Random Ramblings About... Stuff

Pay Tithing First To Put God First???

2009-09-18T19:46:00.000-06:00

So, I was thinking about tithing a bit this week. Rather a theoretical commandment for me, at the moment, till I actually start having "increase" again that isn't due to a massive influx of debt. My wife and I have talked about the "pay the Lord first" concept before, but it came up again this week. I really don't understand the justification of those teaching this position. It surprises me to see it taught as if it were the "scriptural" way of doing things... often citing references to the Old Testament, and commandments to bring the "first fruits" as offerings.

The reason this bothers me is that all these passages referring to first fruits are most certainly not referring to tithing. The ancient Israelites were commanded to offer many different sacrifices, for different reasons. But in an agrarian society, paying tithing using the first fruits is a real impossibility. Tithe literally means tenth. It's a percentage. It cannot be calculated until the total is known. If I have 100 cows that are pregnant, I'm not commanded to bring the first ten calves and pay them as tithing. Why? What if 10 cows abort? Stillborn calves. Calves dying shortly after birth. Twins born. Etc. My debt to the Lord would change significantly.

So that isn't the case today. We can, with relative certainty, predict the size of our "harvest" and number our "flocks" without waiting to see for sure. But that doesn't change the fact that the commandment to tithe had nothing to do with first fruits. This is a modern conflation of tithes with other offerings. Now, I know the point people are trying to teach, that we need to place priority on serving the Lord, and on obeying him... but I don't think we can say that just because we do something first we're putting it above him priority wise. I generally get my homework done before recreating with my wife, but that doesn't mean I think that homework is more important than she is.

Is the Lord angry with those that pay their tithing, before their other bills? Perhaps not. But I also can't imagine that he would be the least bit displeased with those who pay their mortgage, car payment, insurance, etc. first, then hope they have enough left for tithing. This isn't a net vs gross issue, which I also find interesting. It's a chronological first vs last.

Honestly, I imagine it's the reason we even do tithing settlement. So we can pay up once we've been able to calculate our interest from the prior year. This has got me thinking too, and I've decided that there's really no good reason we have to use the calendar year for our obeying the "anually" part of the commandment. Why not have our own personal tithing settlement every July, or something. It seems December is the worst possible time, for a lot of families, by the time they pay for Christmas related expenses, to come up with extra cash they realize they ought to pay as tithing. Why not do it right after we file taxes, or better yet, receive our tax returns?

So, any thoughts on why we need to pay tithing first, or why December is good time for tithing settlement? Or anything else tithing related, I suppose?

Summer’s Over

2009-09-08T20:36:00.001-06:00

It’s been a short summer, if you ask me. Too short. So sad, too, to be going back to school already. There were still so many things I’d planned on doing this summer (like posting more on this blog – sorry, ended up spending most of the time at my in-laws… sans internet)

But what can you do. Try to do better I guess.

Testimony or Conversion

2009-08-13T18:23:00.005-06:00

Visiting my wife's family has caused me to think about things a bit differently. Some background. I grew up in a partially-active family (dad's only been to church a few times in last 15-20 yrs... mainly missionary farewells) in a very Mormon community. My wife grew up in a SUPER-active family in VERY non Mormon community. I've noticed some differences here compared to where I grew up. When my wife talks about friends who joined the church, then stopped coming, they "left the church." For me, that term was reserved for excumunicates and those who had their names removed.

Now, something that's bothered me a bit, is her family's tendency to judge others based on testimony. It's a regular subject of conversation when talking about others. "Does he have a testimony?" etc. I'm not necessarily condemning them here for unrighteous "judging," but rather questioning their measuring stick.

For me, "does she keep the commandments" is much more enlightening than questions regarding what a person knows/believes. Wouldn't you be more comfortable with you son/daughter dating someone with rock solid morals, who follows Christ's example the best they can, but are unsure of the prophetic call of Joseph Smith, rather than someone who knows with "every fiber of their being" that JS was called of God, but doesn't do much in their life to reflect that?

For me, this is the distinction between testimony and conversion. And, to me, conversion seems much more important (and difficult to come by). I want my friends to be converted, regardless of the strength of their testimonies. That is how they'll have the best influence on me. It seems so foreign to me to equate testimony with "good person".

An example: Several members of her extended family have "left the church" (i.e. they don't go anymore - some for political/social issues [gay rights] others for intellectual disagreements). It's interesting to hear the family talk about them, and the hope they have of them coming back. It seems that their hope is tied entirely to the belief that they still have small testimonies burning inside, waiting to come out. Those they see as having more testimony left they see as closer to coming back. For me though, I think it far more likely for those who are still living closer to gospel standards to come back and regain a testimony, than it is for someone with a testimony to try to start living gospel standards again.

So which is it?

The Gospel vs. Science - Automatic Victory?

2009-06-19T18:08:00.003-06:00

So I was listening to a talk on the radio the other day... it had the feel of a BYU devotional or CES fireside. I don't know who the speaker was, but they quoted (I hate when people do this, so I'm trying to track down the quote) Elder Maxwell on the subject of conflicts between science and religion. He said something about how the gospel embraces all truth, and that true science never conflicts with the gospel.

The speaker then went on to point out that our understanding of science is limited, but that the eternal gospel is unlimited. That, for him, when there is a conflict, it doesn't bother him for they will one day be reconciled.

All well and good. But here's my problem with the idea: While it's true that our knowledge of science (both individually, and collectively) is quite limited and imperfect. And it is true that the eternal gospel is limitless and complete and perfect. But, since when did we believe that our understanding of the gospel is complete and perfect? We don't! Continuing revelation is not just about establishing new quorums of Seventy and calling new Apostles. It's about revealing the Christ didn't, in person, actually go to the spirits in Prison, despite the fact that the Bible says he did. It's about eternal damnation not really meaning damnation of an eternal duration, but rather of an Eternal kind (being God's - where one of His chosen names is Eternal).

So revelation has, can, and will continue to change our understanding of the doctrines of the Eternal Gospel. So why, when a conflict arises, is there an automatic victory for the currently held belief in the church? Isn't it just as likely (ok, maybe the odds are not the same. They could be higher or lower) that the prophet will later reveal a change as it is that the scientific evidence will be overturned by newer research?

The Future of Medicine

2009-06-14T21:06:00.003-06:00

I was having an interesting conversation the other day with a Family Practice doc. He works in a rural community. He's one of those docs who does everything. He takes care of pregnant women, delivers their babies, takes care of the kids, and all the way up to the elderly in a nursing home. And he's struggling to make ends meet. It just really got me thinking about Obama's new socialized medicine plans. There's pretty much no way I can see that having an optional national healthcare plan will work in the long run. I think that if we are going to offer this plan to people, more and more companies are going to stop their health plans, or at least cut back on them. The program will just keep growing and growing. And here's the deal... some people think you can pay for this by (at least in part) cutting payments to doctors.

And here's what's going to happen. There are going to be more and more docs who decide that taking care of Medicare/aid (and whatever this new program will end up being called) patients is just too big of a hastle. I've talked to him a bit about how much trouble he has already, with medicare being one of the worst reimbursers out there. There will come a point, and I think that's going to be just as all these baby boomers are suddenly needing all this healthcare, when a decent number of docs are simply going to say, no thanks. Cash only, please. (or maybe private insurance if it's still around)

And then what are we going to do?

By the way, sorry about the delay. Finals, internships, moving, etc have really kept me from getting anything put up here.

Giving Your Kids What They Want

2009-05-22T08:24:00.004-06:00

It's interesting, as I've been reading Rough Stone Rolling, how my eyes have been opened a little bit as far as parenting goes. Let me explain. I was raised in a family where you were expected to work from a young age. I bought all my own clothes/entertainment (with the exception of some Christmas/Birthday presents) by the time I was in Jr. High. I never once expected my parents to pay for my mission. I knew I'd be paying for college, so I worked hard to get scholarships. I never even thought of asking them to buy me a car. That was my responsibility. I always felt like that was really an ideal way to raise kids, as it taught me and my siblings a great deal of responsibility, taught us to be good with money, to take care of and appreciate our belongings.

