Demand

What causes demand? The topic comes up from the battle between differing opinions of economists during this economic downturn.

The desire is to increase overall demand, so that comodities again start getting pulled off the shelves. Keynesian economists insist that a quick infusion of capital into the market, obtained simply by borrowing it (from??), will increase demand. Once people have a little extra money, they'll spend it. The pump just needs to be primed. So, in other words, Keynes taught that demand comes from possesion of wealth. Once you have, you demand.

On the other hand Say's Law says that supply creates demand. It's kind of an "If you build it, he will come" concept. It reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. "Mom I just saw something on TV that I never knew existed but desperately need!" Really, though, it's not a bad thing. New products improve quality of life or improve productivity. As long as a product supplied does either or both of those things, there will be demand for that product, as long as the product can be afforded. Say is correct, with the stipulation that the supply must be affordable. Otherwise you have a lot of "I wish I could have that"s.

Here's the issue with Say's economics in the current economic state. Fewer and fewer can afford the supply that they're used to, so while they wish they could have the supplied products, demand still isn't there. It's a wish, not a request.

This is where Keynsian economists have taken over. Let's make it so people can afford the supply. That should change it from a wish to demand again.

But let's take a look at what's really happening to the demand problems. Why are people buying less this year? Is it because they don't have the means? There are several new unemployeds and likely more that have taken pay cuts. But the vast majority still have their jobs. So why aren't they spending? Answer the question by asking yourself the same. Why aren't you spending as much? The answer is simply we're scared. The economy keeps slipping, and we don't know what's on the horizon. We want to be wise with our money, save it, be careful not to be caught with nothing in case we wind up without a job in a couple of years. We don't want to invest in anything, 'cause nothing's making money. Isn't that it??

So, if it's not a lack of capital that's keeping us from spending, will having more money get you to spend it? Probably not. I think most people will conitnue to hoard it, save it for the pending rainy days. The fear is still there! The more fiscally irresponsible will likely spend more here and there, but even they won't spend it all. It isn't that the pump needs to be primed. The handle won't budge.

So what needs to change? What can fix this problem?

First of all, we all have to realize that the problem was in the works for decades. We have developed a financially flippant society that tends to live well outside our means. In other words, the economy had been artificially strong for years! We weren't really that rich. We just lived like it. It was simply a matter or time before the national over-supply would lose its inflated demand. The demand was artificially high because people were demanding what they couldn't afford. There were no "I wish I could have that"s. We would just put it on credit and figure out how to pay for it later. Our own fiscal irresponsibility has created this mess.

Unfortunately there isn't a quick fix. We will have to go through a rebalancing period. Trying to artificially inflate demand again will do nothing but allow us to live with the problem for a few more years. Supply will have to shrink to match the true national demand, which means that many will lose their jobs. Will it be akin to the Great Depression? I don't know… How much over-supply do you think we've had? I think it could be pretty bad.

There are a few things that much be changed if we're going to make it out of this situation relatively quickly and with minimal impact. First of all, we must stop living outside of our means. I know that spending seems to be the right thing to do to to get us out of this. That's what economists are saying, the government is saying, everyone is saying. Go ahead and spend, but do it within your means. We must get this system balanced correctly. It does us no good to break out of this quickly if we still have the same imbalance, resulting in the same problem in a few years!

Second, we must improve production. Our cultural directives toward laziness has undermined the traditional hard-working efforts of previous generations that made this nation the wealthiest in the world. Get rid of the union power that keep workers from really earning their pay. Promote efficient business models. Build and support businesses that produce optimization products. Simply put, we need to make the supply more affordable. Then will the wishes become demands. This is the correct way to increase demand. Any aritificial method is temporary and results in (continued) imbalance, and deficit spending will only delay the inevitable and leave a heafty debt to our future generations.

Finally, we need to get prepared for tough times, even if we do in fact manage to avoid those tough times, so that we don't live in fear. Fear will tear this economy and nation apart. Get an emergency supply that will last you a good long while. Get yourselves a healthy and secure savings that will last your family a good while. Then you can live without the fear of a total collapse, and you can begin to spend safely and comfortably.

Wow, our church leaders were right all along! Get the word out, starting with yourself!

What is Love?

"Baby don't hurt me..." Just kidding.

They asked us that in priesthood last week. I thought it was a good question.

Of course we got some upper level, nice sounding answers in church. "Love is caring about someone else's well-being." It sounds right, but if you think about it, caring about someone else is a result of love, an effect, not a definition. I wanted to know what it is, not what we do when we love someone.

So what is it? What causes us to preoccupy ourselves with the well-being of another? Why are there certain people that we love more than others?

Obviously, it has something to do with personality. We typically love people with similar or admirable personalities easier than others. But we can love anyone.

When we find someone that we can love easily, we typically refer to it as "connecting". This term is likely coined from the idea of the "bonds of love", the metaphor of links. I wonder if this idea is actually less a metaphor and a lot closer to truth than we realize.

Have you ever felt something was wrong with someone even though they were miles away? Or have you ever randomly wondered about a close friend you haven't heard from in a while only to come home and find an email from that same friend?

I wonder if there isn't an actual link between sentient beings, a network between intelligences, that allows for the spiritual and/or emotional communication between intelligences. Love would then be a direct link between 2 intelligences, where they would be able to have relatively open spiritual and emotional communication between each other. I say relatively because there is apparently a "bandwidth" that comes with these love links. The stronger the love, the more you understand each other. People who've been happily married for years (note "happily") can think each other's thoughts.

We can build these connections ourselves. We can build them with service. Sharing an emotional experience creates an emotional link, and thuse greater understanding. We don't have to wait for these emotional experiences to happen. We create them when we serve each other.

We can also build them by getting to know others. In Ender's Game, the main character, Ender, would study his enemies completely, get to know how they think and why so that he could defeat them. But when he defeated them, he would become emotionally distraught. It is explained that it is impossible to truly know someone, who they are, how they came to be that way, etc. and not love them. I believe that is true.

Who knows what these connections consist of, but it's an interesting thought.

Investing

So, a lot of people make money by investing in assets that either increase in value or that return a profit. Banks work this way… they're basically large organized investing companies. So what effect do these investors have on the overall wealth of the nation?

Investors make money without actually producing any wealth. From previous discussions, these can be seen as a drain on the system. They are dependent on others for their wealth.

So why do we encourage and promote investing? Why is it considered good for the economy?

The key to good investing for an economy is that the investment goes to the production of wealth. What an investor is doing is giving the necessary capital to a producer to allow them to produce. The expectation is that the producer produces enough wealth from his new project to share with the investor. The investor becomes a dependent of the producer that he is investing in.

Why is this okay? Firstly, just because an investor has made himself a dependent on another's production doesn't mean that he is solely dependent on that production. Most common investors have their own job and produce their own wealth, enough to sustain themselves and a more (that's why they have a surplus to invest with). By becoming a dependent as well, they can earn a little extra money. But they aren't society leeches.

Secondly, and more importantly, the investment made causes the production of wealth that wasn't being produced before. If the new wealth created surpasses the wealth spent in creating the new production, the investment has created an overall wealth in the system. As a reward for the assistance in creating that wealth, a return payment (interest) from part of the profits is made.

Investing in productive businesses builds wealth. The investor is not creating the wealth, but he is making the creation of wealth possible where it may not have been before.

