The Great Divorce

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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?