was that the baby was to be terminated...  Have Mary's rights been violated by Mark's decision?  Does Mary have a right to a "dead baby", under the agreement she signed back at the clinic?  What if Mark has asked Mary before the abortion if he could instead deliver and keep the baby?  What if Mary says 'no'--the baby is to be aborted regardless of what Mark wants, because that's the agreement.  Is Mark in the wrong then, for going behind her back and keeping the baby, anyway?

Is this third situation fundamentally similar or different than the first two above?  How does what the 'object' in discussion is affect issues of ownership or stewardship?   Discuss...

"One Heart and One Mind..."

Quick trivia question:  Who was the second Muslim prophet after Muhammad?

(cue "Jeopardy" music...)

Answer: Actually, it's a trick question--there was no second Muslim prophet...or third or fourth.  Islam has one prophet (Muhammad) and no others.  After Muhammad's death, the early Muslims were led by a succession of 'caliphs' who acted as secular leaders, but with no real divine authority.  Religious questions were subject to interpretation of the text of the Qu'ran (the only true source of divine authority in Islam) by the caliph and other scholars.

Whether Muhammad was directly inspired by God or not, this last sentence should set off a number of red flags for Latter-Day Saints, whose doctrine of Christian apostasy directly foretells what happens to a religion when divine authority is lost (or ignored) and human interpretation of religious texts is the only accepted means of divining spiritual truth.  Sure enough, just as it did with Christianity, differences of interpretation among the early Muslims started almost immediately, with the split into Sunni and Shiite factions which has persisted to this day.  Even among faithful Muslims in any one country from either of these two groups, you can find a vast variety of opinions on religious matters, ranging from arch-conservative to ultra-liberal.

The point?  To demonstrate that discussing "What Muslims Believe" is a fool's game--just as it is to discuss "What Christians Believe" or "What Jews Believe".  Christianity is hopelessly factioned into differing groups: for any statement about doctrine or beliefs, multiple counter-examples from a number of churches can be found. 

As this post discusses, at times the Western media falls into the trap of referencing Muslims as a homogenous group, when any amount of research and/or personal experience will show that Muslims (or Jews or Christians) do nothing as a homogenous, unified group.

(Just for perspective, there are approximately 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.  If even one tenth of one percent of them--12 million--were the suicidal jihad bomber types, the world would be currently facing a wave of blood and violence such that none of us would be standing here alive today.  And you can see the folly of generalizations about 'what Muslims believe' that doesn't even apply to one tenth of one percent of a population...)

The most vivid discussion of religious differences I can remember from high school in Idaho came between two of my Catholic friends (one conservative, one liberal).  Likewise, even a quick perusal of any bloggernacle discussion from the last year shows an equal amount of disagreement among Church members, often along the same 'conservative vs. liberal' lines.  Yet, from the outside it's still easy to discuss Latter-Day Saints as a homogenous group--"What Mormons Believe".

Anyone with any real experience among Mormons (in person or online) knows that:

• Many members believe a little alcohol or pornography is okay.
• Many members believe drinking Diet Coke or having a beard is a sin
• Many members believe tithing can be paid after taxes, food, and mortgage payments are taken care of, with whatever money is left (if anything...)
• Many members believe it is improper to shop at a store that opens its doors on Sundays
• Many members believe NCMO encounters have nothing to do with the law of chastity.

...and we won't even get into what movies are appropriate to watch, or what's okay to do on the Sabbath.

We should probably be thankful for such differences.  After all, what else would we then sit with our keyboards for hours discussing endlessly in the bloggernacle...gospel principles?

Here's to diversity...and the principle that any time you think a group of people is entirely homogenous, you're almost certainly wrong...

Random Doctrinal Thought...with Pictures!

[Stolen shamelessly from my recent YM lesson...]

Here's a grade school math problem:  find the area of the following square:

Nothing too difficult here: just multiply length times width and get the answer: 9

Okay--but what if someone asks you why you multiply the length and the width to get the area?  How does using those two numbers together magically give you the right result?  The explanation is also fairly simple:

Divide that square into single blocks of length and width = 1.  Count up all the blocks and you get nine--just the answer we expected from using the 'magic' formula above.

Now for a more difficult problem: let's calculate the volume of a sphere:

Assuming the sphere has a diameter of 6, how do you calculate the volume?  Well, here's the 'magic formula':
Divide by 2 (3)
Multiply by 3 (9)
Multiply by 3 (27)
Divide by 3 (9)
Multiply by 4 (36)

And then we're done...except for this 'magic number' between 3 and 4 which we have to throw in and multiply together.

Most high school graduates will probably remember the formula for spherical volume is 4/3 * PI * r^3.  Using the formula is easy--understanding why the formula exists is something else.  Where did the 4/3 come from?  What's wrong with using 1 1/2?  (That'd be much easier...)  What's this 'PI' thing anyway?

Demonstrating how the formula is created is not easy--usually requiring a knowledge of calculus in order to prove.  You don't need calculus in order to actually calculate the volume of a sphere, though (that's what formulas are for), and in my high school (as with most others, I'd imagine) the formula is taught years and years before the proof.  You can still get the right answer, you just need a little faith as to why using that 'magic formula' will mysteriously help you arrive at the right answer.

Likewise, some simple formulas for happiness in this life are easier to understand.  ("'Not getting addicted to legal or illegal drugs = happiness'  I can see that...")  Others are not.  It's not that the answers (or proofs) don't exist, only we don't necessarily have the advanced intellectual background to understand it.  Asking why things are the way they are is not a problem--in fact, quite natural.  You just have to know where to look, and when to know that a complete understanding of the 'proof' is not imminent.  (Go ahead, explain why e = mc^2.  I dare you...)

Many people resent having to follow a "magic" formula without the proof.  It's fine to want to have a better understanding of formulas, but not fine when you take liberties with the formula without having any more of a solid basis of proof than the original.  Being a non-conformist for the sake of non-conformity is useless--and often dangerous.  Altering or simplifying the formula because the original is too hard to understand doesn't work--like rounding PI to 3 just because it's 'easier to calculate'.  As Henry Louis Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is a simple, easy-to-understand, wrong answer'".  Wanting answers is not a bad thing, only that if you feel a need to alter the formula, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the given 'magic formula' is wrong and yours is right, not the other way around...