On the flip side, there is also a lot of investing in things/businesses that do not produce wealth. A couple of examples of this might be real estate (particularly short sales and other similar real estate strategies) and get rich quick schemes. Unless you're building a new house or improving an existing one, there is no new production in real estate. Instead, investors are dependent on the increase in value of their property. Of course, porperty value is dependent on many things, but primarily it is dependent on the growth of wealth in the economy. Therefore, real estate investors make their money from the wealth produced by others, and do not build any wealth themselves. As it is, it is a leeching investment.

Most get rich quick schemes are actually desinged to be leech schemes. Wealth of the economy is waiting to be had, you just have to know the tricks to snagging your share. It is designed for the lazy and uneductaed to take advantage of wealth surplusses without making a return contribution. They are despised by honest workers with good reason.

If all investments were such, the economy would fail. I'm not saying investing in real estate is necessarily bad. When properties are increasing in value, if you don't own those properties, someone else is benefitting from the increased values. But the real estate market cannot succeed without the production of wealth of producing businesses. Investments in producing businesses are what build the economy. Those are the kinds of investments we need to be making more of.

My Theory on WWII's Economic Effects

I've been reading several new analyses on the Great Depression, and how FDR's New Deal failed to solve the issues and instead prolonged the depression. In the past, the history books have generally attributed the exit of the depression to an increase in government spending, both because of the New Deal, and due to World War II. Keynesian deficit spending is the new buzz word today as government officials try to figure out how to prevent an economic collapse. John Keynes argued that the best way to stimulate a suffering economy is for the government to get involved by 1) reducing interest rates and 2) investing in the infrastructure. This theory seemed to be vindicated by the war, as the government spent deep into a hole during that time, and the economic affects of the war were very positive, finally bringing the nation out of depression. So this is what all the bailouts are all about. They're trying to stimulate the economy by investing money in struggling corporations, push money into the system to keep spending up.

Many economists are doing further studies and analysis into the causes of the extended depression and what ultimately got us out of it. These have almost unanimously agreed that Keynesian policy wasn't as successful as originally believed. In fact, many are now arguing that the policies actually prolonged the depression. UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian hypothesize that the Great Depression would have ended in 1936 if it weren't for the New Deal. Economists Robert Lucas Jr. and Leonard Rapping believed that it should have ended in 1935.

The problem, some economists pointed out, with this concept of spending is that there is a point of equilibrium. When you spend money, that money has to come from somewhere. While the government pushes aid to the public sector, it damages the private sector. Henry Hazlitt observed: “For every public job created by a bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work...But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence.” So new jobs were being created, but unemployment still wasn't improving much (it didn't dip much below 15% during the New Deal), and wealth wasn't growing fast enough. At least not until the war.

So if it wasn't Keynesian spending, what ultimately moved us out of it? Some argue the expansion of monetary policy, where it was deflation caused by a shortage of money supply that originally caused the depression. Others point to an influx of wealth from Europe due to the costs of the war.

These both would have had effects on economic progress. But here's a theory that I came up with for the big increase in GNP since the war. Women. I think maybe the war broke the Great Depression primarily because of the expansion of the role of women in the economy.

I've previously discussed some basic thoughts on economics, that if a person is not producing wealth sufficient for themselves and their dependents, they are draining wealth from the system. The economy is a sum of the produced wealth (products and lasting services) minus its dependencies (how much dependents use up these products, such as food, and how much the value of products were lost over time, i.e. cars). While World War I certainly increased the role of women in society somewhat, women were still a very small and relatively insignificant part of the workforce, and thus were primarily a part of the dependents. Men had to provide for the women as well as the children of their family in addition to themselves.

But the World War II changed the role of women in society. They were called on to work in the production effort that was lagging far behind due to the drain of the war on both the work force and produced materials. The role of women in the economy saved it with the increase in production (produced wealth), as they were no longer just a dependency, but a producer.

Since the war, the role of women has not been reduced, but instead has in fact expanded, particularly with the growth in popularity of the feminist movement. Women are becoming nearly as prevalent as men in the workforce. This is why the GNP has grown so rapidly. The number of producers had become much greater with the combined forces of men and women. More was suddenly being produced than was being used up, thus total wealth grew quickly.

It wasn't Keynesian spending. It wasn't a clever maneuver by the government. It was us. We began to produce the wealth. We are the only ones that can produce wealth. The government does not. The government is a dependency, a large one at that. They don't produce a product of wealth. It is a luxury service. We pay for it, they don't pay for themselves. They do not add to, but take from the GNP. We the people produce the wealth of this nation.

Well, I'm not a historian, nor an economist (although it's really fascinating), so... yeah, it's just a theory.

For the Right Reasons

Have you ever asked yourself why you obey the commandments?

I remember a while back discussing this briefly with my aunt and uncle at a family function. I don't remember how it got brought up, but my uncle mentioned being obedient to commandments in order to receive the promised blessings.

Is that why we obey, for the promised blessings? Well why not? Isn't that why they were promised in the first place?

I asked my uncle, what was Christ's motivation was for His obeidence. Do you think that He did it for the blessings and glory? I was surprised when he said he though He did.

"Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever" (Moses 4:3). If not for the blessings, for the glory, for the progress, then why? Don't get me wrong, I do believe that these motivations played a part in His life. I think His eternal progress was a small part of His decision making.

But ultimately, it wasn't the key to His decisions. In fact that was the noted difference that caused the Father to choose Christ over Lucifer (I believe He would have chosen Christ anyway, but there's ony one scripturally noted reason). That was Lucifer's key. He wanted the glory. God chose Christ because He wasn't motivated by the glory.

So then why? What was His motivation?

I thought it was fairly obvious, but perhaps not. Christ obeyed His Father, He agreed to be the sacrifice for our salvation, out of love. His selfless personality allowed him to care for the blessings and glory of those He loves above his own blessings and glory.

Why is love and selflessness such a key attribute in God's plan? Is it wrong to be ambitious?

While it's true that ambition promotes fiscal success in a capitalist society, financial prosperity is unequivalent to spiritual progress. Egotism and ambition lead a man to develop unrighteous characteristics, which is why it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

John Steinbeck noted in Cannery Row, "'It has always seemed strange to me,' said Doc. 'The things that we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling and the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second."

Self-centeredness inihibits personal progress. Our personal development, while not entirely dependent on our relationship with others, is very much accelerated by it. Take knowledge, for example. How far would you get if nobody shared knowledge, and all you could learn was by your own experience? No books, no school, just you.

What about other necessary attributes of godhood? Can you develop those by yourself? Some, by definition require selflessness to some degree, such as love and service. But do we really serve with the intent of helping others? Or is out intent to receive promised blessings, or even win the praise of others?

Other commandements we can obey alone: fasting, tithing, fulfilling our callings, etc. Again why do we obey these commandments?

Do we fast because we want the spiritual closeness that it allows? Or do we fast because one of our brothers or sisters can scarcely afford to eat? Do we pay our tithing so that the windows of heaven with open to us? Or do we pay it because we love the church, and desire to financially support it to assist in its growth and progress? Do we magnify our callings because you expect it to bring you closer to celestial glory? Or do you do it because those you serve truly benefit from the service you provide?

A man cannot achieve the highest glory with selfish motives. It doesn't matter that he's obedient. He's obedient for himself. What matters is that he's obedient for the right reasons. Would you glorify a god that does not care about you, but has selfish motives?

We've gotta stop preaching blessings over the pulpit and start preaching love and selflessness. You can't earn divinity. You have to become divine.