But, as I was reading about Joseph's predecessors, it seems that many of them struggled with feelings of complete inadequacy because they failed to provide each of their sons with a house and a farm when they came of age.

So I guess for me the question isn't so much of if it's a good thing to provide such things. I guess I'd always thought that the historical trend was going more the other way, toward giving them more things. But if back in the late 1700's parents were already not just giving their kids these things, but actually feeling bad if they didn't, is the whole "teaching your kids responsibility by not giving them what they want" thing a new idea? Or is my family just weird?

The Delay

2009-05-12T21:32:00.001-06:00

Sorry Everyone... School has just been really crazy lately. Hopefully I'll get a new post out in the next couple of days... I figure that last one was long enough for a few posts.

Jesus The Trail Guide

2009-05-05T11:21:00.007-06:00

Here's an expanded version of an analogy that popped into my head the other day as my wife and I were discussing the atonement. Hope you like it!

I think that we can think of ourselves as lost in a huge forest (or desert, jungle, or other place where it's difficult to find your way). There are tall trees, beautiful meadows with wildflowers, scary and dark portions with wild and ferocious animals, and all other things that one would expect to find in a forest.. There are deer trails heading every which direction. And for some reason, you are completely lost, not sure how you got here, and having not even a clue as to which way you need to go to get to safety.

As you wander, you come across others who seem to be just as lost. Some headed north, others south, east and west. Eventually we come across a group of people traveling together. They seem much more confident in their chosen direction of travel, and there seems to be safety in numbers, so you join them. As you travel, you start to see if you can find out who's in charge, and how they know if they're going the right way. You ask person after person, to find out that none of them has ever been here before, yet they're pretty sure they know which way to go. Already a bit troubled, you really get uneasy when you come across another group, just as large as your own... and they're headed in the opposite direction almost. They seemed every bit as confident as you did. You decide after talking to them that you're not headed in the right direction, but you don't want to go back the way you came, so you head off on your own again.

As you wander, alone again, you see someone up ahead of you on the trail. He looks big and strong, yet kind, and very wise. As you approach, he smiles. You visit for a minute, and find out that he knows the way out. This entire forest, he says, is on his land. He knows it inside and out, every corner of it... and most of all, how to get through it safely. He's been in here, and left the forest. He then came back to show others how to get out. He asks if you'd like him to be your guide. You're quite excited by the idea, but wonder what he wants in return. Guessing what you are thinking, he says that he expects nothing in return, no reward or payment. The only condition is that you have to follow behind him, not the other way around. It seems simple enough, and you agree.

So he heads off down the trail, going the opposite direction from where you were headed before. You follow him for quite a while. He takes side trails to take you to a spring where you can get something to drink. Or he takes a trail off into some bushes with berries to eat. All the while, he stays ahead of you. At times, you feel like you have to sit down and rest, and as you do, he stops up ahead and just waits. Everything seems to be working very well, and you're quite pleased with your decision to follow.

As you're walking, it's hard to tell where you're going, because the trail is so narrow. You can't see past him very well. But you seem to catch glimpses of a meadow ahead. There are others there, who seem to be just enjoying themselves in the sun of the meadow. As you approach, he takes a sharp turn to the left, following a different trail that seems to be headed towards a scary looking section of forest. You pause at the fork in the trail. It looks so nice to be out of the trees, and out in the open. The people there seem to be having such a nice time... You look toward your guide. He's stopped, waiting for you. He beckons with his hand to follow... But you feel like you need a break from all this hiking. It's hard work, so you head off into the meadow.

After a couple of minutes, clouds cover the sun. The people who seemed so interesting and fun to see now seem more dull. You wonder if you're guide is still around, or if he left. Maybe you should go check... Just then, a pack of wolves comes rushing into the meadow. The people start to scatter... you don't know which way to flee. Then you catch sight of your guide, standing calmly at the edge of the meadow. You try to make your way toward him, but a wolf catches you from behind. He sinks his teeth in, but you manage to fight it off. You run to your guide, still standing there beckoning to you to come. You collapse to the ground in front of him. He picks you up and runs into the forest, along the trail where you'd left him. Once safely away, he sets you down and begins to clean and bandage your wounds. Once you've had something to drink, he gets up, and reminds you that all he asks is that you follow him and he'll get you out of here safely. Then he heads down the trail.

So you stand up, and start limping along behind him, feeling a little beat up, but already feeling much better than you expected. You commit to yourself that you're not going to leave your guide again...

Sadly, you find yourself doing just that, again and again. You catch glimpses of the path ahead, and start to wonder if he's really taking you on the right path. Sometimes it seems as if he's taking you up and down mountains, crossing back and forth across rivers, and going through thorny bushes for no reason at all. Why not just stay on this side of the river, or walk around the mountain? And every so often, you decide it would be so much better, so much easier to take this path instead. So you do. And every time, whether sooner or later, the wolves arrive. You realize how bad the decision was, and you want Him back.

--------

But he never follows you. He holds to the arrangement. You are to follow him. He is the guide. When you chose to take your own path, he does nothing to force you to come back, but only beckons and calls your name. But, as soon as you realize you made a mistake, and want him back as a guide, he is there, showing you the way. He even will pick you up and carry you, but only when you really need it. And only when you've chosen to come with him.

--------

So it is with the Savior. He is the greatest of guides. Not only has he been here, and made it out of the forest, but the world is His. It's his creation. His view surpasses our own, and He is able to lead us around obstacles, however appealing they may seem, that would have hindered our progress.

My favorite part of this analogy though is the way that the Savior is always there for us. He won't go with us on our wrong paths. But the moment we recognize our error, and want him back, he's there to show us the way. There's no where in the "forest" we can go whence he cannot lead us out again. He will come to us the darkest places. No matter how rebellious, how sinful we choose to be, if we'll just turn around, and look to Him, take a step his direction... He will lead us to safety.

P.S. I like the way this makes sin look as well... it's simply choosing to go down a path that isn't the right one. And it all kind of links back up with pride being the universal sin... why else would we ever leave our guide? It's the assumption that we know better.

Priesthood Blessings, Words vs Ideas

2009-04-27T18:04:00.004-06:00

One aspect of the LDS church that is quite unique is that of a lay priesthood. Having average guys holding the authority to acti in the name of diety seems quite unusual. Actually, I quite like it. I've seen many great blessings (read: positive happenings) come from priesthood blessings (i.e. the ordinance that is performed). I do not doubt their power. I have felt the spirit confirming what was said, both in receiving and giving them.

But talking about blessings (the ordinance) with my wife and others has led me to believe that I have a very different feeling about how the revelation/inspiration occurs. To illustrate, I'll give a couple brief examples:

Story #1 - A friend of mine had two sons. Then he had a daughter. Along came another son. At the baby blessing for the youngest son, the father blessed him that he would be "a good example to his brothers and sisters."

Story #2 - My wife and I have shared our patriarchal blessings with each other. There is actually very little that they have in common. However, there is one difference that really struck out to her as we read them together the first time. Mine makes reference to me coming forth in the morning of the first resurrection, (assuming I live my life faithfully) whereas hers does not.

So, what's the fuss about? My friends wife (from #1) pointed out to us that this statement of "sisters" must mean that they were supposed to have another child... so they did. It was a boy. So they tried again, and got a girl. Now son #3 (child #4) could really be a good example to both his brothers and sisters.

My wife, noting the difference in our blessings, went on to explain to me that she was quite sure that the second coming will happen within her lifetime, because of the lack of this clause. Note, this is not something that she just concluded on her own. Apparently this was a common thing in her stake... the youth of the church are now receiving blessings without telling them when they'll be resurrected. This means that, obviously, they won't be... they'll be changed at His coming.

I don't want to sound antagonistic, or superior, but am I the only one who doesn't view blessings (the ordinance) as scripts given by the Lord to the individual? Am I the only one who doesn't think the exact wording is necessarily inspired? Havind two more kids because of an "s"?!? Not expecting death, because a phrase was not mentioned in your Patriarchal blessing?

From my experiences with giving priesthood blessings, here's how I see things. My guess is, my wife had a new Patriarch appointed, who tended not to say anything about the resurrection in his blessings (my wife's was not an isolated case... apparently this has been taught in church/seminary where she grew up). I think my friend was expressing a righteous desire in blessing his child, with faith that it would come to pass. He wasn't given certain quantites of siblings to include in the sentence.