A shocking story...

I broke the Word of Wisdom once when I was a missionary...

We had knocked on the door of a couple one night who let us in to talk.  I sat down and started to talk with the husband about who we were and what we were doing.  On the table right between us was a great big bottle of Coca-Cola.  I continued talking with the husband when the wife handed me a cup of dark liquid, which I grabbed and started drinking mid-sentence. I didn't think much about it since I was busy talking, and, after all, there was a bottle of Coke quite obviously sitting there right in front of me.  Turns out the cup was black tea, which I realized after starting to drink (to the raised eyebrow of my companion).  I don't remember much about the discussion with the couple, but I was reminded for quite a while later by my companion that, jokingly, I was now a 'Word of Wisdom breaker'.

Looking back on the 'incident', I recall that I wasn't overwrought with guilty feelings over my ingestion of forbidden liquids.  True, I should have been paying more attention, but it was a lesson learned, and a small amount wasn't going to impact my personal body health that much.  It was, all things considered, not that big a deal, and I didn't feel the need to act as though just ingested a deadly poison and my body and soul were blackened forever.  Sometimes I hear about stories like mine where missionaries or other members have accidently imbibed forbidden WOW drinks, and have somewhat over-the-top responses (immediately running into the bathroom to throw up,  deep spiritual depression, etc...)  No, a sip of alcohol is not going to cause lasting damage to the body (only if you take another sip, and another, and another...) and I think a certain perspective is needed when incidents like this occur.  It's not that big a deal.

(Note: this is not a defense of the liberal Mormon interpretation that 'a little bit of [alcohol,coffee,marijuana] is okay'.  There is a big difference between willful disobedience and merely careless, innocent, or involuntary disobedience...  Only that there's little reason to make mountains out of molehills when the situation does not call for it)

I've wondered why oftentimes in LDS culture, the seriousness of WOW sins seems to be magnified.  Perhaps it has to do with the ease in which obedience can be judged--after all, you can be 100% obedient in not using tobacco, coffee, or alcohol.  Another commandment, such as "Be honest" doesn't have quite that ease of compliance.  Considering the vast scope of honesty, can anyone really say they are 100% honest?   That gray area probably makes it tempting to view WOW violations above, say, lying in the eyes of many members since it's more black-and-white and easier to judge.  (This oversimplifies the Word of Wisdom, of course, which involves more than just 'don't drink X or Y'--but that's the common view of WOW within LDS culture...)

Keeping perspective is difficult--it's very hard to judge whether 'lying' or 'drinking' is a bigger sin to faithful Latter-Day Saints, and, of course, there are many degrees and situations to consider.  The dangers of either viewing action X too lightly or too harshly are obvious, but we don't have a 'guideline to sin' full of easily indexed statistics on how serious such-and-such an action is.  Would we be better off if we did?  Or would that lead to "Beard Principle"-style relative moralizing and rationalizing that things on the small end of the scale aren't that bad and can be ignored...  Probably the best we're ever going to get is the words of King Benjamin:

And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them. But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not. (Mosiah 4:29-30)

Blogging and Journals

A while back, a commenter at M* made an off-hand remark (flippantly, perhaps) that people who write weblogs did so to "assuage their guilty feelings over not keeping a personal journal".  Whether he/she was kidding or not, it got me to thinking about the purposes of journals, and of Church-related weblogs as well.

Record keeping is a vital part of the Church.  Records of ordinances are necessary to keep a 'house of order'--not to mention avoid the inconvenience of having to baptize people over and over again (a condition that seems to have been fairly frequent within both the Book of Mormon and early Church history).

Personal record keeping other than when you were baptized/ordained is another thing entirely.  President Joseph Fielding Smith had this to say on the matter:

Now what is our duty in regard to records? Is it necessary for each one of us individually to keep a daily journal? I would say not. It is necessary for us to keep an accurate record of our families and record accurately the dates of births, marriages and deaths, and ordinances and everything that is vital. Every important event in our lives should be placed in a record, by us individually. We do not do it. Some people keep a daily record; about like this: "Got up in the morning, made the beds, washed the dishes, went to the picture show, came home, went to bed"; and so it goes. That means nothing. If you have accomplished something worth while during the day, put it down; it may be of use to posterity.  (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol 2 pg.205)

In the early days of the Church, many important things happened within the lives of the early Saints as the Church developed around them.  Yet even then, many of Joseph Smith's personal journal entries were filled with...well, mundane things.  One doesn't have great spiritual revelations or miraculous visions happen every day, of course.

I kept a daily journal during my mission, and for the majority of my college years afterwards.  The mission record is fairly full of interesting gospel-related tidbits (shared on occassion on this site).  College life at BYU, not so much.  Like President Smith said, it doesn't mean much just to recount what you had for breakfast, what TV shows you watched, and when you went to bed.  Experiences that would be valuable for you or future generations to read about in the future should contain ideas or events that are meaningful in some way--thoughts about gospel principles, or experiences where gospel principles were applicable.  A thought or event where you learned something, and other people reading about it can too.

And that, in my opinion, is what weblogs accomplish.  A relatively irregular set of posts about thoughts or events that were meaningful--without all the mundane details of daily life.  My site and the vast majority of LDS blogs out there seem to meet the basic design of keeping a personal journal in the first place, so I'm not at all ashamed to say that this blog has essentially taken the place of my personal journal, but it contains the metaphorical "windows into my soul"--things that I would want other people (read: my children) to know about me and what I've learned.  For better or worse, blogs are the 21st century personal journals...and I don't see a need to apologize or feel guilty about it.

Living in the Bubble...

The word 'bubble' can be heard in a number of descriptions of LDS culture, often specifically targeted at BYU students.  The 'bubble', as is used commonly, is the self-contained universe many Church members live in, insulated from many of the 'worldly' things present in modern-day society.  Usually, the word 'bubble' has negative connotations--implying the 'bubble boy' (or girl) is somewhat naive and out-of-touch with reality, refusing to associate with (or even admit exist) many of the not-so-pretty aspects of life in the secular world.