Economic Strategy

I, like the rest of the world, have had the economy on the mind a lot lately. There are a lot of ideas and theories about what needs to change with the current system. Who's fault is this mess? What needs to change?

It's tough to answer any of these questions for yourself unless you understand the fundamentals of how the economy works. It seems like many people that should know these basics don't. The financial savvy of some of our world leaders seems akin to Forrest Gump, where you have to ask yourself, "How in the world is this guy rich?"

There have been many concepts over the years on the what the most productive economic system would be. Many of these systems have been implemented, and to date the system that has shown the most productive results is the "lassiez fairre" system compiled by Adam Smith, which we typically call "capitalism".

An economy's success depends on the contributions of its members. If all contribute enough to support exactly themselves, the economy is stable and unchanging. The wealth remains constant. Any more or less than that gives or takes away from the overall economy. As a concept, it's pretty simple.

The complexities come from issues of maintaining economic balance and motivation. Idealisitcally, an economy would prevent a large imbalance of wealth. In other words, it would prevent poverty. This is the focus of socialistic governments.

Then there's the problem of motivation. How do you keep a whole society working enough not only provide for themselves, but additionally for the success of the whole society? Socialism struggles greatly with this. Nobody wants to work hard and produce extra when it doesn't give that person any advantage. This is why socialism has always failed. But this is a strong point of capitalism.

The issue with motivation is becoming more and more difficult today as our culture becomes more and more lazy. More people are looking for a handout, or a dishonest buck, or any other get rich quick scheme that doesn't require actual work. These people do not make any real contribution to society, and therefore are leeches on the economy. They don't give anything to the economy, but the economy provides their living regardless. Therefore in order to support these leeches, the rest of society must provide not only enough for themselves, but also enough for the leeches in order to maintain stability. Economic progress is dragged down by these fellow citizens that feel the world owes them a living without providing a contirbuting service to the world in return.

The large issue I see now, in this crisis, in the latest election, and increasingly in our culture, is that not only are the leeches increasing in number, but our society and our government are actually supporting it, even ecouraging it. We feel bad for the poor man, and want to help him out. It's noble, and even good for the nation, but the poor man must contribute to the economy. Until he can contriute enough service to society so as to provide enough for himself and his family, he will instead suck the extra resources gained by those that are producing wealth.

Capitalism provides great incentives for producing wealth. If you get to keep whatever you make, why wouldn't you make as much wealth as possible? Our nation has grown immensely strong economically as a result of so many taking the opportunities they've had to build businesses and gain riches. This must continue, and the government leaders know it well, as it is always their focus. What they are missing, though, is the other side of the equation. We must remove the leeches from off societies neck. There will always be some that can make little contribution to society due to circumstance. But this must be minimalized as much as possible. Those that are given a handout must instead earn their pay in whatever capacity possible. Reduce the economic drains, and the overall wealth will grow faster and faster.

True, there will be social divides in a capitalist society. There will be extremely wealthy, as well as very poor. But consider that the poor in our nation exceed the standard of living of many of the middle or even upper class of other nations. The poor are relatively not very poor when the economy is healthy. The wise strategy is to grow the economy, not spread the wealth.

What is God's Power?

How would you define power? Energy? Influence?

I would define it as the ability to cause something to happen.

So, what is God's power? We've all asked ourselves this before (at least I have, and at least all the friends I've discussed this with have as well). We never really came to any conclusions, due to a lack of necessary underlying knowledge and understanding. All we know is He's got all of it. Or does He?

(Before you read on, remember my very first post… reread it if necessary. Continue at your own risk. I'm about to go through this weird train of thought because it will help understand what I think God's power is, but it is by no means doctrine.)

Omnipotence. Does God really have all power? Well, it depends on your definition, I guess. The simple answer from a simple church definition is yes. He has control of all the elements, and when we wants something done, it happens.

But from a literal and scientific perspective I would have to answer no. He doesn't. I know, I know… blasphemy. Sorry God, I don’t mean any disrespect by it. But let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean. Enos knew that God could not lie, and Alma explained that if He did He would cease to be God.

I remember explaining to friends in high school why God and Christ were necessarily different people, showing that Christ was praying to the Father, insisting that the Father's will be done, not His own. How, I asked, could they possibly have different wills if they were the same being? Their unintelligent answer was "He's God. He can do whatever He wants." Is that true? Could God, as one being, be 2 different people, in 2 different places at the same time, with different thoughts and wills, having to constantly talk to each other to stay on the same page? Is that really possible, even for God? Can He create something from nothing? What do you think?

What about us? Does He have power over us?

I've come to conclude that there are certain things that God cannot do. Some things He simply does not have power to do them because they are impossible. (I know, "with God nothing is impossible." I'll get to that in one sec.) Other things He cannot do without forfeiting His godhood and power over all other things.

Okay, so is there really nothing impossible for God? I believe that God can do pretty much all things, but He must do them by the truths that all things are subject to. In other words, He could change water into wine, but He does it by causing the molecules of water to reorganize into moecules of wine. Any and all excess matter left over from the process would be left over, but would still be there. He couldn't have the water completely destroyed into nothing, and wine created from nothing in its place. He can create anything he wants. But he can't create it from absolutely nothing, but must create it from matter. Truths, specifically in this case the laws of science, are not rules by which we, including God, are bound. They are actual attributes of existence. They are not defined. They just exist (see D&C 93:30). They can't be broken, not because we're not allowed to break them, but rather because they are simple unchangeable facts. (Feel free to ponder on this more in light of the previous "Light and Truth" post.)

Second, God cannot do anything that would be considered a lie. No falsehoods, no broken promises, etc. In other words, there are also rules and laws (whether literal or just practical I won't guess) that He is also bound by. And He cannot break those rules. Well, I suppose He could, but the consequence would be to lose His godhood, thus losing the power that we're talking about now.

So, in conclusion, the general consensus held by modern religion that God can do anything, and for Him absoutely nothing is impossible, is a misunderstanding of the scriptures, and is not really true. It is a matter of perspective. God does have power to do any and all things possible. Thus He is omnipotent. But again, as I've discussed previously in other posts, we as a church seem to have held on to nicean doctrines as true, even though we all know the Nicean Creed is largely false. We still hold notions of an incredible and unimaginable god, a god that we could never hope to understand. While I very much believe that our understanding of God's immense knowledge and power is miniscule, I do not support the notion that it is beyond the realm of reason, and thus completely and literally incomprehensible.

God is a real being, human in form, emotion, and ability. Our potential is equal (or at least near) to His. I think the doctrine that God is incomprehensible is a doctrine of the devil, intended to separate us from the idea that we are like Him, and are gods in training. The idea leads us to make comments like, "We can't understand that in this life with our limited minds", or "We're so imperfect. We can't even come close to being like God is in this life." God's station is our goal. We are training for it. Why would we, in any way, put such a ceiling on our own progress toward that goal?? We are limited by our lack of faith in ourselves. Satan has created such an image of God that most people believe we are nothing like Him. A very successful strategy. Don't buy into it. God is great, powerful, and wonderful, just like we're learning to be… even now.

Okay, now back to the original question, what is God's power?

Keep in mind my earlier question on whether or not God has power over us. Well, does He? No, because He commands and yet we don't obey. But what of those, like Job and other righteous men, who do always obey? Does He have power over them? Yep. Whatever God commands of him, he does it. God speaks, it happens. That's power.

So what gives Him power over all the elements?