I've given numerous blessings (ordinance, and hopefully at least occasionally been involved in the positive happenings of their lives :-) ) and I can say that, for me at least, the words spoken are frequently my own. I feel guided in what I should tell a person, what council I might give, etc., but for me, I would describe this process of being inspired with feelings. I feel the love that God has for his children. I "feel" what he wants to tell them. Then I try and get it out in language.

Am I alone here? How do you think of Priesthood blessings. Are the words that important?

Spiritual Diabetic Neuropathy

2009-04-24T09:00:00.000-06:00

The last few posts have gotten a bit long, so I'll try and keep this a bit shorter. I was just reviewing my notes from Conference and thought I'd share some thoughts I had from Pres. Eyring's Priesthood talk. He spoke about the responsibility we have to look after others. This struck me because (well, mainly because I'm nerdy) I'd just attended a conference on diabetic neuropathy (see, I told you), which has some interesting parellels. Then, during the talk, he kind of drew them even closer together for me.

After reccounting the story from "Black Hawk Down," he said, "Such a feeling of responsibility for others is at the heart of faithful priesthood service. Our comrades are being wounded in the spiritual conflict around us. So are the people we are called to serve and protect from harm. Spiritual wounds are not easily visible, except with inspired eyes."

So what does this have to do with diabetes? One of the complications of diabetes, long term, is that it causes problems with your nerves, frequently in the hands and feet. When you start to lose sensation in your toes, you can't tell when your shoes are uncumfortable, or if there's a rock in your shoe, or even if you step on a thumb tack. This leads to infection. Also, the nerves that should control your sweat glands die off too, so now you have ultra dry skin, which cracks, and leads to opportunities for infection even without any particular trauma. Even normal feet generally have a relatively poor blood supply, which is how you fight off infections, so this adds up for a perfect storm, leading to a lot of lower limb amputations.

What's the solution? Well, one of the best things you can do for your feet is to examine them twice a day, and stop going around barefoot (ever) once you have lost/poor sensation. However, one of the things they stressed in the conference was the benefit of having someone else to help you. Having you husband/wife check your feet (even if it's every few days) can have a tremendous impact on the health outcomes for patients. The problems are detected early, before they start to take over and kill off a lot of tissue.

Same with the gospel. That's why the Church exists at all (or one reason anyway). Not be be each others master, but to check our feet for us. (Sometimes it's hard to see in some spots)

Pres. Erying said, "Only an authorized judge in Israel is given the power and the responsibility to verify that there is a serious wound, to explore it, and then, under inspiration from God, to prescribe the necessary treatment for healing to begin. Yet you are under covenant to go to a spiritually wounded child of God. You are responsible to be brave enough and bold enough not to turn away."

and, "I would never put off such an impression because I had learned that the wounds of sin are often not felt at first by the one being hurt. Satan seems sometimes to inject something to deaden the spiritual pain while inflicting the wound. Unless something happens soon to begin repentance, the wound can worsen and widen."

That's just the way sin works. Often, we don't feel its effects (peripheral nerve damage happens first). But others around us can notice small changes, if they look. If they don't, and we don't, soon a larger sin enters in, and begins to take over. Once inside, the results can be devastating (even more so with sin than with the loss of a limb)

Sorry, that wasn't so short after all...

Modesty, Garments, & Nudity? - Part 2

2009-04-21T23:01:00.008-06:00

To not be lost, catch the first part of the discussion of modesty in Part 1.

(My apologies, it's a bit late for coherent writing, but I wanted to finish this before time gets away from me.)

So, back to modesty. What is it really all about? I think it's about avoiding pride. If we look at it this way, the admonition to be be modest in our dress has more to do with dressing so as not to intentionally draw undue attention to ourselves, being "free from conceit or vanity." Wearing a swimsuit to church would be immodest, because it would serve to draw attention to myself. Going swimming in tuxedo would likely have the same result. It seems that it is all about our attitude in the clothing choices we make. The outcome we desire has an impact on the correctness of an action.

If our attitude is what determines our level of modesty, I have a hard time seeing a problem with going naked at a nude beach. Assuming one's desire is not to have others be impressed by one's physique, the situation seems analogous. The nudity would not attract any undue attention, because others would be nude, and expecting to see nudity.

What this implies is that there is nothing wrong with nudity per se. It can be non-sexual. That is not to say that any nudity is modest. Certainly, the contrast is easily seen with a strip club. There, regardless of how much skin is currently being shown, the revealing nature of the clothing worn is designed specifically to gain attention (what's more, in a sexual way). This is most obviously immodest. But it doesn't seem to be the nudity itself that is immodest, but rather the intent of the stripper, the way she behaves in attempting to draw attention to herself.

Now, anyone who wants to say there's no such thing as non-sexual nudity has forgotten what it is like to be a kid. I don't know how many times I've seen my nephew bolt from the bathroom, leaving a towel lying somewhere in his path, and running around the house naked. Why? Because he doesn't enjoy clothing. They bother him. He hates shoes. Pulls his socks off constantly. And if you leave him alone long enough, he'll remove everything his little hands are able to.

For me, I've worked in a health care setting for a few years. I've seen naked body after naked body, and I can tell you that the amount of sexual tension in that encounter is entirely dependent on me. If I have it in my head that nudity is sexual per se, then every time I see a patient that's going to be an issue. But if I get used to the idea that nudity is simply... nothing. It's not anything. It's a lack of something. It's like zero, not even a real number (I'm not talking about actual sets of numbers), it's the absence of numbers. It's "clothlessness." For me, at work, a body is simply, a body. A diagnostic tool. A source of information. And, more importantly, a person... just without all the trappings.

For me, I seem to have become a "nudist" without ever really thinking of myself as such, or participating in a nudist lifestyle. I don't think there's anything wrong with the naked body. When I go to work and see nudity, it doesn't ever cross my mind that it's sexual in any way... because it's not. (To be honest, the first few times it happened, it was at least a little sexual for me. But that was due to my incorrect perception that nudity and sexuality always go together. It's no longer an issue... really) When I get done exercising, and shower at the gym, I see lots of other guys nude... but it is again not even remotely sexual. When I give my nephew a bath, I see him nude. But guess what... still not sexual.

Some of the most beautiful art ever created was of the naked form... seeing David in person was breathtaking for me. I think we need to remember that art is an imitation. As great as Michelangelo was, he cannot compete with the beauty that God has created in us, in giving us our bodies. I think it is tragic the way we have linked all nudity to sexuality, teaching even small children that there is something dirty about their bodies, such that they must be covered. They are beatiful creations. God said they were good. Who are we to argue with that, or to say that they need decoration to look appropriate?

(I'm tired, so I'll just briefly mention this, since it is likely to come up for some people: I think it is flat wrong to teach the young women of the church that it is their responsibility to control the thoughts of the young men, by dressing in a way that would not be sexually appealing to them. It tells the girls that if they do get inappropriate attention, ogled, harassed, or raped, that somehow it is their fault. And IT'S NOT! If I can be expected to not look at patients in a sexual way, there is no reason that all men (young or not) shouldn't have the same expectation in daily life.)

If I can do it at the office (as in, not equate nudity with sexuality), why not at the beach? Or a pool? Hot tub? Party?? Home?

For the interest of full disclosure, I'm not sure how I feel about the whole social nudity idea in relation to Mormonism, but I am having trouble finding good scriptural reasons for its proscription.

Modesty, Garments, & Nudity? Part 1

2009-04-20T20:29:00.015-06:00

Wow... after reading over at MormonMatters about the mormon nudists, I've been doing a lot of thinking. I've also been scanning the bloggernacle for older posts having to do with modesty, nudity, and the garment. I have to say my thinking has undergone some interesting shifts over the last couple of weeks.

So what exactly is modesty? It's really interesting, considering the emphasis in the current church, that I wasn't really able to find anything in the scriptures on the subject. A quick search of the scriptures led to a single use of the word modest, in 1 Timothy, Ch 2. Here, the use seems to fall in line with the traditional definition of modesty, which has nothing to do with dress per say. It's about being humble. About avoiding what the Book of Mormon calls fine twined linens and costly apparel. About not being prideful.