If I may, I'd like to attempt to defend 'the bubble'--not specifically related to BYU necessarily, but in general...

I remember a time where, as a missionary in Taiwan, I received a letter from my non-member mom who included a handful of 'interesting' articles to keep me up to date on news back in the U.S.  Included were articles about recent political and philosophical conflicts concerning gay marriage, evolution, and other such 'hot' topics.

The lifestyle of a missionary is certainly a 'bubble' by any definition--focusing on the spread of the gospel at the expense of secular matters--but at that moment it occurred to me that secular matters were essentially irrelevant to me at that point in time, and thus being informed about them had no real value.  There was nothing I could do about the fight over gay marriage, or about teaching evolution in schools, as I sat there over in Taiwan, and spending a lot of time thinking about such things served only as a distraction.  I had more important--and focused--things to think about as a missionary, and getting caught up in the latest political hot button issues would not make me more effective sharing the gospel to others.  It was nice, in fact, to have a missionary 'bubble' (which the missionary rules purposefully create) because I didn't have to worry about things that were unimportant to me at the time, and which I had no control over.

(Times change, of course, and as regular readers know, gay marriage, evolution, and abortion are all topics I've covered a number of times through this website.  There's a time and place for everything...)

From a broader perspective, we live in a 'bubble' where we hear about things that go on in the world, but don't have to actually see them.  Every day, in every part of the world, people are murdered, or starving, or suffering in some way.  We may hear about them (in terms of raw numbers) but we don't physically see all of them in our field of vision.  On the one hand, being aware of problems in the world is a necessary step towards trying to solve them (pictures of starving children in Africa is an effective form of fund-raising).  Yet, this awareness can easily be taken to an extreme.  What if you physically saw, in slide-show form, each and every person who was murdered, starving, or suffering each day in front of your eyes.  Very quickly, this graphic PowerPoint presentation of violence and suffering would pass the point of generating a helpful response.  Of course, you'd rather no one gets murdered nor that people starve--but most murders you (nor I) can actually do anything about.

It's one thing to see images from U.S. Gulf Coast, where seeing the suffering can spur us to volunteer and/or make monetary donations (things that can actually help alleviate the suffering), but another to see each and every death resulting from (for example) African genocide, or of random street violence around the world.  Violence caused by corrupt African governments and a handful of random reasons (respectively) there's just not much you or I can do about them, and the constant stream of violence within our line of sight would become a tremendous mental distraction instead of a help.  I submit it is helpful not to be able to see and know about every killing, every rape, every instance of human suffering present on the earth.  How could you possibly go about your normal life in any capacity with that view constantly within your sight?

And, that it is one of the more incomprehensible elements of godliness...   Because God can see everything that happens on the Earth, and I wonder how it is He could possibly stand to view each and every instance of suffering and inhumanity in front of Him every day.  Perhaps part of the answer is a differing definition of tragedy and suffering (as discussed last week), but regardless, I think it shows great discipline (agnostics would say apathy) to bear these visions and not wave His hand and make the suffering go away.  While it may be a fact of life that we'll be asked to grow out of the 'bubble' as we obtain our eternal destiny, but for now I tend to count it as a blessing that I am largely sheltered from the true magnitude of evil in the world...

Things I've learned from my children, Part 2

My son (almost 2) has had to deal with a number of serious tragedies in his life.

Once, he was playing outside but was picked up suddenly by his father (me) and forced to go inside when the rain started.  He stood by the back door and cried for quite a while at not being able to play outside anymore.

Once, his father took away the plastic bat he was playing with because he was swinging it around fragile items too much.  He stood and cried for quite a while at having his toy taken away from him.

Once, he opened the refrigerator by himself, climbed up, and grabbed a glass of Jello, only to have it taken away from him by his father and placed back in the refrigerator.  Again, he cried a lot here too, at not being able to have his Jello.

To him, these were all very serious tragedies in his life--experiences that brought much feelings of sadness and loss, which he expressed through many bitter tears and loud cries.  Considering how serious these losses were in his life, he might have wondered why it was that his father and mother--who claim to love him--seemed to remain singularly unmoved by his obvious sorrow and pain.  Why are they seemingly so slow to respond to my anguished cries, he might think.  Don't they know how important this is?

From an adult perspective, these situations rank as somewhat less than tragic despite the sorrowful cries of a two-year-old.  I love my son, yet still did not expend effort to rectify these 'tragedies' when they happened in my son's life (actually, in many cases, I was the cause of the tragedy...).  What seems vitally important in my son's life does not seem so important from my perspective--but without the benefit of that larger perspective (which he does not have and I cannot give to him at the moment) the disconnect between what he views as tragedy and what I do cannot be reconciled.

One of the common 'arguments' against God is in our view of tragedy.  Tragedies (both man-made and natural) happen every day, yet our Father in Heaven--who claims to love us--seems to remain unmoved no matter how much we cry.  Perhaps this is just due to differing perspectives.  Death is probably the greatest tragedy in our earthly existence, probably because this mortal life is all we can see, and that no matter how much faith we have, there's always something subconsciously that wonders if this is all there is, and our death ends everything.  (As Clint Eastwood in "Unforgiven" says, a man's death (in this view) takes away "all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have.")

Suppose, in God's eyes, death is not really that big a tragedy?  He would know, of course, that death is not the end, but only a transition.  Therefore from an eternal perspective, death might be no more 'tragic' than losing your last life in a video game, and not being able to play anymore.  He knows that, to us, these tragedies seem vastly important, and is willing to comfort us when necessary, yet still does not take extreme measures to 'protect' us from them in the first place.   To some, so much death in the world is proof God does not exist.  How can He let his children suffer if He loves them?  Why couldn't it be that physical death (and other forms of suffering) are so many levels down the scale of 'tragedy' from an eternal perspective that He sees no need to compromise what really is important for the sake of assuaging our limited understanding and brief period of sorrow...?

Things I've learned from my children, Part 1

Some thoughts on things I've learned about life since being a father...