Well, remember the fact that if God lied He would cease to be God? Why is that? Because breaking the rules results in demotion? No, it's because His power is completely dependent on His trustworthiness.

All things are made of intelligence. Trees, rocks, mountains, etc. They all have intelligence, a spirit if you will, some greater than others. (Are we all on the same page still?) And they all have agency. Whoa. Thus they all have the opportunity to choose (albeit with little intelligence their choices can be pretty limited). God has power over them all because they all choose to do as He commands. Every time. Why? Because they trust Him. He is 100% trustworthy, as we've already discussed. If God was to ever break that trust, He would lose His power over all those intelligences who previously would have obeyed Him in a moment. Crazy, huh? I hope that made sense...

So, you gods in training, how can you become powerful?

Who/what's to blame?

The economy is in ruins today, a domino effect that started with a simple and relatively insignificant downturn in the housing market, which, oddly enough, we all expected after years and years of excessive posterity. This downturn exposed several thousand ill-advised loans that had been given freely to anyone above the age of accountability (who, of course, didn't want to be held accountable). The huge number of foreclosures drained up banks' reserve funds very quickly, and the banks no longer had capital to pay their investors. They have no money to loan, so businesses were forced to make do with what they had. No expansion, no new businesses. Panic ensued. Investors stopped investing. Stocks tanked. And that's where we find ourselves now, hoping this bailout bill will recreate the confidence to invest again in the now struggling economy. So far it hasn't happened. We'll see.

In the middle of this financial crisis, there happened to be a presidential election. Good/bad timing, depending on who you were supporting. And as a result of the political situation, fingers were being pointed back and forth, each party trying to blame the other for causing this mess. But while there are several legitimate theories for the crash, nobody can really pinpoint any one event or person that created this situation, and how it got overlooked.

Some people say we needed more government regulation on the banks. This collapse came about because we deregulated. Others say if we hadn't been regulating the banks in the first place, this never would have happened. Truth is, they're both right. The crash wasn't because we were too regulated, neither was it because we weren't regulated enough. The crash happened because we changed the regulation.

The American economy has been successful because it's self-stabilizing. When a new trend or shift in the market occurs, the market naturally gravitates to that shift to make the largest profit from it. When a particular market is failing, the economy shifts away from that market. The economy will always do what's best for itself.

Unless, of course, it doesn't know what's best for itself. Herein lies the issue. With the previous regulations in place, the market had stabilized itself, and had been very prosperous. So prosperous, in fact, that some of the big moneymakers wanted to increase the exponent of the growth curve. But with the regulations still in place, the market was held in place. So they pushed the government to change the regulations.

When government forces a change in the market, the market must be smart enough to foresee all the factors of the change, and adjust to the change on the fly, or else the change will cause an imbalance until the market can balance itself back out. We typically have all kinds of economists trying to crunch all the numbers and measure all the angles to make sure any change is in the economy's best interest, and how to prepare for it. That didn't happen. We had the CRA from Carter's days pushing banks to lend more, but judiciously, to minorities and lower-income people. That's fine and great. Enter Clinton and, with the urging of friend Angelo Mozilo (Countrywide founder) and others, the policy becomes lending more, but not so judiciously, to low-income people. Not that low-income people are at fault, at least not when they would buy housing within their means. But the regulations were relaxed using the excuse of helping the poor get into homes.

So here we have a market that is in balance with the regulations in place, but now we no longer have those regulations, nor was there careful analysis of or planning for the ensuing results. We removed a weight from the scale without carefully rearranging the remaining weights, and threw the scale into imbalance.

The banks, not having properly recalculated the market with the new changes, went forward with their sub-prime lending with little reservation. Besides, they could just package the loan up and sell it up to Frank and Fannie. They did not properly factor in the changes in the market that the failure of these new high-risk loans could have, deciding instead to take the high-risk/high-reward approach, and thus did not prepare for it. At the same time, irresponsible borrowers were hoping to start their little fortune by taking advantage of the hot market, even though they had no means to afford such an investment except with the cash flow the market was currently providing. And when the market cooled (as we all knew it eventually would), those irresponsible risk-takers were left unable to afford the houses the banks just decided they could afford. And instead of just a simple slowing of the housing market, banks faced foreclosure after foreclosure as people ran away from their stupid mistakes and lack of judgement, and watched as a little cooling of the housing market caused a greater and greater cooling. Foreclosures were happening almost as quickly as the loans they had been approving. And now we sit in this mess.

Had we never had those regulations in the first place, banks would have, out of necessity, learned early on to reign themselves in, to loan only to those that were trustworthy, and keep sufficient capital in reserve to prevent their own downfall. Survival of the fittest would have caused businesses to develop strategies that would keep them successful long-term. In other words, instead of the government regulating them, they would have, of necessity, learned to regulate themselves.

On the other hand, if we had left the previous regulations in place, and allowed the government to continue it's check over the banks, the banks would, out of government requirement, continue its previous course, and would have kept its reserves safe. Either way, we wouldn't be in this mess.

The lesson we must take from this is that forced market changes cannot happen, unless thoroughly assessed and prepared for. When the free market is in balance, we mustn't mess with that balance. Only, only when the market is improperly imbalanced are we possibly justified in forcing adjustments, and even then it must be with the strictest of checks and consideration. The free market, by nature, will correct itself. Corrective action should not be taken on it, except as a last resort (like maybe in the case of saving it from the imbalance caused by a previous attempt to change the market). Otherwise improper imbalance could result, causing any array of mistakes from all parties, as we have just learned by sad experience.

Light and Truth

We had a long, somewhat unproductive, discussion on "light and truth" in institute last week. We mostly listened to analogies of why we need spiritual light and truth.

But defining light and truth can become quite the deep topic.

He who recieves light and continues in God will receive more light... D&C 50:24
Whatsoever is truth is light, whatsoever is light is Spirit. D&C 84:45
Light cleaves unto light. D&C 88:40
Heavelny bodies give light unto each other. D&C 88:44
Christ is the true light that is in man. D&C 88:50
That body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things. D&C 88:67
Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created. D&C 93:29
All truth is independent... to act for itself. D&C 93:30
The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. D&C 93:36
Light and truth forsake that evil one. D&C 93:37

So what is light, and what is truth? We know the literal definitions, of course. I'm not asking what it means, but what it is. Light, for example, is scientifically still quite inexplicable. Particles of no mass. Waves in no matter. And yet, our eyes can detect it, interpret it, and it shows us what is there.

One thing I came to decide is that truth is the equivalent of light in the spirit realm. Consider what light does for us in the physical world. Because of it, we know what's all around us. We can see what's behind us, we know what is really here, and we can see what's in front of us. I think truth has the same effect on our spirit. When our spirit recieves truth, it enables us to see what's around us (using time as an axis rather than distance). We know what's behind us in the past, what's really here in the present, and we can know what will be in the future. Truth, like light, enables us to move with confidence in the direction we want to go, and allows us to see what course corrections we need to make to get where we want to go.

The equivalence continues with our dependence on each, and our ability to receive more. Consider if you went blind. Not only would we not know what anything was around us, but we wouldn't know where they were. Now consider if you lost all truth and knew nothing. Same effect. Also, consider living in darkness for a long period of time. Then step into a bright light. It's unbearable. It hurts your eyes. Same with truth. You can only receive it little by little and adjust your eyes as you become accustomed to it. The comparison goes on, but you get the point.