Looking through the scriptures, I find lots of negative comments about clothing generally, and some neutral ones like admonitions not to worry about it. When it's not mentioned negatively, any positive views are often talked about only in reference to clothing the naked. Here, it seems, it's more about providing something to someone who is poor, no different than providing housing to the homeless.

So I guess one question that comes up is this: When did modesty start to mean dressing in a way to conceal certain body parts? Why has the church focused so much energy on this issue which, to me at least, seems to find little scriptural support? The scriptures that are cited to go promote the notion of clothing to conceal our bodies seem like they are being stretched a bit.

Most commonly, the reference to Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden is given as a reason we wear clothes. Upon eating of the fruit, they become aware of their nakedness. Actually, this is pointed out to them by Satan. (As referenced in the question from God, "who told thee that thou wast naked," as well as in the Endowment) God, finding them naked, doesn't seem bothered by it in the least. Rather, he seems concerned as to how they came to this realization. They seem to have encountered shame for the first time, and that shame did not come from above. Satan is the one who tells them to hide, and to use the fig leaves.

God does, later, make clothing for them. However, this is not so they will be properly dressed to be in His presence, but rather to prepare them to be sent out into the world. At this point, we're just talking about a man and his wife, so I still see no reason to believe that God had any moral reason for making them cover up. (Let me qualify that by saying that there was probably an important symbolic element in it... in that the clothes were made of skins, necessitating the animal sacrifice to produce them, symbolizing the atonement) Rather, the simplest reading to me is that a loving father, upon kicking his kids out of the house, gives them what they'll need to keep warm outside.

So what about garments? Sacred clothing has been around since the beginning, but garments as we know them have been around since the time of Joseph Smith. I'll try and find the source, but I remember reading a quote from the First Presidency (way back when.... early 1900's) saying that the garment had been revealed to Joseph, and that to alter it would never happen, unless a specific revelation were received on the subject. Just a few years later, doing a little history they discovered that in fact Joseph didn't receive a revelation designating the style of the garment, but rather it was designed by a group of women who showed it to him, which he signed off on. Based on that new info, the (new) First Presidency introduced changes to the style of the garment, shortening the legs and arms, allowing buttons, getting rid of the collars, etc. Later (much) they again approved the switch to a two-piece garment, this time it was done quietly however, with no need to explain that such an action was permissible, since it was no longer the position of the church that the garment style was designated by revelation.

That brings me to the poor logic that many members use when trying to explain modesty. They try to define modesty as dressing in a way that would cover the garments. They also (in my experience, people tend to do both) explain one of the main purposes of the garment as being to keep us dressing modestly. That's a nice circular argument for you... "you need to wear X, because you need to dress modestly (where modesty = wearing x). That's no argument at all.

Another problem with this reasoning is what was mentioned before... the garment changes. If modesty is something we've been commanded to do, (I sure think so) then how do you explain the changes to the garment, to accommodate changes in fashion?

Another issue I see in the church (which was discussed at length on some other blogs) is the issue of enforcing garment-covering=modesty even on people who are unendowed. Teaching the youth (and even toddlers) that they are immodest if they are wearing something that wouldn't cover garments is such a stretch to me. I can't find anything scriptural to come remotely close to backing that up!

Which brings me back to what it means to be modest. Modesty is about an attitude. It's about seeking to make ourselves more than we are, to get more attention. That can be done by dressing in a way that makes ourselves into sexual objects. It can also be done (as is the frequent use in the scriptures) by simply the clothes that we chose to wear... having nothing at all to do with sexuality. We are told of the wickedness of those that begin to wear "fine apparel" and all so that some one will "look at me!"

I'll have to break this off here, and continue later. We'll go into body shame vs. modesty, and even delve into public nudity and it's relation to the gospel in Part 2.

Teaching Ideals

2009-04-10T12:56:00.003-06:00

Another interesting tidbit that kind of jumped out at me during conference:

The other day I was reading on another blog (I'll post a link if I can find it again) a discussion about the way the church always teaches to the ideal. There was a great deal of fus and debate in the comments, about whether the Church is right or wrong in teaching ideals -- like children have the right to a 2 parent, married in the temple, father working, mother staying at home kind of childhood -- and it was generally taken for granted by everyone that in fact the church does this. The main line of discussion seemed to be whether that was proper or not, whether that neglected those who couldn't meet those standards etc.

During the Priesthood session, Bishop Edgley had this to say:

Bishops, the sisters have a role in this effort. Because of the economy, many mothers are finding it necessary to make budget and other living adjustments. Some are even finding it necessary to leave the home to find work. The Relief Society sisters, with their specially endowed, compassionate hearts, can help. They can help identify the needy. They can teach. They can babysit, console, comfort, and encourage. They can make a difference.

I found this quite refreshing. He was explicitly telling the members of the church how they can help those who find themselves in circumstances that don't permit them to provide the "ideal." Telling the sisters to provide babysitting, so that mothers can work... what an awesome move that would be in the Church. If we can get around this whole idea of judging each other. Sure, it might not be the ideal, but maybe I should do all I can to make it more ideal.

Just a thought. I think it's interesting that sometimes we can get really caught up in arguing about whether something the Church is doing is the best or not... even when sometimes that may not be what they are doing at all.

Are We Too Reverent?

2009-04-08T12:34:00.005-06:00

There's a scene in Monty Python & The Search for the Holy Grail, where Arthur and his knights see God in a vision. They, keeling and bowing before him, are told that He's tired of everyone groveling all the time. Now, I don't think that's how God feels at all, and I think we should do all we can do show proper reverence and respect to him.

However, I do sometime feel that we take reverence to an innappropriate extreme... or rather, in the wrong direction. Frequently (ok, maybe occasionally is more correct) we get counseled in conference (most recently, this weekend by Elder Nelson, if I remember correctly) about the proper form of prayer. (Maybe I'll update this with some quotes once the transcripts are available) He talked about the importance of using the respectful words of Thee, Thy, and Thou in place of You and Your.

Now I'm sure this is something that's been pointed out around the Blogernacle before, but I don't get it. In every other language I'm aware of, prayer is done in the familiar, not formal conjugations of verbs. We don't teach the Spanish-speaking members to pray in Usted. And my understanding is that Thee, Thy, and Thou were once to the English language what "tu" is to Spanish. We English-speakers started praying that way because that's how everyone prayed. Now, the familiar conjugation is virtually absent in English, so it has come to seem very old-fashioned, which we moderns seem to interpret as formal. But it's not. The reason for saying Thee and Thou should be to develop a closer relationship with Diety... not create distance.

The question is further complicated by the fact that 99.999% of english speakers haven't the foggiest idea how to conjugate their verbs appropriately to use Thee/Thy properly. Even in the church (myself included) we don't know how to do it with the exception of a few common verbs (didst, wouldst, hast, doest, etc). So how is that showing respect to use a gramatically innappropriate (and familiar) pronoun for the verb I'm using, or even switching between Thou and You in the same sentence? It's partly because of this that for me, years after my mission, I still do all my private prayer in my mission language... it's more intimate, and I can just talk, without thinking about the proper way to say "you wanted" in thou (thou wantedest?)

In another talk this weekend, we heard from Sister Liffert(?) of the Primary General Presidency. She encouraged us to teach are children proper respect by teaching them to call the members "Brother Smith" and "Sister Anderson" rather than Jack and Jill. Again, we miss the point of the titles brother and sister. They are intended (or iriginally did) to put us on the same level... not to put them on a pedestal of respect. So what do I call Dr. Smith, MD, DDS, MD, JD, PhD? I call him Brother Smith. What do I call Mr. Anderson, with no formal schooling past 3rd grade. Brother Anderson. It's not about respect. It's about the opposite of respect. That's why we read of the Saints talking of Brother Joseph, or Brigham... because they weren't demanding respect.

They were trying to be one... Sure, I'm the prophet, but that doesn't mean I'm better than everyone. Which brings up the question as to why do we Mormons tend to get a bit cranky when someone decides to call one of the Brethren by something other than the full name with middle initial. Why can't we say Gordon Hinkley, or Brother Monson? It just sounds so strange. (the one exception is to include only their title and last name... i.e. Pres. Hinkley) But since when was calling someone by their given name "evil speaking of the Lord's annointed"? Or is there some other reason we do that?