Three or four times in his first year of birth, we've taken our first-born son in to be immunized, and will soon start the same procedure with our newborn.  The purpose of immunizations is fairly obvious--protect them throughout the rest of their lives from a variety of fairly serious diseases.

That is, the purpose of immunizations is fairly obvious...to me.  From our baby's standpoint, it consists of daddy taking me to a table where people stick needles in my legs...and they hurt!  Why does daddy just stand there and let people use needles to hurt me?  Doesn't he love me?

It be nice if I could explain to him about viruses and disease, and how immunizations make your body stronger and increase the chances for happiness in the future.  Unfortunately, this is an absolute impossibility--there is nothing I could do to make either of our babies understand the 'why' behind sticking needles in their leg.  The best we can do is hug them and comfort them and wait until the temporary amount of pain goes away.  They'll understand more about why babies are immunized when they're older. 

From a baby standpoint, it hurts and he doesn't understand why.  As a father, should I take that into account when making my decisions concerning him?  Should I wait until he is capable of comprehending 'why' it should happen before having him immunized?  But, by then it is too late...   I'll just have to make that decision for him, comfort him when he cries, and help him understand it later.  (Much later...)

Likewise, here on Earth, sometimes things happen and it hurts and we don't know why.  Our Father seems to let things happen while standing by unconcerned, and while He's willing to comfort us afterwards, He still allows it to happen and never tells us the 'why' behind it.  Maybe He can't--because it is impossible to tell us why and have us understand it.  Rather than waiting until it's too late, though--He makes the decision, comforts us when we cry, and then will help us to understand the 'why' later.  (Much later...)

Tales from the Mission Journal, Part 5

A philosophical question...

After the experience with the 'difficult' companion (mentioned in the previous post), my DL asked me to analyze how those two months had gone, and see what I could have done better.  "Did you really do you best to deal with him?" he asked.  He knew that the previous two months had been hard, yet didn't want me to push them aside thinking everything that happened was my companion's fault.

As with marriages or any other relationship, problem companionships can very, very rarely be blamed entirely on one person.  It's easy to see what didn't work--not quite so easy to see what could/would have worked better.  In hindsight, you can come up with things that you might try if you had to do it over again, but since you can't do it over again, the ideas aren't terribly useful.

The basic philosophical question my DL asked has stayed with me, though...  "Did you really do your best?"  In school?  On your mission?  With your calling(s)?  As a husband/father?  Throughout your entire life?  In hindsight, you can always come up with things that you could have done better, in any area of life.  There are a few areas I would like to have improved upon if I had to live my mission over again--regrets, if you will (although nothing major--nothing like "Upon reflection, I probably shouldn't have ditched my companion that one night and gone drinking with those Chinese girls at a Karoake bar...")  Is there anyone who couldn't pick out some things to do better when looking back at the past?  And yet, does having regrets (small or big) mean you're then not able to honestly say "I did my best" at the end?  What exactly is "your best"?

From an eternal perspective, we're expected to do our best throughout our mortal life.  We read we can be saved by the grace of Jesus Christ...after "all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23)  And, again, we have the same problem--what exactly is "all" we can do?  Even acknowledging that mankind is inherently imperfect, there are still things in everyone's life that we certainly could have done better, even with just a little effort.  How, then, can we claim to have done 'all we can do'...that we did our best.  Everyone has the potential to be better, so our 'best' is virtually limitless...in theory.  Does having even one regret over things left undone (or done poorly) mean we've abandoned the ability to say 'yes, I did my best'?

On my mission, and throughout the rest of my life afterwards, I've struggled with answering that basic philosophical question:  "Did I do my best?"  How do we define our best, and what does it mean if we fail to meet our own standard?

Tales from the Mission Journal, Part 2

(Yeah, a number of mission stories have been on the mind recently.  So sue me...)

One morning, my companion and I knocked on the door of a "New Age Woman".  (We knew this because this was one of the first things she said...in English.  "I'm a New Age Woman!")

I'm not sure what that meant exactly, but the second thing she said was much more useful: "I want to know everything there is to know about your Church..."  Well, okay then...

We taught her that morning and a couple of other times over the next week.  The key to being 'New Age' (again, according to her) is open-mindedness, and she was very willing to learn about our Church, and every other church and philosophy out there.  Things went fine for a little while, until we got into the parts of the discussions that started requiring commitments.  Then, the problems started...

Commitments, you see, make you at least theorize about our view of things being somehow 'better' or 'more correct' than others.  How can you be so 'judgmental', she said...  All religions and philosophies are equally good, and you can't just say one is any better than the others.

To demonstrate her point, she drew for us a small dot in the middle of a page, and a number of arrows moving into the center from all directions.  The dot represented 'heaven', or 'nirvana', or any other religious concept representing the ultimate goal of the human spirit.  The arrows represent the different religions and philosophies of the world.  "See?" she said, "you can get to the middle through any number of directions.  No one religion is better than the others..."

That was the end of our encounters with the "New Age Woman", although I think the experience is worthy of mention on a number of levels.  Openmindedness is great...unless you take it so far that you refuse to pass judgment on anything.  I'm on record as saying the differences between our Church and other world religions aren't as great as people might think, but even given the universalness of various truths, eventually you'll still reach a point where you have to make critical decisions.  Everything can't be 'true', simultaneously...

The flaw in Ms."New Age"'s example (which we didn't get into at the time) is simple:  It's true you can get to any one point from any number of directions, but a 'path' cannot be defined only by the destination.  It also depends on where you start--where you are now.  Are we here (top of the page)? Here (left side)?  Here (lower right corner)?  Draw a dot somewhere where you are now, and then look...to get from where you are to where you're going, there is one path and one path only.

That's why certain truths are essential to understanding where we are and where we're going.  Who is God?  Who are we?  Why are we here? What do we have to do to get there from here?

It's one thing for a Buddhist to say "We don't need a Savior in our religion like Christians do..."  But we don't need a Savior because we believe we do, we need one because that's the way things are.  We're here (draw a point on the page) and there's an insurmountable gulf between here and our goal on the other side of the page. Having a different belief about the universe doesn't automatically make the belief reality...