The discussion gets much deeper, but I've yet to really figure anything out. It's not necessary to understand it, but it would sure help put some puzzle pieces in place.

What is Faith?

Going along with prayer, I think faith is another basic doctrinal concept that we, as a general population, just don't really grasp completely. We understand it only as basic concept. We talk about it often, but only in the most simplistic of definitions. This lack of understanding, I feel, has prevented us from developing a culture that truly builds and cultivates faith.

The typical definition of faith is given from either Alma (Alma 32:21) or Paul (Hebrews 11:1). Faith is believing in that which you can't see. A simple and clear definition. But it's not the whole definition. In fact, I don't really think Alma or Paul were trying to define faith at all. It seems to me that their cultures and people already used the word 'faith' in common practice. They weren't defining the word, but clarifying points of the doctrine of faith that their cultures needed to better unuderstand.

Alma clarifies that faith isn't to have a perfect knowledge of things. The Nephites likely had a similar problem as our culture today. They wanted proof of everything. They were learning and gaining knowledge, but having a hard time holding onto it, because they couldn't put all the pieces of the puzzle together. Alma is explaining that once you know something is true (obviously this knowledge can only come from the Spirit), you must hold onto that knowledge, regardless of whether the scientific evidence has yet caught up or not.

Paul, similarly, is responding to the concern that christians are falling away from the church (you have to go back a bit into the previous chapter to get the context... whoever broke up this letter into chapters messed up. The chapter break should probably be between verses 34 and 35 of chapter 10). He is urging the Hebrew congregation to hold onto hope and trust and not fall away. Faith means holding onto your trust in God, regardless of a lack of evidence, and he goes into a long list of examples of well known stories of those blessed for trusting in God (the conclusion is in verse 13).

Ok, so if those aren't the definitions of faith, how do you define faith?

It's hard to define faith. It's kind of an abstract concept. Joseph Smith was adamant to explain that faith is a prinicple of power and a principle of action. Faith empowers us to act.

Let me explain further. Why do you do what you do? Why do you go to school? Why do you work? Why do you do anything? You do these things because you believe that they will will result in a better life than if you do not. We go to school because we believe it will result in a better job. We work because we believe that at the end of the week we will receive a paycheck. Are these results guaranteed? What if your employer refused to pay you one week? In other words, our confidence is very high in these results because we've had experience, or we trust in the previous experiences of others. But we don't have a perfect knowledge of it.

How willing would you be to get on a plane destined for Japan? How do you know Japan is even there? Have you ever been there? Have you seen it? Who's to say that those images you've seen on TV or magazines aren't really from some other place? Would you still get on that plane knowing that if it's not there your plane will crash and you will die?

We do these things because we believe in the promised results, we trust in previous experience (our own, or those of others). This is faith.

Faith is the trust we have in consequences that determine our actions.

If we don't do what we say we believe, do we really believe it? If we believe a certain action is worthwhile, and we don't do it, was it really worthwhile to us? Or was sitting back and relaxing truly what we considered more worthwhile to us?

Now that we understand faith, how do we build it? Back to a previous post, how about giving it a shot, or experimenting? If you go to work and after the first week you receive a paycheck, won't that give you more confidence that you will get one the next week? Or what of trusting others? How can you come to trust other's experiences more? More testimonials from different people? A testimonial from someone you already trust? What would make you willing to get on that plane to Japan?

When you understand what gives you (everyone is different, we trust different amounts for different reasons) the confidence to go out and do something, you can understand what would build faith in Jesus Christ for you. Once you understand that, go out and seek those trust builders. And when you have enough trust to try, trust in your own experiences that you have as a result of your faith. This is what Paul was trying to say. "Cast not away therefore your confidence" (Hebrews 10:35).

What is Prayer?

I feel (and it seems Elder Bednar agrees with me, considering his big emphasis of late on the subject) that we don't understand prayer. Even with all the doctrinal explanations that we have access to, it is still just a concept to us.

We learn how to pray in primary. Address our Father in Heaven, give thanks, ask for what we need, be sure to use the more formal "thee" and "thou" (although if you actually study the language, "thee" and "thou" are actually the informal/familiar conjugations, like "tu" in Spanish), and close in the name of Jesus Christ. That's what prayer is to a kid, and that's what it is for most adults too.

But prayer is not just a mere talking to ourselves and expecting that God will hear us, and saying all the things we want. Prayer is entirely spiritual, not physical, communication. Thus learning how to pray needs to be a lesson on how to communicate spiritually.

So how do spirits communicate in this physical world?

Think about it for a bit. How does the Holy Ghost (which is a spirit) communicate to you?

Have you ever listened to a person tell a personal experience, and you could feel how that person felt? Have you ever been quite aware that a person wasn't being all too sincere in his/her testimony? Then contrasted that with a sincere testimony? (Maybe I get more of that than you, seeing as I'm in a singles ward and we get a few spiritual show-offs trying to impress the ladies/guys.) Have you ever been so close to someone that you can feel their moods/feelings? Have you ever seen a person that just radiated some kind of pleasant feeling that lifted your spirits?

It's kinda hard to know what spiritual communication is, since it isn't really ever discussed in depth, but it is made clear in the scriptures and by church leaders that it doesn't work unless it's sincere. This should give us a big clue into understanding it. Why is sincerity key? Sincerity is saying/doing what you are really thinking/feeling. So, in prayer we must be really feeling what we are praying about. Why? Because that is what spiritual communication is. Feeling.

Emotion and feeling is not a temporal/physical reaction, but a spiritual one. What we feel emotionally comes from a connection between our spirit and our mind (thus when we use substances to numb our emotions, we also block our sensitivity to spiritual things. This also helps us understand why women are typically more spiritually sensitive than men). Emotion and feeling are the physical connection to our spirits. Our spirits, being connected to our minds, when they react to something (new information, a memory, etc), cause our bodies to generate certain hormones, which cause our bodies to feel certain ways. Note that the body also produces its own hormones and has reactions with other physical senses (i.e. a reaction to seeing an attractive girl), but emotion altering hormones are spirit controlled.

When you communicate spiritually, you share feelings with each other. When you share testimony sincerely, you share your feelings of confidence and trust that what you are saying is true. Others feel that faith and it strengthens their own. And when the Spirit confirms truth, it becomes indisputable. The Spirit of the Lord causes you to feel certain that it is right.

So when you pray, don't just say what you should, giving thanks for things you should be grateful for, and asking for things that you should ask for. If you want to be heard, you must dig into your soul and share what you really feel. If your feelings aren't aligned with the will of the Lord, you should be able to feel that. You should be able to feel the Lord's will with respect to your own. The communication goes both ways. And if it doesn't, you're not communicating.

Why does God ask us to pray? He already knows what we need. Our feelings already speak loud and clear to God of what we really want. So why do we pray? The answer is simple. How often do we ever take the time to ponder what it is that we feel? We are to ponder our own desires and compare those with the will of the Lord. Prayer is to keep our wills aligned with God's. It is not, not, so that we can petition for things we want. It is to understand the things what God wants for us, so that we can pursue those. Make sense?