Basically, I think reverence and awe have their place. That place is Deity, not each other. And even then, I think we need to be careful that we're not creating artificial barriers, or creatin new distance between us and God by our "reverence," worrying too much about the words of our prayers, than our prayers themselves.

Mormons: Don't We Want Further Revelation?

2009-03-31T15:19:00.009-06:00

I just stumbled accross a survey done by Pew on Religion. They've got their findings nicely presented at their site. As I went through the questions, it was interesting to see how the different churches ranked for different things. It was also interesting to note that the Mormons seem to always be flanked by the Jehova's Witnesses, the Evangelicals, and the Catholics. We always tend to be at one extreme or another.

One question I saw as particularly interesting was number 11. It asked, "Should your church: A) preserve its traditional beliefs and practices; B) Adjust beliefs and practices in light of new circumstances; C) Adopt modern beliefs and practices; or D) other?"

68% of Mormon's went with preservation (A), 23% think we should adjust in light of new circumstances (B), only 3% want to adopt modern practices (C), while 6% went with other (D).

From an LDS view, I completely understand the repudiation (97% of us) of choice C... of course the church shouldn't just adopt "modern" beliefs and practices about everything. But really, only 23% for choice B? It seems to me to be by far the best choice for a church who believes in continuous revelation. Preserve traditional practices? What about polygamy? That was changed due to new circumstances was it not? (See Official Declaration #1) The entire argument Wilford Woodruff makes seems to be one of adjusting our practices in light of new and changed circumstances (laws enacted by congress, what he saw would happen if they didn't). What about adding to the quorums of the Seventy? Making the endowment videos? Changes to the endowment ceremony, and more recently to the initiatory?

If a GA says that we'll never go to the moon, don't we adjust that belief when 1969 rolls around and Neil Armstrong proves otherwise? If BRM says blacks will never have the priesthood, don't we change that belief, and the practice of not ordaining them (or endowing them, sealing them, preaching in Africa, etc.) when new circumstances arise (i.e. Pres. Kimball - See OD #2)?

For me, the having C listed as an option (adopting modern practices) softens B considerably. B seems to be an ideal choice for the latter-day saints. Where does this desire to preserve historical practices come from? Why would we value them over the new? I guess I just don't see the value in or have a desire for the Church to try to preserve traditional beliefs/practices just because they're traditional. If male/female societal rolls are simply tradition, lets have away with them. If they're an intrinsic part of our eternal being, then let's uphold them.

Or are we (68% of us) just terrified of someone misinterpretting us as meaning C, that we move past B and all the way to A, just to make sure?

(Not) Speaking of the Temple

2009-03-24T11:22:00.000-06:00

Speaking about the temple is a uniquely strange issue in the church. It is so strange to me that we don't have more open discussions about the temples. As a youth, it is drilled into you to prepare for the temple... but so little is said about what goes on there, aside from marriage. Being an endowed member, I'm fully aware of the covenants that are made therin, covenants not to reveal certain information outside the temple. However, those covenants are quite specific in what is not to be disclosed. Where do we get the notion that they apply, or should anyway, to the entire experience therein? For instance, take this quote from Elder Packer:

A careful reading of the scriptures reveals that the Lord did not tell all things to all people. There were some qualifications set that were prerequisite to receiving sacred information. Temple ceremonies fall within this category.
We do not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temples. It was never intended that knowledge of these temple ceremonies would be limited to a select few who would be obliged to ensure that others never learn of them. It is quite the opposite, in fact. With great effort we urge every soul to qualify and prepare for the temple experience.

He says, "We do not discuss the temple ordinances outisde the temples." Period? Why not? Where does this come from? For sure we discuss temple ordinances outside the temple. We talk about the sealing power, temple marriage, sealing children to parents etc. What about the endowment, and the washing/annointings? When do we ever promise not to discuss these things. A good example from James E. Talmage:

“The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material means to the spread of truth and the uplifting of the race; to maintain devotion to the cause of truth; and to seek in every way to contribute to the great preparation that the earth may be made ready to receive her King,—the Lord Jesus Christ. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent upon the faithful observance of the conditions” (The House of the Lord, rev. ed. [1976], 84).

Here, Elder Talmage wrote specifically about the covenants that we make in the temple. Is there anything wrong with that? I think not. The covenants that we make in the temple are important. I think they are something we need to be prepared to make. That's why, I think, he wrote about them. The covenants of secrecy refer specifically to not revealing the New Name, the signs, tokens, and names of the signs. Other than that, why aren't we free to discuss the rest, to search for understanding together?

One might make the case that the brethren such as Elder Talmage have spoken about certain parts of the temple, because of the value in teaching them to those preparing for the ordinances, but that discussing the rest of the endowment (or initiatory) would be without redeeming merrit, while eliminating a sense of sacredness.

However, I feel that more open discussion would prove incredibly valuable to the endowed members of the church. For example, reading a post at FMH a while back, I came across a rather novel (to me at least) feminist interpretation of the fall and Eve's roll in it. As I read, I noticed that all the scriptural accounts (Genesis, Abraham, and Moses) could easily be interpreted that way, but that in this one particular issue, the endowment differed from all other accounts. Now, it dealt with an issue of chronology, and the endowment and scriptures are not always presented chronologically, but in this case the chronology could be significant. I found this fascinating: A) that the endowment differed here, yet I'd never noticed it or its implications; and B) that I couldn't talk about it to anyone.

Here I may have discovered something that may prove comforting to more feminist members of the church, who struggle with a patriarchal church. But, what is to be done when scripture and the temple diverge? Which takes precedence? Which carries more authority? That's something I've never been taught or heard mentioned in the church. If the endowments chronology is correct, then my new interpretation falls apart. If the Bible and Pearl of Great Price have it correct, however, the interpretation stands. Could I honestly teach this to others if the endowment differs? If not teaching it to help others, why shouldn't I at least be able to discuss it with other endowed members, to get their take on it?

So I guess I'll end with a plea... does anyone know where Elder Packer gets this notion that we "do not discuss the temple ordinances" outside the temple? It's practically ubiquitous in the church, but where does it come from? And why? The sacred need not be secret. Elder Oaks hassaid that "the ordinance of the sacrament makes the sacrament meeting the most sacred and important meeting in the Church," yet it is far from secret. We have lessons on it in Priesthood/Relief Society, in Sunday School, in Primary, in FHE.... everywhere we talk and write and read about it, its significance and symbolism. Doing so has enriched my understanding of the atonement, and of the sacrament. It seems that to leave the temple untouched leaves to much that would be beneficial unsaid.

Sorry... crazy busy times...

2009-03-24T00:43:00.000-06:00

Wow... I'm really sorry. This has been a crazy couple of weeks. I had a whole series of tests... some finals and a couple midterms leading up to spring break... which led into a fun and exciting, yet relaxing break from school, where I had no internet access. But, hopefully I'll be able to get something posted in the next day or so.

Healthcare Rights... or wrong?

2009-02-11T11:18:00.001-07:00

I had an interesting conversation with a patient yesterday. He was talking about one of his favorite family practice docs. He'd built up a large practice in a pretty smalls town over the years. As he approached retirement, he decided he wanted to sell the practice. He interviewed a lot of young doctors, but wasn't able to find anyone he was willing to trust the practice to. It seemed all these young docs aren't willing to live the kind of lifestyle rural family practice docs have for years. They only wanted to work 4-5 days a week. They wanted to be able to take vacations... The patient went on to tell me that he hoped I wasn't like one of those. That I was willing to sacrifice for the good of the community.

Contrast that with a post I just read here. It tells the story of a pediatrician who's decided that medicine really isn't her #1 priority. She has a new baby. She feels like she's missing out on so much by working 65 hours a week in her current practice.

What other field is there where we expect that somone should be required to sacrifice in order to better serve us? Do I ever think, "that's just not right for Taco Bell to close @ 1:30... what if I'm hungry at 2? They are just being selfish... not willing to sacrifice for the good of the community."