Joseph Smith said, "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God", and to have "a correct idea of his...perfections and attributes".  Knowing God helps us understand ourselves, since we were created in His image.  And knowing ourselves helps us know why we're here, what laws and principles govern the universe we live in, and how we can get to where we want to go next...

 

A mission story...

On my mission, we had a discussion one day with the husband of a member.  Both of them had been active in another Christian church in the area, until the wife became LDS.  The husband still went to the other church, but politely agreed to listen to what we had to say...probably more due to his wife's insistance than any personal interest.

The discussion turned to baptism, specifically infant baptism, which his current church practiced and he had heard (from his wife) that we did not.  There were a couple of ways to deal with this:  share Moroni 8, of course, but that may have been a little much under the circumstances.  I decided to take a more tactful approach and simply say we believe children are inherently sinless and need to reach an 'age of accountability' before baptism.  I shared D&C 68:27 in accordance with this, as an explanation of our beliefs, and hadn't planned on discussing it any more...

Not quite...   The text of D&C 68:27 reads, in actuality:

And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

Upon reading this, he asked the very reasonable question of why the verse specifically says children are baptized for the remission of their sins, when according to what I just said, they weren't supposed to have any yet.

I was not ready for this.  I first had to check the English version to make sure this wasn't unique to the Chinese D&C (it wasn't), but after eliminating that possibility, I had no response to this.  I admitted that frankly I did not know, and he didn't press (graciously), as we went on to other things.

This stuck with me for a long time afterwards.  He didn't get baptized (although it was not likely he would anyway, since his real interest was minimal), and it was easy to feel I had failed, because I wasn't able to produce a reasonable sounding explanation on demand.  It was a year and a half after I had come home, in fact, before I had any kind of an answer at all.

I was talking with a friend and related this story, when he suggested the very reasonable answer that you're only baptized once, even though you continue sinning throughout your life.  The sacrament is related to the continuing remission of your sins, but the sacrament ordinance is only an extension of the baptismal ordinance, not a equal equivalent for it.  Baptism is still the key to the remission of past and future sins.  Therefore an eight-year-old who is baptized is still being baptized for the remission of their sins throughout his/her entire life, even though the slate might be clean right at that moment.

That made some sense, even though it was too late to use that in the discussion two years previous.  Interpreting scripture is hard work--language can have so many different meanings (and meanings can change over time) that it's an terribly inexact science deciphering what the writer's true intent was. ('Their' is a pretty simple word, isn't it? And yet...)  Without modern revelation, you can easily see how fractured any church can become when different groups interpret scriptures in different ways.  Without modern revelation, how hard would it be to gather a group together that rejected the official doctrine of 'baptism-at-eight' using D&C 63 as a basis (Moroni 8 notwithstanding) and form our own Church, according to our own interpretation of scripture.  Actually, people do this now even with modern revelation...

The Infallibility (Double) Standard

Intelligent Design (ID) remains a hot issue around the country, even in Utah.

I think the push for ID is a losing cause, since it's essentially one side trying to win the battle on the other side's home turf.  Most schools, for example, have both literature and math classes, with lit and math teachers, respectively.  Suppose the math teachers demanded that the literature teachers couldn't discuss any literary work in their class until they proved mathematically that the work was 'quality literature'.  Is there a mathmatical proof that, for example, demonstrates conclusively which one of Shakespeare's plays is the best?  A literature teacher would roll his/her eyes at such a question...

You can't judge, analyze, or even understand literature looking at it through the lens of mathematics.  Any amount of time the literature department spent trying to meet the math department's requirement of 'proof' of the veracity of literature would be a waste of time, since (1) it's not possible, and (2) by trying, they're essentially conceding that math is the appropriate venue for discussing literature in the first place.

The purpose of ID is to provide some sort of a scientific basis for creationism, without necessarily involving any religious components.  By moving the battle to the scientists' turf, though, it's doomed to fail, since by doing so it validates the idea that science is the fundamental basis for explaining everything.  If it were that easy to use mankind's understanding of natural laws and processes in the universe to explain every element of creation, it would have been done long before now.  The best ID can do is simply list things that 'science hasn't explained yet'--an inherently weak "anti-" position since there isn't much of a "for" position to take...(in the realm of science, anyway).

There's a double standard involving proof when it comes down to science vs. religion.  Here's a good analysis of the current state of evolutionary theory from Left2Right's J.David Velleman:

No scientist would deny that there are gaps in our current ability to explain the origins of human life. The theory of evolution is, not a complete explanation, but what philosophers of science call an explanation-schema -- a general template for developing explanations of many different phenomena. The template outlines how to explain life-forms in terms of inheritable mutations and natural selection; the specific mutations and the specific forces of selection vary from one case to another. This template has enabled scientists to explain innumerable observations of life now existing or preserved in the fossil record. But scientists have nothing like a complete, step-by-step account of how our species developed from the first organic molecules, and there is plenty of room for controversy as to how the evolutionary template should be applied to some cases, whether it has yet been applied successfully to others, and how the template itself might be elaborated or tweaked.

Given a successful explanation schema, the scientific approach (I won't call it a "method") is to continue applying it to new cases, adjusting it as the need arises.

Now, the first sentence should probably read "No scientist should deny..." since, of course, there are many scientists who do act as if evolution has already provided the "complete, step-by-step account" of the origin of man, but that's beside the point.  The point is that science--good science, anyway--is always in a state of flux.  Evolution (for example) takes some established scientific facts, and creates a framework (or 'explanation-schema') of theories for how everything else that hasn't been proven might fall into place.  As Velleman notes, that framework will change from year to year as new discoveries are made, and new theories are presented.  No scientist need be afraid of new information that seems to contradict an existing theory...you just accept the new information and adjust the framework around it.

My question: how come science doesn't give religion the same margin of error?

The idea that, given an Intelligent Designer in the universe, He/She/It could reveal everything there is to know about all the natural laws and processes at play in the universe...and be comprehended by mankind is rather silly.  The scriptures have many simple answers to complex questions, but there does not seem to be as much flexibility given to religious apologists to adjust interpretations according to newer theories or discoveries.  Lots of people interpret Genesis 1 as demonstrating the Earth was created in six 24-hour periods.  Upon reflection, maybe each 'day' represented something a little more abstract than the literal concept of day we use today?   Maybe it turns out Noah didn't have two (or seven) of every animal on earth in the ark, or that the flood didn't cover the entire Earth (just the entire Earth that Noah was aware of...)