On the Threshold of Eternity

This post is gonna be a little different, more of an artsy post. One of my favorite bands, The Snake the Cross the Crown, sings a song called On the Treshold of Eternity. The song is so well done. Its lyrics are very well done and use powerful images, the melody is gorgeous and fits very well with the meaning of the song, the dymanics and emotion heard in the song makes you really feel it. I found out later that the title "On the Threshold of Eternity" is the name of a Van Gogh painting. He painted it the same year he killed himself. Many art critics believe that while it's not a physical self-portrait, it is an emotional and psycological self-portrait at that point in his life. The title itself indicate that the man is on the verge of self-destruction, on the verge of entering the eternities. And then I realized as I looked at the painting that the song is about that painting. They sing about the old man in the painting, then van Gogh himself. It's amazing. I made a little movie with the painting and song so you can see what they're singing about.

Here are the lyrics:

Eternity is pressed against my eyelids
By brittle fists that I cannot avoid
And though each finger's grip has been relentless
The moments they just keep on slipping by

And I am now aware that I
Am and always have been
At this moment I am sitting by the fire
In blue waiting for you
And though I've been expecting
I've never quite accepted

That the fire will suddenly go out
The hands will fall away
The paint will peel
The trees will sadly sway
'Cause I'm scared that there's no anwers
'Cause I'm scared that there is no truth
In this life of mine
There is only time
The illusion of which is gone

All my words are spread across the canvas
But noone seems to see the things I say
And though these eyes were once those of an artist
Failure has relieved me of a face

And I am now aware that I
Am only the brushstrokes
On the headstone of a man that never lived
And this, oh this is his
Life that I have failed
And I hope to be forgiven

When the fire will suddenly go out
The hands will fall away
The paint will peel
The trees will sadly sway
'Cause I'm scared that there's no answers
'Cause I'm scared that there is no truth
In this life of mine there is only time
The illusion of which is gone

So what is left?
Waiting to be
The man I painted myself to be
And just sadly sit
When your eyes are closed
And my hands have uselessly round my soul

We've got a lot to say
Oh we've got a lot to do
The boys are in the street
They just want to do what they want
And we don't care, oh we don't care anymore...

Gorgeous... both the painting and the song. So tragic, but very deep and meaningful. I've really come to appreciate art in all its forms much more in the last few of years. I no longer look at is as something pretty to look at, but it's something that inspires thoughts, feelings, emotions. We can feel how the artist may have felt, and the artist can connect with how we may be feeling. Pretty pictures can't do that...

Comparing the Word to a Seed

In conference today, Elder Carlos A. Godoy of the Seventy discussed gaining a testimony in small increments, rather than having singular miraculous experiences. He used Alma's council as a basis of his talk.

But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
Now we will compare the word to a seed. Now, if ye give place that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves -- it must needs be that this is a good seed, ot that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. (Alma 32:27-28).

Several months ago we read these same verses in Institute, and I remember realizing that we as a church typically read these verses wrong. We did in my class as well.

"Faith is like a little seed. If planted it will grow..." We know the primary song. But while faith could analogously be compared to a seed, it is quite plain that this anaolgy does not. "Now we will compare the word to a seed".

At first I didn't think anything of it, but as I pondered it further I realized that it made a big difference in the church's concept of growing faith or a testimony. The idea is not to experiment on our current beliefs and hope that they expand. The idea is to experiment on this new idea, give it a chance.

The key to learning, the key to strengthening our faith, the key to building our testimony is open-mindedness, a concept we never seem to hear over the pulpit. This is what Alma is trying to explain. Give this new concept a chance. If it is good or true, the fruits of it will enlighten your mind and expand your knowledge. If it is false, it will confuse and contradict.

This is the case for all ideas. Give it a chance and see what kind of fruits it will produce. By their fruits ye shall know them.

I point this out because we typically get stubborn in our mindsets (see my post on stubbornness). We learn a concept, it makes sense to us, and we believe it that way for the rest of our lives. But often these simplistic explanations, while a good foundation, do not open the doors to greater understanding. Thus we become stuck, complacent with our current foundational knowledge.

If we are to build our faith, we must give up the idea that everything we know is exactly how it is. Truth and error are not black and white! I know, it seems like it must be, for what is not true must then be false. But most concepts are not boolean concpets. They can be viewed many different ways, and still be true.

For example, "the sky is blue". This could be considered a true statement, but it's not complete. If we were to paint a picture and select blue as our color for the sky, it wouldn't look real, would it? There are so many shades and hues of the color blue, and the sky's exact color is dependant on the position and distance of the sun, the clouds in the sky, the moisture in the air, among others. Only when we get the hues, tints, etc all perfectly in place will the picture truly and completely depict the sky. And yet, the sky is still blue.

We have puzzle pieces which appear to fit, and yet we can't find any puzzle pieces to fit in the other end. Only when we realize that another piece may fit even better in that spot will it open up new options to fit other pieces.

Remeber, it is just an experiment, and you may draw your own conclusions from the results. But you have to open your mind enough first to experiment.

Omniscience

God is omniscient. He knows everything.

What does that mean?

I wonder if our concept of God is strongly and incorrectly influenced by what mankind believed about God for nearly 2 millenia. It makes sense... our core beliefs are formed early in our life. Even if God chose to reveal the details of His own nature to the church, most would probably not have believed them. Some details were revealed little by little as early members of the church built their faith, but it's clear that God has witheld a lot about Himself (and even more about Heavenly Mother).

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that our concept of omniscience may be wrong. Most of us believe that God holds every single miniscule detail, every single quark which makes up a proton or electron, in the entire universe, with its seemingly unpredictable and random motion, in His mind at all times. Not only does he hold a snapshot of every tiny detail of the entire universe with all the current directional vectors (how everything is moving at that time), but He also holds that snapshot for every point in time from eternity to eternity in His mind.

I suppose if we were to try to believe the concept of God being everywhere and everything, having no form, if we were able to imagine up such an incredible sentient being, I think a being that literaly holds everything from eternity to eternity in His mind could also be believed. But believing God is a divine man, and that we may become as He is, doesn't that idea of omniscience seem a bit too radical?

I'm not trying to say that God isn't omniscient. I believe He knows everything. But it's what that means that I question.

Here's the verse that I read this morning that sparked this whole question:

The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes. D&C 38:2

So God knows all because He sees all. So I think it's more like, if He wants to know something He simply has to look. Perhaps it's the urim and thummim that we'll all receive who are exalted. Will we not be able to know all things then, even if we don't hold all that info in our minds? Is there a difference between storing info in a mind and retrieving it by remembering or thinking it and storing data in a seer stone and retrieving it by looking for it? Do you not still possess all knowledge?

I may be wrong, but it's an interesting way of looking at it.

What is glory?

How do you define the word 'glory'? When God's glory shone round about, what were they seeing? When we read of God's work and glory, what are we talking about?

I think in the world we just kinda know about glory and talk about it without really understanding what it is. We think of it as some kind of brightness and power. Something that causes the person to glow.

I was taught in my Pearl of Great Price class at BYU that the roots of the word 'glory' come from the same base as the word 'stewardship' in Arabic.

Well that makes a lot more sense out of a lot of scriptures. If we thing of God's work and stewardhip being the immortality and eternal life of man, that makes perfect sense. When we talk of God's great glory, it makes sense to understand it that God has authority over a great many things. There's a scripture (I don't remember where… I'll try to find it later) that talks of a prophet avoiding more glory.

But it still leaves a lot to wonder. Why did His glory shine round about? Stewardship doesn't really substitute perfectly with "the glory of God is intelligence" either (although you can bend the bracket to make it fit). But as I said, they are of the same root. That doesn't make them equivalent.

So what is it? I've asked that to many people, and nobody knows.