I think that what it comes down to is that people are seeing healthcare as their right. They deserve it, and anyone, be it a Dr. or an insurance plan, who tries to tell them they don't have that right is just being greedy, or selfish, or not willing to sacrifice like they should.

I don't understand this line of thought. How can we possibly have that right? To say that I have a real right to healthcare is saying that I have a right to force someone else to work for me... that's slavery, or at least indentured servitude. If I have a right to take from someone their life, liberty, or property (three very real inalienable rights) if they infringe on my rights. If someone takes from me either my life, liberty, or property, they will be punished by law - and deprived of either thier life(death penalty), liberty(prison), or property(fines). Now, if I have a right, a real right, to healthcare, I am claiming that anyone who impinges on that right should be punished (taking away life, liberty, or property). Is that really what people think? Should a Dr. really be punished for not providing healthcare to a patient? If he provides poor care, causes harm, etc... for sure he should be punished. But simply refusing to treat someone? Deciding to work 40 hours a week? 20 hours?

I don't think people are following their reasoning through all the way. They are seeing something they want, that's important to them, that they may not be able to live without... and thinking they must have a right to it.

Any thoughts? Where does a right to healthcare come from?

Just for the record, I feel physicians should sacrifice for their patients. I plan on working long hours and holidays. But that doesn't mean I think the patients have a right to it. I'll do it out of charity, not obligation.

The Great Divorce

2009-02-06T11:33:00.000-07:00

So I just finished reading "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis... What an amazing book. I really do think that he had an amazing understanding of the gospel, but I'm more impressed by his ability to express that, in prose, rather than a discourse.

The great divorce tells a story about what happens to spirits after we die... the choices we have to make to make it to heaven. It was fascinating to watch as person after person chose to keep some part of hell in themselves, rather than give it up and receive heaven.

People hung on to pride, glory, even misery, rather than accept joy.... it really just did a great job of making me think, about the things that I hang on to, rather than move forward to receive all that God has in store for me.

My mission president was fond of saying that if you want to live in the Celestial Kingdom, you have to be willing to live a Celestial law. If there are laws we don't want to live, we won't want to be there. This just goes along with C.S. Lewis' book so well. If there's anything we want more than exaltation and eternal joy, we'll have it instead.

Anyone else read the book? Anything you've gained from it, or find wrong with it?

Does Prostate Cancer Prevention Justify Masturbation?

2009-02-02T10:26:00.000-07:00

I came across a post yesterday that got me thinking about masturbation again, and a conversation I've had on another blog.

First off, let me say that this post isn't about whether masturbation is healthy...

The post cites an article that was just published that looked into the the association between masturbation in early adulthood and risk for prostate cancer. Now, the study showed an increased risk of developing prostate cancer early for those who masturbated most frequently in their 20's, but even in their own discussion admit that the high level of hormones leading to the increased risk may well be the reason for the higher levels of sexual activity (masturbation or intercourse). Thus, the high levels of testosterone are causing both the frequent masturbation in the 20's and early onset of prostate cancer.

One thing they showed is that masturbation in later years tends to serve as a protection from cancer, presumably from clearing the prostate of carcinogens by ejaculation. This protective affect has been shown in other studies as well. In the linked study (much larger too: 800 men in the one finding masturbation to increase risk; 29,000 in the one finding it to decrease it), the effect was shown to be true even for younger men (20's).

But as I said, that's not the point. Sure, I believe that medical science has almost completely redeemed masturbation from the disease/insanity/imbecilism-causing activity it used to be seen as. Rather, my question here is: Why do we LDS feel that in the commandments must be temporal in nature. In D&C 29, the Lord tells us that His commandments are all spiritual, not carnal, not temporal.

If masturbation is wrong morally, what does that have to do with the physical. The act could easily be inappropriate morally without having adverse health consequences. But Mormons seem to love the idea that all the commandments have direct temporal reasons for their existence.

It's like having a conversation about the health benefits of drinking a glass of red wine at dinner, or the health benefits that can be derived from drinking tea. Mormons (ok, so that's a blanket statement, and probably shouldn't be, but let's read that as, "many of the Mormons I've come in contact with") tend to think the scientists are wrong, or trying to appease their consciences, etc.

To wrap things up, I'd still recommend the reading of an article called "Historical Development of new masturbation attitudes in Mormon Culture: Silence, secular conformity, counterrevolution, and emerging reform" for a history of Mormon views on the subject. It seems to me that what started out as something that was 'bad' because it caused health problems (according to erroneous medical opinion of the day), came to be called 'bad' morally because of those cultural perceptions (mainly by Elders McConkie and Kimball) and then 'we' tend to try to say that masturbation must still be 'bad' for you in a physical way, because it is 'bad' the way Elders McConkie and Kimball claimed. Seems like some amazingly bad logic to me.

I'm willing to have a discussion about the morality of masturbation, or of drinking wine, etc., but why are we trying to say that science will eventually show a temporal, physical benefit to all the teachings of the church, or that studies that show the opposite must be wrong. Following a commandment doesn't always lead to better health or longer life. If you want to know more about what I think about it, you should read this post. Either masturbation is healthy, or its not; either it's moral, or it's not; those two have no necessary relation, if you ask me.

Blue shirts

2009-01-28T17:54:00.000-07:00

School has been taking up a lot more time than expected this month. Sorry for the delay in getting any posts out. This one will have to be a bit brief, and hopefully I'll be able to find time to come back and add to it a bit later.

This sunday the PH lesson was based on a talk from Elder Oaks from conference. In it, he quoted Elder Holland's address in which he ecouraged the young men of the church to wear white shirts to church, as a symbol of their baptismal clothes, their white clothes they'll wear to the temple, and the white shirts they'll wear on their missions. - All well and good...

Then the teacher went on to say that this teaching applies to us as well, since we've all moved past those steps (I guess not everyone did all of them...). So we are likewise needing to always wear the white shirt to church. He confessed that he didn't always do it, but after this he was repenting and hoped to do better in the future.

Two interesting things. First, a friend of mine in the quorum happened to be the only one in the group not wearing the standard uniform, but rather a nice blue shirt under his suit coat. I never would have had the guts to refer to this as a commandment, singling out this one guy like that.

Second, where in the world does this come from? Why on earth is there anything wrong with a nice blue shirt. Is there any guideline ever asking the brethren to only wear white ones? Does it say anything in the handbook about not letting men with colored shirts pass/bless the sacrament?

I don't understand it. I don't understand why anyone cares...

So, anyone know of any sources for the idea/tradition/commandment that we (adult men in particular) have to wear white shirts to church?

Scriptures... A few thoughts

2009-01-07T07:58:00.000-07:00

Sorry everyone... it's been a while. But I'm back from break, and things should get back to normal now.

For Christmas I recieved a copy of the "Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow," from Desert Book's Gospel Scholars Series. So far it's been a pretty good read, and I've enjoyed it. I thought today I'd just share some thoughts on some things I read yesterday, about the scriptures.

First, a quote from Elder Packer: "If [you] are acquainted with the revelations, there is no question -- personal or social or political or occupational -- that need go unanswered. Therein is contained the fulness of the everlasting gospel. Therin we find principles of truth that will resolve every confusion and every problem and every dilemma that will face the human family or any individual in it."

Wow! That's a gigantic claim about the contents of the scriptures. I'm not entirely sure how to take it though. Is he saying that in the scriptures we will find the answers to every question we might ever face? Do they contain information about particle physics etc? Or is he saying that in them we find the means to obtain such information, such seeking learning by study and faith, and out of the best books? If this is the intent, I think the statement is a bit of hyperbole.

------------------------------------

A quote from Pres. Lee: "I say say that we need to teach our people to find their answers in the scriptures. If only each of us would be wise enough to say that we aren't able to answer any question unless we can find a doctrinal answer in the scriptures! And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken are false--it is as simple as that. But the unfortunalte thing is that so many of us are not reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things that we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves. I think that therein is one of our biggest dangers of today."