And yet, science proponents do not give religion the flexibility to change.  If there are/were X number of religious people who say each 'day' was exactly 24 hours, then that's what 'religion' will be judged against.  If that claim cannot be proven by science, then 'religion' can be discredited entirely...just throw the entire 'explanation-schema' of religion out the window.  If science held itself to such strict standards, the scientific framework would have been discarded long ago...

If science has the flexibility to change based on new information or theories...why not religion, too?  A fundamental principle of the gospel is that truth is revealed "line upon line, precept upon precept"...and that understandings from a religious perspective can and do change over time. Imagine a 21st century astronomer reading in the Book of Mormon where Ammon explains to King Lamoni that God dwells 'above the Earth', and then 'disproving' it immediately with his telescope.  Can he then conclude that the existence of God is a 'myth' since this so-called prophet of God gave a scientifically 'incorrect' explanation?  Whether Ammon believed God lived in the sky above the Earth, or just gave that as a simple explanation to an investigator, what makes Ammon's explanation any more binding to the field of religion than the claims from early scientists that the Sun revolved around the Earth are to science?

(Side note: many other churches do the same thing--holding the Book of Mormon to a different standard of proof than they do the Bible.  If early Saints thought the Book of Mormon represented the history of ALL Native Americans in North and South America, then that's what they will be judged on, even though the limited geography theory appeared within 15 years of the Church's founding.  Interesting that those same churches turn a deaf ear to scientific and historicity issues raised by others about the Bible...)

As I've long maintained, there is no conflict between science and religion.  They both approach the issue of explaining the laws and processes that govern the universe from opposite directions, and should both be given flexibility in expanding their frameworks--adjusting for newer discoveries--until one day they meet in the middle somewhere... 

World of Religion--Footnote

(footnote from yesterday...see here for context)

In my BYU World Religions class, we watched a short video about Jainism, an ancient religion similar to Hinduism. Jain monks practice the principle of ahimsa (non-violence) devoutly, to the extent of carrying a broom to sweep the ground before them when they walk, so they don’t accidentally step on a small insect or worm. Jain monks devote themselves completely to their religion, spending their time traveling from village to village spreading the word of God.

It occurred to me while watching the video that these monks were closer to the Celestial Kingdom than I was. What celestial qualities did they have?

• They love God and their fellow man completely.
• They keep their covenants faithfully

What do they lack?

• A personal testimony of Jesus Christ and His Atonement
• Essential ordinances performed by someone with the proper authority.

Now, compare that to me who has completed the second list, but not the first. Not to minimize the importance of faith in Christ nor of the vitality of priesthood ordinances, but which set of requirements is easier to complete? Is it easier to develop true love and charity towards your fellow man and always keep your covenants, or to learn about the role of Jesus Christ and complete the required ordinances? You could sit down with one such Jain monk and complete what he ‘lacks’ in an hour or two, including baptism. With the first list, not so easy… So, who really is closer to the celestial kingdom?

The World of Religion...

[Note: taken in part from BYU's World Religions class]

Question: What is the fundamental difference between the LDS Church and other churches?

The knee-jerk reaction “We’re right and they’re wrong” shows not a little arrogance mixed in with a lot of ignorance, considering you can find ‘right’ things (by LDS standards) among any church on the planet.

(Strictly speaking, even Satanic churches are ‘right’ in the sense that they contain accurate truths about the existence of the devil, among other things…)

How about “Other churches have some of the truth, but we have all of the truth”?

Not quite…even a casual glance at LDS doctrine reveals that there are many important questions related to the eternities left unanswered.  (I mean, what percentage of the Book of Mormon do we still not have?)

No, it seems obvious that there isn’t as great a difference between “Us” and “Them” as some members make it sound. Numerous scriptures and prophetic statements have made it clear that God has provided direct inspiration and guidance to people who were not involved with any ‘true’ church at the time: Columbus, America’s Founding Fathers, Protestant Reformers, etc…

Ah, but all of those people were Christian, at least... Can we name similar figures from non-Christian churches throughout history that have been guided directly by God in the same way? Let’s perform a thought experiment:

In 1499 AD, 30-year-old Guru Nanak was bathing in the Bain River (India) one day when he promptly disappeared beneath the water and was assumed drowned. When he reappeared three days later, he told a remarkable story—that when he was pulled underwater he was brought into God’s presence and received enlightenment about important truths. And, he was given the mission of leading and enlightening his fellow man about those truths that had long been lost or misunderstood. Thus, was created the religion known as Sikhism today.

Around 600 B.C. (maybe--the time is still in question), Zarathustra lived in ancient Persia, near modern day Iran. Also at the time he was 30, Zarathustra received a ‘vision’ directly from God in which he received enlightenment about important truths. And, he was given the mission of leading and enlightening his fellow man about truths that had long been lost or misunderstood. Thus, Zoroastrianism was born.

In 570 AD, Muhammad was born in Mecca, the central city of the Arabian peninsula. When he was in his thirties, he received a vision from the angel Gabriel, enlightening him with important truths, and tasking him with leading and enlightening his fellow man about those truths which had been long lost or misunderstood. Thus the religion of Islam was formed.

Let’s take these three stories and add a couple more:

Moses, an Israelite, was born in Goshen at a time the Israelites were in bondage to the Egyptians. When he was 80, Moses received a vision from God in the form of a burning bush. Moses was enlightened with important truths, and tasked to be a leader of his fellow man, enlightening them about those truths that had been lost or misunderstood. Thus, Moses became a key figure in both Judaism and Christianity.

Joseph Smith, born in 1805 in New York, was 14 when he went alone into a grove of trees to pray. There, he received a direct revelation from God where he was enlightened about many important truths and tasked to be a leader of his fellow man, enlightening them as to those truths which had long been lost or misunderstood. Thus, he became the founder of Mormonism.