Here's what I think it might be. Glory is what attracts followers (disciples if you will). Take insects and light. For some strange reason, bugs are instictively attracted to light. I think all things, particularly men, are insinctively attracted to glory. We trust it. We respect it. We want to be a part of it. It is trustworthiness. It is perfection. It is love and courage. It is power and leadership. It is all those things that create an imaginary tractor beam toward the source of it.

Here are some examples where this would fit: "The glory of God is intelligence." "Where is thy glory that I should worship thee?" "His glory shone round about." (Shone would be a metaphorical verb.)

"This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." This one's a little tricky, but it makes sense. When the stewardship gains greater glory, does that not add to the glory of (glorify) the steward?

The verb form of glory would mean, then, to be attracted to someone or thing with glory. "I glory in the Lord." "We gloried in His goodness." "I do not glory in myself…"

It also is the accumulation of those that follow a glorified being or thing, their fan club (ie. disciples). This is where it is most closely related to the word 'stewardship'.

We often say we give glory to the Lord. We think of this as meaning that with our words we make Him more glorified or something. I suppose this can be true in a way. By our words we may convince others to follow Him more. But I think the true meaning has been lost. I think the intended meaning is that we give our own glory to Him. We are drawn to His glory and give ourselves to become His disciples. We give ourselves to His stewardship, and therefore our glory is His.

Take Sidney Rigdon as an example. When Sidney chose to become a disciple of Joseph Smith, many of his congregation followed suit. They who followed Sidney became followers of Jospeh, and thus followed Christ. That was Sidney's glory, that added to Jospeh's glory, which added to Christ's.

Hmmm... I'd love to get a better definition.

Can we sin without being tempted?

So, if Satan did not exist, or if he had not fallen, would we still sin?

Moses records that Lucifer became "the devil, the father of all lies" (Moses 4:4). Mormon calls him "the author of all sin" (Helaman 6:30). These seem to indicate that Satan is in fact the cause of all sin.

But let me ask this question: In premortality, why did Satan rebel? Who tempted him? Was he not a spirit child of God, as we all were?

What about the Millenium? Satan will be bound. Some speculate that this will be by our righteousness, but Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith clarifies that he will literally not be permitted to tempt us. "There are many among us who teach that the binding ofSatan will be merely the binding which those dwelling on the earth will place upon him by their refusal to hear his enticings. This is not so. He will not have the privilege during that period of time to tempt any man" (Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:192).

So, will there be any sin in the Millenium? How could there not be? For none are perfect but Christ. If those born during the Millenium never sinned, they would not need Christ's Atonement. Zechariah and Isaiah mention sin during the Millenium (see Zech 14:16-19, Isa 65:20). But Jospeh Smith said it best: "There will be wicked men on the earth during the thousand years. The heathen nations who will not come up to worship will be visited with the judgements of God, and must eventually be destroyed from the earth" (Teachings, p.268-9).

So, yes... We sin by our own accord. We are who we are. If we are wicked, we choose wicked, regardless of whether we are tempted or not. Satan tries to get us to choose to become wicked, and if we continue to choose wickedly, we become wicked. At that point Satan no longer needs to tempt, for we choose evil on our own accord.

Conversely, as we choose good, we become good. And as we follow Christ, there comes a point where we no longer need guidance from God, for we are righteous and choose righteously of our own accord. Elder Oaks talked about the "challenge to become", a great talk.

I recently read a verse that kinda threw these theories out the window. "And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have the bitter they could not know the sweet" (D&C 29:39).

I read that verse over and over again. I was so sure of my conclusions, that I couldn't understand it any other way. But there it was... telling me I was wrong.

But then I finaly read the next verse: "Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation."

I wasn't wrong (thank goodness). The devil is the "author of sin" because of the fall. Not only that, he taught men how to satisfy their evil desires. He taught Cain to murder. He taught men how to sin (although I think we would have figured it out for ourselves eventually). But he is not the cause of sin. We are the sinners. Become.

Why do we fast?

It's kind of a weird commandment, isn't it? It's not really to serve others, is it? True, we give our fast offerings, but we could give that without actually skipping any meals if we wanted.

So why do we do it? What purpose does it serve us and/or the Lord? It's been widely said that by fasting we grow closer to the spirit and we are more apt to feel its promptings. Is this true? If so, why?

The answer is similar to why we obey the Word of Wisdom, which I discussed earlier.

Often times we hear or read that we are to put of the flesh or the natural man. Note that we, our souls, consist of a physical body and a spiritual body. Each has it's own intentions and desires, good and bad. For example, the body desires food, sex, back rubs, substances, etc. The spirit desires love, praise, music, etc. They are distinct desrires, and can often conflict.

Our goal, while mortal, is to learn to govern ourselves with our spirit. Our bodies are intended as tools to be governed, not governors of themselves. When we allow our bodies to govern the soul, we become slaves to desires. We may become immoral regardless of the suffering it causes ourselves and others. We may become addicted to substances that temporarily ease our spiritual torment, thus becoming completely dependant on those substances.

If we can govern our bodies, they become a powerful tool in accomplishing our spiritual desires (hopefully for good). We don't even know the powers that can be used once our bodies become glorified.

This is why we fast. We are teaching ourselves to govern our bodies. We must teach the body to submit to our will. We must enslave the flesh, not become slaves to it.

In Marion Zimmer Bradley's book The Mists of Avalon, Morgaine, a druid priestess, explains why the druids would fast. "The people of Avalon fast, sometimes, to teach their bodies to do what they are told without making demands it is inconvienient to satisfy -- there are times when one must do without food, or water, or sleep, and the body must be the servant of the mind, not the master. The mind cannot be set on holy things, or wisdom, or stilled for the long meditation which opens the mind to other realms, when the body cries 'Feed me!' or 'I thirst!' So we teach ourselves to still its clamoring."

Extremism

In the LDS church, extremism and fanatisism are condemned. It's not right for anyone to take their beliefs so intensely as to force it on anyone else in any way. It's funny, though, I see a lot of extremism in the church, even in my own family.

Here are a couple of examples:

A few weeks ago, my sister forwarded an email from a guy who wrote an email to ABC complaining about a supposed implied political agenda in one of their shows. He sent it to the wrong address, and found its way to the inbox of a strongly liberal employee. This employee responded to the accusational email with equal and surpassing emnity, implying that this man's beliefs were stupid and false. This, of course, further enraged the man, and he began this petition to boycott ABC.

Now, I see why the man is upset, but does he truly believe that the entire corporation of ABC ought to pay for this one employee's outburst (the employee was fired, and a letter of apology was issued)? What is this man trying to prove? He doesn't agree with the beliefs of the characters/writers of a show he watched. So try to put them out of business?

I got another email from a relative today that noted that post offices in Texas had to take down posters that said "In God We Trust". Outrage! So to combat this embarrasing attack on Christianity, we're to write "In God We Trust" on all our envelopes. Kinda silly. Any good supposed to come of that? "You don't believe what I believe? Well let me flood you with it 'til you're convinced I'm right!"

Here's a question for you… what would these outraged people think if their job put up posters with a slogan like "In Science We Trust"? Do you see the problem? You're offended when people take down something that is meaningful to you, and offended when they put something up that's meaningful to someone else that you don't agree with.

I don't really understand why we typically feel that everyone must believe as we do. Why does it offend us that someone has a differeing opinion, or someone thinks we're wrong? Why must we accuse, hate, or belittle others' opinions when they're not our own? Is it ego? Is it that overbearing temptation of pride that makes us always have to be right? Maybe you are right… does that make the next man any less entitled to his opinion?