Now, I really liked this quote. I think that if we, as a church, did a much better job in learning what is actually written in scripture, we'd be much less liable to buy into a lot of speculation that gets thrown around in the church, and accept it as doctrine. But, I am curious as to how this fits in with a quote from the next page in the book from Brigham Young:

Wilford Woodruff tells a story of when there was some discussion in a meeting in the early church as to the place of the written scripture vs. the living oracles, and whether the prophet and church leaders should be limited by what's in the scriptures. Brigham youn stood up and said, "There is the written word of God to us, concering the work of God.... And now, when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books." Then Joseph got up and said, "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth."

So I guess my question is, how does the quote from Pres. Lee relate to that of Brigham Young, especially as it relates to the general authorities, or even "a man bearing the Holy Priesthood." Does the word of an Apostle supercede canonized scripture? Does it do so only if it's a statement from the First Presidency and Quorum of the the Twelve? From either?

For example: I don't suppose I can think of an Apostle who enjoyed speculating, and preaching it as definitive truth, more so than Elder McConkie. So what of it? Should he have followed the council of Pres. Lee, limiting himself rather than proclaiming that there was no death before the fall, or that any who imagine that God might progress in actually learning new things must be as smart as a bit of primordial goo? Or should we as a church accept his word, as a living oracle (well, living at the time), even though there's no definitive doctrinal answer in the scriptures? (I'm not just talking about these two issues... there's tons of them, so I'm not looking here for a discusssion of the progression of God)

And I guess a final dimension the this problem would be one in which the prophets disagree. Evolution, for example. We have different Apostles with very conflicting views on the subject. Why don't they stick to the council of Pres. Lee and leave the thing unanswered? Should they? Ultimately, that is what the First Presidency did, telling the general authorities to leave the subject alone, leaving geology, biology, etc to the scientists of their respective fields, and the church to the subject of saving souls.

(I've got to get to class now, but I'll try and get some references in here for all who might like them in the very near future.)

Finals, Travel, & Holidays

2008-12-23T14:37:00.001-07:00

Sorry everyone... Between finals, computer problems, and travel for the holidays, I haven't been able to post anything in a while. I should get a post up in the next day or two. Once I get through the holidays I should get back up and running, and get to posting more regularly...

Merry Christmas everyone!

Taking care of the poor, and Meat sacrificed to idols

2008-12-07T16:18:00.000-07:00

I had a thought today as I went through a talk from the last general conference. Elder Christofferson gave a talk about Zion, and the need to look after the poor. He said, "In much of the world, we are entering upon unsettled economic times. Let us look after one another the very best we can."

So I got to thinking about what it means to "look after one another," and about Paul, who taught that we should be content to have just food and raiment (1 Tim 6:5-8). Today's SS lesson also had the words of Moroni, warning those of the last days who love money more than the sick and afflicted (Mormon 8). So obviously we're not supposed to do that... We need to only seek riches to build up the kingdom as we learn in Jacob... But that left me with another idea from Paul: He teaches in 1 Cor 8 that we should avoid doing things, even if they aren't wrong, simply because another may be led to sin by our so doing. In this case, it had to do with eating meat sacrificed to a false idol. And Paul says, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend" (vs 13). Even though an idol is "nothing," we shouldn't eat les others who don't know that be enticed to eat and sin.

So back to pride, and taking care of the poor. Would this teaching lead us to this: that even if we are desiring riches for the right reason, are we in danger of sinning in the use of our money if the things we purchase (even if our motives are good) with it leads others to envy our position and wealth... if it causes them to, say, go into excessive debt to try to "keep up" with what I have? Does some of their sin (envy) go on my head?

What do you think? Must we spend only the essential amount of money necessary for food/raiment, and save or give away the rest? Why or why not?

Changes to Commandments

2008-12-01T15:16:00.000-07:00

Happy (belated) Thanksgiving!

Sorry for not posting last week... There just wasn't much time between the turkey & the PIES!

So my thought for today has to do with commandments that change. For example, the Word of Wisdom. The scriptures have always decried the evils of excessive drinking, but what is the reason for the change in modern revelation, which restricts alcoholic beverages outright?

First off, I'm not really sure. But here's my stab at it.

We'll look at alcohol. I wonder if alcohol wasn't seen as such a big deal because it's negative side effects weren't as severe back in the day. It wasn't a requirement to obey the WoW until 1902 (I think). What else happened around that time? Cars happened. Assembly line production began in 1902, then expanded by Ford in 1914. Cars were about to become a big thing in American life. Maybe drunk driving and its associated risks for accidents, and unnecesary shortening of innocent life contributed to this change. Previously, drinking did damage to your liver, but didn't hurt others the way it does/can in modern society.

A Reverse Example: Chastity

Chastity has always been taught by the prophets, and violations of it considered terrible, yet the consequences of such sins have varried dramatically over time. In the Old Testament, we read of many who were killed for such indescretions. It seems as though adultery was seen as paramount in its gravity, compared with other sexual sins that didn't involve breaking a marriage vow.

This is in stark contrast with the way these sins are treated in the church today. Adultery and fornication are grounds for excommunication, but that is nothing compared to the harsh penalties of ages past. No death, no stoning, etc. But why the change?

Is is possible that this could be for similar reasons. The dangers of non-marital sexual adventures is, when using technologies (latex condoms) availible today, and common sense, perhaps not as detrimental to health as it would have been in the past.

I dunno, I'm rather skeptical. Plus, I don't know how to factor in more relaxed positions in the past that I've skipped over. For example, Alma chastised his son Corianton for going after the harlot Isabel... but what happened to him? He was sent right back into the mission field.

It also doesn't explain a more generally relaxed (in my view) view of visiting a prostitute than sleeping with a virgin, which should be the opposite if longer life-span were a real part of the equation.

Any thoughts?

Pride... preventing Deification

2008-11-24T10:17:00.000-07:00

In preparing lessons for Sunday School recently, I've been thinking a lot about pride. As I was reading a bit, I turned to some C.S. Lewis, as I like to do, and came accross one of my favorite things he wrote, from Mere Christianity.

Pride is essentially competitive - is competitive by its very nature - while the other vices are competitive only, so to speak, by accident. Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others. If everyone else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone. That is why I say that Pride is essentially competitive in a way the other vices are not. The sexual impulse may drive two men into competition if they both want the same girl. But that is only by accident; they might just as likely have wanted two different girls. But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you. Greed may drive men into competition if there is not enough to go round; but the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possibly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power. Nearly all those evils in the world which people put down to greed or selfishness are really far more the result of Pride.

I just think it's such an interesting point, that pride is such a different sin than others, and it's the competition in it that sets it apart. Pride is all about being better than others, and that, as I see it, is as far from progressing towards exaltation as we can get. I see Christ's prayer for us to be one with Him & the Father as an invitation for us to enter into the same kind of relationship with Him as He has with the Father. That requires total unity, complete one-ness. Pride is completely incompatible with that type of relationship. This need for competition is keeping us from having that kind of relationship with Them, and with each other as well.

Mormonism, Masturbation, and growing up Male

2008-11-21T14:34:00.002-07:00

First off, I want to apologize... this is going to be a long post.

So... We'll jump right into something. I've been skipping around on a few other mormon blogs recently. I was reading on the culturalhall.com, and which I'm sad to say has shut down (temporarily I hope). Anyway, I ended up there linked from another blog, but found my way to an article called "Confessions of Serial Masturbator/Repenter." A very interesting read.

So, since the site is shut down for comments, I thought I'd put my two cents in here. Fair warning, this may take a while for me to get through everything. But, be patient.

Growing Up

We'll start at the beginning, my beginning. I grew up in a Mormon family... pretty much. We went to church every week. But there was very little religion at home, no FHE, prayers, scripture study, etc. I grew up more or less believing that the church was true, but never really had reason to doubt it either. When I was approaching puberty, my dad lost his job, and had to go back to school. Since we live in a rural area, that meant he was gone during the week, and came to visit on weekends for a few years. That meant dad was no longer coming to church. I'd also reached that age where you start to question things, and, long story short... I pretty much decided over the next few years that there was no such thing as God, and that was ok.

Discovery

It was during this time, when left with large open spaces, solitude, and a rather introverted personality, that I discovered masturbation. I really don't remember when that happened. But I discovered that it felt good, somehow intuitively knew I probably shouldn't tell people, yet I don't remember even the slightest pangs of guilt about it. I grew up with a lot of empty fields and streams and trees around, so I found secret pleasure in the summer skinny-dipping alone on a hot day, which often involved me masturbating.