To an outside observer, all five of these stories are very similar. All five claim to have receive direct revelation from God, and been called to be a leader of a new religious order. Thus, the question becomes: how many of these five figures actually saw a vision from God? All of them? None of them? Some yes, and some no?

To the extent that logical analysis can be applied to unseen historical events, let’s look at some ancillary evidence.

In the case of the first three individuals (Guru Nanak, Zarathustra, and Muhammad), all three of them lived in strictly polytheistic societies (i.e. they worshipped many Gods). Yet, all three new religions formed by these men were strictly monotheistic—one and only one God. Thus, as these new religions grew, they converted people who had previously been idol-worshippers, and turned them into monotheists.

This, by itself, is very suspicious… For a Mormon--or any Christian--to say it is categorically false that these visions occurred, one must answer why the people in all three cases ended up much closer to the truth than they were before. If these ‘visions’ were really the work of the devil—how does it serve Satan’s purpose to teach people about monotheism, when they were polytheists already?  (Shouldn't it be the opposite?)  Why would the devil ever lead people closer to the truth, rather than farther away?

A few tidbits about each of these religions:

• Sikhs, among other things, abstain from alcohol and tobacco, avoid stealing, gambling, and any form of idol worship...and wear a sacred undergarment which represents holy covenants made with God.

• Zoroastrianism teaches about Angra Mainyu, an evil spirit who rebelled against God (Ahura Mazda) and was cast down.  Also, a Saoshyant (savior) will be born of a virgin who will raise the dead and pass judgement on mankind.

• Faithful Muslims will pray five times daily, fast regularly during Ramadan, and give 2.5% of their net worth every year as 'alms'.

Again, without knowing anything about the circumstances behind each of these religion's founding, does it seem like they moved people towards the truth, or away from it?

In Taiwan where I served my mission, the population is largely a mix of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Christians make up, at most, 10% of the population. And yet, when you analyze the baptismal numbers of the missions in Taiwan, you’ll find that well over half of the convert baptisms came from that small sliver of the Taiwanese population that was Christian already.

Upon consideration, it’s not too hard to figure out why… The first two principles of the (previous) missionary discussions dealt with God and Jesus Christ. Those can be skimmed over in 2-3 minutes when you’re teaching someone that already has a Christian background, but represent a major paradigm change for a lifelong Buddhist. Consequently, it’s not surprising that a greater percentage of the Christian investigators became LDS than Buddhist investigators--they had much fewer new doctrines to absorb and accept.  In other words, the distance between where they were pre-baptism and where they went post-baptism was a lot shorter.

Thus, to the question: does it serve God’s purpose to lead people to the truth in small increments…the answer should be unequivocally yes. Whatever one thinks of what real authority Muhammad and the other religious founders had, the people they led were much closer to the truth afterwards than they were before. And that fact has to be accounted for.

Therefore, a Church member who considers Muslims to be ‘followers of a false prophet’ may not only be arrogant, and judgmental…but also flat-out wrong. Are you sure Muhammad didn’t receive a vision from God? What direct or secondary evidence do you have that he didn't?  Reflect on this statement from the First Presidency on February 15, 1978:

“The great religious leaders of the world such as Muhammad, Confucius, and the Reformers...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.... Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come... “

(Side note: many members may question how this or that teaching of Islam today could possibly line up with any ‘true’ gospel (i.e. come directly from God)? The problem in judging Islam today is that there’s no guarantee that today’s Islam is the Islam that Muhammad actually taught. One fundamental principle of Islam is that Muhammad was the very last prophet of this dispensation, and afterwards there would be no others. Questions of Islamic doctrine and policy following Muhammad’s death would be subject to interpretation of the Qur’an by committees of Muslim scholars. And that fact alone should send warning bells through the mind of any Latter-Day Saint.

If you believe in the Apostasy—and that doctrines subject to ‘interpretation’, not direct divine leadership, will always drift away from the truth through time—then this would certainly apply to Islam as well. Since there is already a fundamental schism within Islam between Shiites and Sunnis as far as Qur’an interpretation (comparable to the split between Catholicism and Protestantism), it seems unfair to judge Muhammad by what’s being taught in Muslim mosques today—any more than what was considered to be Christianity in 1400 A.D. is an accurate reflection on what Christ actually taught…)

In the end, the fundamental difference between the LDS Church and other churches comes down to priesthood authority and essential ordinances, not some monopoly on ‘truth’. One form of secular criticism towards Jesus Christ says he’s ‘overrated’ because the principles he taught have been found in numerous other locations around the world long before his birth.

This misses the point—Christ’s uniqueness and value to the world comes through the Atonement, not through His teachings--but the underlying principle is correct: true principles have always existed, and been understood and taught by enlightened people everywhere both before and after Christ’s time. One of the fundamental learning processes of Latter-Day Saints is to understand how God leads His children within His church…and how He has lead His children around the world outside of it as well…

The Lens of History...

Business trips over, so hopefully more consistent writing the rest of the month...

We saw the movie One Hour Photo on TV, recently--just the kind of psychological thriller "The Baroness" (a psych major) and I enjoy...  The plot is irrelevant to the discussion, only that Robin Williams plays a photo development tech at a supermarket, and often muses in voiceover on the philosophies of picture-taking.   Pictures are almost always of happy events and smiling faces, because "nobody takes a picture of something they want to forget".  Pictures are a means of recording history...but obviously you can't take pictures of everything, and thus the choices you make in deciding what to immortalize in a print and what not to are significant.  How do those choices affect the natural bias of the 'history' that photo albums record?  Would someone looking at a family's photos deduce that they were a lot happier than true history indicated, simply because of the unbalanced subset of things that were photographed?

Journal writing, including blogging, can be considered in much the same way.  The purpose of keeping a journal or diary is essentially to record history.  But obviously you can't write everything that happens to you and those around you...   What criteria do you use in recording certain things but not others--including the words you use to describe an event?   How do those choices influence the natural bias of your writing?