I find it interesting that LDS people can't fathom that other LDS members can possibly be democrats. How, they ask, could you be in favor of such issues as abortion, homosexuality, etc? And here's the answer: they're not. They believe the same as we do. The question, though, is whether others that don't believe as we do should have to live our morals when they don't share them? And that is a tough question to answer.

I personally am conservative politically because I agree more with their economic and financial strategies. And I have a fairly strong opinion on a few issues such as gay marriage. But I can definately see the other side of many of the political arguments, and I can't diagree with their opinions, because they aren't necessarily wrong. They just happen to believe differently than me. And that's supposed to be okay.

Repentance

We were asked an interesting question in Sunday School. We read a verse in Helaman that more or less said to repent and turn to God. We were asked if we could repent without turning to God. What do you think?

The answers we got in Sunday School were pretty uninformative.

"Repentance" is normally defined as "a turning away" or "a change of heart". Defined as such, the question becomes: can you change your own heart without God's help?

Agency is an incredible thing. One of the most interesting things about it is the effects of our choices. What do our choices do to us? They change us. If we choose to do something evil, we become more accustomed to that bad thing. We being to enjoy it more. We become more evil. Same thing for when we choose to do good. We become good.

So, in answer to the question, if we've sinned, can we change our heart by our own choices and determination? Yes. When we recognize shortcomings in ourselves and resolve to fix them, with determination we can fix them.

There are 2 ways we can change. We can change ourselves, as I've just noted, or we can allow ourselves (with our permission) to be changed. The first way is very arduous and difficult. And it takes a long time.

The other way, if we let ourselves be changed, can happen quick. If we ask God to change us, and show that we do in fact have the resolve to change ourselves if necessary, He can change our hearts in a moment. It's the only way we can truly change in a relatively short period of time.

And it is only by turning to God that we can receive forgiveness for our sins. For Christ is our mediator. And even if we turn ourselves from our sins, we have not paid for those that we had committed. And we must, or we must turn to Christ in faith that He will pay for them in our stead.

So, if you include obtaining forgiveness in the equation of repentance, than the answer, of course, is a resounding 'no'. Change is an amazing thing.

But Dad...

You remember when you were a kid and your parents would tell you to do something that you didn't want to do? It seemed like a waste of time, so you would ask "why?" And what does dad always say? "Because I said so!"

What a lame excuse for an answer. The fact is, if Dad would take the time to explain the purpose of the task assigned in a way we could understand, we would be more willing to do the task. But we're never given the reasons, and we are put the the task grudgingly.

Well, the commandments are the same way. Sometimes we don't really understand why we must obey a commandment. It makes it kinda difficult to want to obey it. We're asked to just do it anyway, and we do. We typically eventually find out it was for the best, but still... it doesn't make it easy.

So take the time to understand the commandments. It will make obeying them easier for you.

I'll give an example. Take the Word of Wisdom. What's the purpose of it? It's a law of health. We often quote the scriptures that note that the body is a temple. So... we're supposed to take care of our body 'cause it's sacred. Okay, but there's a reason... what does it do for us? Obviously the Word of Wisdom isn't a favor for God. There's something we're supposed to get out of it. So what is God trying to teach us?

We're being taught how to control our body. We're learning to govern our soul by our spirit, not by our body. We're are taught to avoid substances that could cause us to lose this control. Remember that we are learning to be like God. To be gods, we must harness the powers that our bodies hold, for if our bodies can't be governed, we can't be trusted to govern anything else. And there's a power in our bodies... one day we'll understand it. But we won't be able to use it if we don't have control.

Doesn't that help make you want to obey those commandments a little more?

Created by God?

Here's a little ammo for you against your traditional Christian friends… a little evidence of why traditional nicean Christianity can't be true.

It is widely believed in the Christian world that God created each individual. Of course, this idea has all kinds of holes in it, the main one being that if God created who we are, then He is to blame for what we do. So, to try to mend these holes, Christian doctrines have made an emphasis on the gift of free-will. God created us, then gave us the ability to choose for ourselves, and do what we want. We are responsible for our choices, thus God's judgement and punishment is just.

Well, anyone who isn't so gullible as to accept this blindly at face value can easily see that this patch has just as many holes in it. If God created who we are, our personality, strengths, weaknesses, etc, and then gave us free-will to make our own choices, then God created how we would deal with this agency. What are our choices, if not a reaction between circumstance and who we are?

In other words, if we were creations of God, then whatever we do is directly and completely related to how God designed us and where He put us. Our choices are based on the personality, intelligence, etc. that He gave us. Therefore, all our decisions must be completely by God's design!

If that's the case, then there can be no sin. We could never do anything against God's will, for everything we would do would be by His design. Judgement could not be just, for why must we be punished for the weaknesses that God created in us? If we were supposed to be perfect, why didn't He create us that way? Why would He create some people that would fail and ultimately be damned, when He could have very well created that person to use his free-will appropriately?

Puppets… that's what we would be.

So, conclusively we must determine that God did not create us. Otherwise the logic folds on itself and implodes. Fortunately Joseph Smith revealed the concept of eternal intelligence. Who we are was not created, but we've always existed. What God created was a form for our intelligence, the abilty to begin use our intelligence. Makes a whole lot more sense that way.

Why Zion?

A couple of months ago we discussed Zion in Institute. We covered the who, what, when, where and why of Zion. Unfortunately, when we got to the 'why?', we read a verse in Psalms that said something to the effect of 'and I will establish Zion, for I desire it' (for the actual quote, it's Psalms 132:13-14)… and we left it at that. That was it. We must establish Zion 'cause God wants it.

Well, that obviously didn't do it for me. I let the teacher go on with the lesson without argument, but I continued to ponder the question. It's an interesting question… what is the purpose of the building of a city for some of the saints prior to 2nd Coming? Why is it necessary?

Let me branch off on a couple of tangets real quick to make my answer clearer. After the final judgment, Christ will dwell in the Celestial Kingdom, and will occasionally visit the terrestrial world. The telestial world he will not visit, because the inhabitants of that world cannot withstand His glory (glory, now that's an interesting topic).

Any time the Lord has come as a glorified being to the telestial world, there has necessarily been a transfiguration take place so that the person could withstand His glory. What does that mean? Transfiguration is the temporary glorification of a telestial body (and probably the local environment as well) to a terrestrial body.

What is the temple? The temple is a terrestrial haven in a telestial world. Thus Christ, as a glorified being can come and visit as He pleases, just like He will the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Does this make sense? I hope so, because it is critical to understanding what Zion is.

Zion, like the temple, is a terrestrial haven within the telestial world. It will have a higher law. It will be glorified above the rest of the world. And as a terrestrial city, Christ will be able to come and dwell within it as He pleases.

Do you see it? The telestial world will be destroyed at His coming. Why? Because telestial bodies cannot bear the glory of Christ's celestial glory. Who will be spared? The terrestrial inhabitants of the world. And this goes for the cities and places of the earth as well. Cities will be destroyed, mountains will form and deform. But Zion and her stakes will be spared. Why? Because it is already a terrestrial place. It can withstand His glory.

That is why it is critical that we build up Zion as soon as we can. Christ is waiting for us. He can't come to organize the church in preparation for His coming until He has a place to come to. He will hold His conference there, organize the gathering of Israel to the terrestrial havens of Zion and her stakes, then come in His glory.