Over the next few years, I struggled with my self-esteem, not related to masturbation, but rather because of issues with trying to gain my father's approval (long story, didn't happen, not gunna, I kind of shut off emotionally, and now I'm pretty much over it... that'll be a post another day). Sometime around my junior year I once again gained some interest in the church. After a lot more investigating, a LOT of reading, and a LOT of prayer, I received a very powerful witness that the Book of Mormon was true, and that the LDS church was true, and that I needed to actually put my life in line with it's teachings... and for a teenage boy, that meant stopping masturbating.

Trying to Quit

I thought, that's ok. I've always had pretty good self control in almost all aspects of my life. So I stopped. No problem. But then, I don't remember how long after, it happened. I had this irresistible urge to masturbate. I did. I fell down. I came down on myself really hard for that... (I have a knack for that: being way to hard on myself. I'm getting better though) I eventually picked myself up again, and was on my merry way. But I fell again, and thus began a long cycle of masturbation, shame, feeling miserable about myself, masturbation for self soothing, occasionally making a new resolution to free myself from it. I sometimes made it a long time (several months), in fact enough so that I felt worthy to go on a mission.

That lasted about half-way through the MTC, then it began again. I fought with it throughout my mission. Scriptures "no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God" and GA quotes (miracle of forgiveness, etc) just tortured me. I probably slept for 2-3 hours per night most of my mission. I couldn't forgive myself, couldn't imagine that God could forgive someone who'd committed one of the sins second only to denying the Holy Ghost and murder. Finally, two thirds of the way through, I went to my Mission President after one of the best talks I've ever heard on forgiveness, and how to know when we're forgiven. He helped me so much. He let me know that this was extremely common (I'd always felt I had to be one of the only men in the church with this problem). He said that there were tons of missionaries in the field with me that did it. It wasn't at all as I'd feared: He didn't send me home, told me I should still be taking the sacrament, didn't release me from my calling as zone leader, didn't take my birthday away, or faint of shock. He told me to work to try and avoid it, and kind of directed the conversation as more of being an issue of self-control, rather than one of the worst sins on earth. He even told me that he, as a younger man, had masturbated as well. This was the first time I'd had any hope of being able to overcome this and become a responsible man in the church one day.

Unfortunately, despite my best intentions, it happened again. I called my MP, and he gave me some support. Before I left for home, he offered encouragement, and told me I should talk to my Stake President about it when I got back. I did, and he told me to visit with my Bishop. When I did that, he was very disappointed in me, but again, the main thing I got from him was that this wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was. I was still to take the sacrament, and the temple could be a source of strength. I should read, pray, and strive to avoid it. I did that for a long time. But it still really was hard for me to let go, and be ok with an occasional mistake. I still really struggled with my self esteem, for a while taking a break from dating after the mission, because, "even if I find someone I like, why would she be interested in me?"

New Perspectives

Finally, from doing some reading, especially online, I came to doubt whether or not it really was a sin. I questioned statements from GA's that were flat out wrong (masturbation leads to insanity, blindness, being gay, etc) or at least misleading. If they were wrong about that, were they wrong about it being sinful. Were they just reflecting cultural biases from generations past. Why haven't they said anything recently.. relying instead on pre 1975 quotes for FTSOY and such. I decided to put it to the test. I gave myself permission to masturbate without guilt, and then waited to see if I really did feel guilt from God, or if it was of my own making. I felt fine. I felt fine coming home from church, masturbating, then reading my scriptures. I never would have imagined I could feel ok about it. I didn't feel the Spirit withdraw from me. It was like my MP had told me, "I'm sure there are days when you've felt the Spirit on days that you'd masturbated..." He also told me that, "The Spirit is God's way of telling you when you are doing ok in His eyes." If I can feel the Spirit, it must not be the evil, terrible thing that Elder Packer/SWK said it was.

An interesting thing happened, when I gave myself this permission; when I no longer had the self-imposed guilt... I found myself happier, guilt-free (God didn't impose any on me for it), and surprisingly, I found myself masturbating less, and thinking MUCH less about sex. All this while meeting the girl of my dreams, getting engaged, and getting married.

Married Life

That brings me to another experience. After I'd been married a good while, one night my wife and I were talking about a friend of hers who was engaged. This friend had told her about her fiance, who would sometimes ejaculate while they were making out. I thought that was a bit weird, and so did she. Then she casually asked how often guys ejaculate, and then how often I'd ejaculated. I told her that kind of thing never happened to me. Then she wanted to know how I had ejaculated before. When I told her that I'd masturbated, she broke down in tears. I was completely unprepared for the conversation, and especially her reaction. She was doubting whether maybe our temple marriage wasn't valid or should I be going to the temple, taking the sacrament, etc. I was blown back, and didn't know what to do.

So, I'll have to go into the deeper things, the arguments for and against masturbation being a sin later. But for now, I'd like any comments from any who might read, what has been your experience with this, particularly as it relates to dealing with a spouse. It's no longer really an issue, and I don't see it being a major thing for me anytime soon, until I have a kid that I have to tell about masturbation... what will I say?

Any thoughts?

Continued...

Ok, I'm back... So the arguments. I think I've gained a lot from reading things others wrote in comments on other blogs. I really think that some GA's have stepped out too far in their interpretation of the Law of Chastity. I don't think that God ever intended masturbation to be included. President Kimball's statement that prophets ancient and modern condemned the practice (paraphrased) seems un-based in scripture. He also goes on to say that we shouldn't justify our actions simply because they aren't mentioned in the scriptures. I agree with that in general, but how does that apply here. This is an activity that 95 (or whatever incredibly high percent you want to use) percent of men (and a majority of women) do or have done, most likely in their teens to twenties. If this sin really falls into the same category as fornication and adultery, why on earth would the prophets not have spoken out on it. I remember reading a more scholarly study of the issue in Mormonism, "Historical Development of New Masturbation Attitudes in Mormonism." Some of the first reactions we have on record by the brethren were negative, for sure... but the reactions were along the lines of, this practice causes insanity (and rest of the 19th century medical ideas about masturbation's effects). They weren't "We've received revelation that this is wrong." If they believed it caused all the ill effects they talked about, of course it made sense for them to come out against it, to advise the youth against it. A few GA's continued to teach the same things, having been taught them growing up, and wanting to pass their wisdom along to the youth... only problem is, it was incorrect. (Especially Elder Packer's 'little factory' idea, that masturbating will cause it to increase, that if you don't, you'll hardly even notice!)

I don't buy the self-control idea any more either. We don't talk about self-control with food as meaning you never eat.... ever. Or even, only after marriage. It would be ridiculous. I think self-control is important with sex, but I don't think that means that people need to shut the drive off completely. It's all about channelling it to proper channels. (Just as it is after marriage) There are a significant number of people in the church who'll never marry. Why would God place these God-given urges in them if he never intended for them to be used.

I don't, however, believe that this is some sort of mind-control tactic used by the brethren. That is way too cynical for me. I believe they are inspired men, good men, trying to do the right thing. But here I think good intentions fall short. I have a testimony of the Church. I know it's true. I know we have a Prophet of God on the earth. But I also know that not every thing spoken by a prophet is the word of God. It's up to us to pray and find out for ourselves what is and is not revelation, by the power of the Spirit, as well as following the New Testament council to put the word to a test... try it, and judge it by its fruits.

Genesis

2008-11-21T14:06:00.000-07:00

Well, here begins a blog... I've been thinking about starting a blog for a while, and finally decided to do it, as a place to put some of my thoughts that I don't want to put on someone's comments section, either because it would take too long, or maybe a little unusual. Sometime's it just helps to clear the mind to write things down. And hopefully, a comment or two can help clear up my thinking. I really do try to have an open mind about things, so comment away, I'm always open to the idea that I'm completely wrong, completely crazy, or both! I plan to covor some philisophical and theological issues, in relation to the LDS church (I'm LDS, and studied philosophy, among other things in college). Maybe an occasional deep thought, and I'd guess I'll jump into politics rather frequently (I'm a libertarian). Happy reading!