For example:  In 1st Nephi we read that even though Nephi was tied up for several days by his brothers:

Nevertheless, I did look unto my God, and I did praise him all the day long; and I did not murmur against the Lord because of mine afflictions. (1 Ne 18:16)

Now there is little reason to doubt that Nephi was a righteous man.  Nevertheless, we could perhaps consider the fact that this record was being written by Nephi himself.  The record indicates that Nephi was seemingly always patient in his afflictions.  The interpretation of the events of 1st Nephi in the Book of Mormon Movie, though, shows Nephi as being at times a little tempermental and emotional during his afflictions (while still remaining within the bounds of righteousness behavior).

I found this entirely believable and one of the movie's (few) strengths.  No one knows what really happened, but can we discount the possibility that Nephi, knowing that others would be reading the record made by his own hand, may have exaggerated (a little) his patience and long-suffering throughout his family's travels?  He might have been entirely patient at all times, or maybe he let his emotions out a little, but didn't find it significant enough to mention in his record.  Maybe he was afraid of giving future readers the wrong impression, or of taking away emphasis from the principle that we in our time could and should be patient in our afflictions as well.

History, even our own personal history, is filtered through the lens of the people writing it.  Someone who faithfully keeps a journal is doing so for the purpose of recording the events in their lives, yet surely there is the temptation (even subconsciously) to phrase things in such a way that makes you come out better--especially if you think future generations are going to be reading your record.  You soften things up a little, you leave a few minor details out that you consider to be unimportant, and your history is still accurate...yet perhaps different than someone else recording the exact same events might have written.  (If there was a book of Laman, he might have had quite a different view of things within the 'history' of 1st Nephi than Nephi did...)

As mentioned last month, this exemplifies the vast uncertainty of any kind of historical study--you're forced to deal with the inherent biases of everyone who ever recorded anything.  History is written by the winners, as they say (see this article for a good example of a 'revisionist history' controversy), and in the end that's all we have to go on.  It may turn out that the difference between what really happened and what got written down in all aspects of human history, including scriptures, might be large indeed...

Conference Aftermath I: In Praise of Converts...

[Series note:  The 'Conference Aftermath' essays are thoughts that were inspired by--but not necessarily based on--talks from LDS General Conference over the weekend.  Sometimes the source talk will be obvious, sometimes it won't, because the train of thought was triggered indirectly...or perhaps just my mind wandering during the session...]

When I was baptized at the age of 16 in Idaho Falls, Idaho, my family took a 'don't support--don't oppose' attitude for the most part...although all of them did attend my baptismal service.  While my new life as a Latter-Day Saint wasn't nearly as difficult from a family perspective as many of the other converts with whom I've been in contact, there are inherent difficulties that arise from being the only member in your family that are perhaps unavoidable.  For the most part, we avoided the major disagreements based on religion within the family, but had some minor ones.  Oftentimes, it was hard not to feel a little bit alone--attending church by yourself every week, having to coexist with people who had different standards than you without either compromising your own, or criticizing others.  There was also the knowledge that said problems would only increase when it came time to go on a mission, and get married in the temple.

One day, in my high school band class during a break in playing, I was conversing with the girl next to me, who said, out of the blue: "I wish I was a convert..."  At that time, feeling a little more down than usual (and a bit of a bad attitude, too), my response was--somewhat sneeringly--"Why?  You want to go to church by yourself every week, and have numerous family problems too?"

Her reply: "My family has been LDS for at least five generations.  All my family are members, all my friends are members, almost every person I come into contact with is a member.  I'm 'active' in the Church...but I have absolutely no idea if I really have a testimony, or if I'm just being carried along by everyone else around me."

This was an interesting thought that, during my recent dour mood about how miserable life as a convert was, I hadn't really considered.  It's true that being the only member in my family brought a certain amount of loneliness and hardship...but every time I stepped through the doors of the chapel to attend Church meetings, I knew why I was there.  Indeed, that I was there because I wanted to be, not because my family happened to drag me there every week.  It was obvious upon reflection that this was a sublimely important blessing--one that many of my peers in Idaho Falls (60% LDS or thereabouts) did not have.

As it happened, this girl had been accepted into BYU, but quite deliberately chose a college far away from the 'Mormon hangout' universities in Utah and Idaho for just this reason--to get away from the 'all-day-every-day' Church atmosphere and find out who she really was.  (Ironically, I deliberately chose BYU for the exact opposite reason--I wanted an opportunity to be immersed in the Church atmosphere for once in my life...)

There were quite a few similar experiences later in my life during my mission.  Being a missionary was harder for my family to accept than just the baptism--one family member quite directly wished me "health...but not success" before I left.  In a way the loneliness returned--my family would still write, but had no interest in discussing anything spiritual, thus I had no one to actually share my mission experience with.  Yet, everyday I was there in the MTC and in the mission field, I knew why I was there.  I came to know many other elders who did not--some who had gone on a mission simply because their family expected them to, and that once they were away from the family, really had to struggle to understand "Why am I here? And what am I doing?".  Happily, most of the elders found their answer eventually and served successful missions, but--again--it was no small blessing that I was able to avoid much of that struggling from the beginning.

The Church is built on converts--has been since the beginning.  Looking at the statistical analysis reported every year during April conference, the convert to baptized 8-year-old ratio is always at least 4 to 1.  And yet, some people don't seem to know how to treat converts.  Some girls won't date them.  Some bishops don't trust them with any callings of significance.   Some members don't understand the loneliness many of them (us) feel.  Some don't understand the difficulty things like missions and temple marriages can cause in a non-member family.  Some seem to think converts are more likely to live unrighteously than multi-generational members--whereas I think it's the opposite.  (I remember overhearing one girl describing the guy she was dating--"Yeah, he's a good guy.  His dad's a stake president...."  Um, okay...are you marrying his dad?)

Many converts do not make it for very long after they are baptized, it is true...but those that do are better members, simply because it takes more effort to be a good member.  The biggest problem facing the Church in Utah (and Idaho) is the complacency of some of the members who have coasted along in the Church simply due to the inertia.  (Some even coast through their missions--even though that should theoretically be impossible...)  It's easy to be a C+ member in Utah, those that participate outwardly in Church 'activity' and avoid the big sins (mostly), yet have no true testimony, no true passion for the co