I found something very interesting in my scripture study this morning. I was reading in D&C 19, and took note of a few verses.
This revelation was given to Martin Harris shortly before the church was organized. Joseph needed some way to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon, and the Lord asks Martin to help. I found it interesting, though, that the Lord, in order to convince Martin to agree to using his property as collateral, treats him to some mysteries of the gospel.
Anyway, to the point, the Lord says in verse 8, "I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles." So this mystery was previously only known by the apostles. A little odd that it's in print for the whole world now, but that's not the point.
He then goes on to explain that "eternal punishment" isn't necesarily never-ending. For "eternal" is one of God's names, thus "eternal punishment" is God's punishment (note that it can also be assumed that "eternal life" is God's life).
So here's the point: Why is this a mystery? God must have known when he revealed to man that if they sinned they would suffer "endless punishment" how they would interpret it. It seems obvious that we would interpret it as never-ending punishment.
God reveals a little later in the revelation that the world could not "bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore they must not know these things, lest they perish" (verse 22). Okay, so the world isn't ready for this mystery. But can you see that God deliberately deceived the world? Isn't that interesting? He did it to protect us. From what?
Well, consider this... If the world believed that we would suffer a brutal, but temporary, punishment, what would happen? Remember "eat, drink, and be merry"? Look at 2 Nephi 28:8. "And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God -- he will justify us in committing a little sin... and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God."
Interesting, isn't it? God is protecting the world from falling into this doctrinal trap, a trap that many eventually will fall into (I assume this will be in the period of time at the end of the Millenium when Satan is loosed again).
But even more interesting to me is that God would reveal a doctrine that was apparently obvious and easy to understand, but ultimately it was intended to mislead us in order to protect us. It's already obvious to me that there are other doctrines that have are intentionally deceiving for simpliticity's sake. I will discuss a few of these in the future. But it's important to know this, so that we do not content ourselves with the simple doctrines, but instead prepare ourselves to learn the more comprehensive and beauttiful mysteries of God.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Children Are Saved...
I said I'd have more on this, so here it is.
It's interesting that most of the christian world believes that children that die without baptism are damned. Seems quite ridiculous that a person could be eternally condemned because someone else didn't take care of an ordinance for you.
But alternatively, the LDS world generally believes that children who die before the age of accountablilty are automatically saved with celestial glory. It's funny, this concept is the complete opposite extreme. We ridicule those that could think God could possibly be just and damn a person who never had a chance to prove themsleves, and yet we don't even consider that it's equally unjust to automatically save them without having to prove themselves. Even Christ had to suffer tempations in mortality. I think the belief that they are guaranteed exaltation is a over-interpretation of the scriptures that reference this doctrine.
Many believe, in answer to this question, that these children had proved themselves prior to mortality, and therefore won themselves a free pass in mortality. Here's why I don't buy this explanation. If that were the case, then it must be equally plausible that there are those that have already proved themselves unworthy, proving that they would never be strong enough to be celestial, and thus could equally be given a pass to damnation. Maybe they were the 1/3 that were cast out? It's possible, but I don't think so. Those were they who rebelled against God. I believe this was prior to our spiritual development in preparation for mortality. There were obviously those who followed God that would be doomed to telestial glory or worse.
Another argument against this idea is that the purpose of mortality is not only to receive a body, as is commonly noted, but to learn to use it. Can you possibly believe that children, when resurrected, will know how to use their bodies as God does? How will they be justly judged when they haven't experienced the trials of pain, morality, and the such? How can they become like God if they've not yet learned to control their bodies?
It was stated by Joseph Smith that children's bodies will be resurrected as children, and they will have to grow to the stature of an adult. Do you think that they will not have difficulty with the new sensations and experiences that their physical bodies will bring about as it grows to adulthood?
So when will these children have the chance to learn to use their bodies? And are they sure to accomplish the feat with perfection?
Here's my theory. What makes sense to me is that children who die before accountability will be resurrected and raised in the Millenium. It seems logical. Satan will be bound during this time, as we know, and therefore they will be free from temptation by devils. But they will, like the other children that are born during this time period, experience desires and passions that they never knew before. And they will struggle with it, like the rest of us did. They will experience trials, and stumble every once in a while. They will need to be redeemed by the Atonement of Christ. They are not guaranteed exaltation, but must earn it. They will have the same advantages as the rest of those born in the Millenium. But they may fall, if they choose to.
It's interesting that most of the christian world believes that children that die without baptism are damned. Seems quite ridiculous that a person could be eternally condemned because someone else didn't take care of an ordinance for you.
But alternatively, the LDS world generally believes that children who die before the age of accountablilty are automatically saved with celestial glory. It's funny, this concept is the complete opposite extreme. We ridicule those that could think God could possibly be just and damn a person who never had a chance to prove themsleves, and yet we don't even consider that it's equally unjust to automatically save them without having to prove themselves. Even Christ had to suffer tempations in mortality. I think the belief that they are guaranteed exaltation is a over-interpretation of the scriptures that reference this doctrine.
Many believe, in answer to this question, that these children had proved themselves prior to mortality, and therefore won themselves a free pass in mortality. Here's why I don't buy this explanation. If that were the case, then it must be equally plausible that there are those that have already proved themselves unworthy, proving that they would never be strong enough to be celestial, and thus could equally be given a pass to damnation. Maybe they were the 1/3 that were cast out? It's possible, but I don't think so. Those were they who rebelled against God. I believe this was prior to our spiritual development in preparation for mortality. There were obviously those who followed God that would be doomed to telestial glory or worse.
Another argument against this idea is that the purpose of mortality is not only to receive a body, as is commonly noted, but to learn to use it. Can you possibly believe that children, when resurrected, will know how to use their bodies as God does? How will they be justly judged when they haven't experienced the trials of pain, morality, and the such? How can they become like God if they've not yet learned to control their bodies?
It was stated by Joseph Smith that children's bodies will be resurrected as children, and they will have to grow to the stature of an adult. Do you think that they will not have difficulty with the new sensations and experiences that their physical bodies will bring about as it grows to adulthood?
So when will these children have the chance to learn to use their bodies? And are they sure to accomplish the feat with perfection?
Here's my theory. What makes sense to me is that children who die before accountability will be resurrected and raised in the Millenium. It seems logical. Satan will be bound during this time, as we know, and therefore they will be free from temptation by devils. But they will, like the other children that are born during this time period, experience desires and passions that they never knew before. And they will struggle with it, like the rest of us did. They will experience trials, and stumble every once in a while. They will need to be redeemed by the Atonement of Christ. They are not guaranteed exaltation, but must earn it. They will have the same advantages as the rest of those born in the Millenium. But they may fall, if they choose to.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Free Will
A buddy of mine forwarded me a link to an article about free will yesterday. Scientists and philosophers have hypothesized that free will does not exist, but that our decisions are rather a result of a combination of DNA and nueral patterns. In other words, we are "programmed" by genetics and past experience. It's an interesting idea, and one can see their point.
This article went on to discuss an experiment that was performed. Basically they informed their subjects what I just noted, that there was no free will. They questioned the subjects whether they believed in free will or not. They then went through a quick mathematics test and informed them that there was a glitch in the software, and if they hit the space bar they would see the answer. They asked them not to cheat, but they were on the honor system. Results showed that those that didn't believe in free will cheated a lot more. Conclusions were made that moral responsiblity is a result of the belief in free will, and that when a person believes he or she is "programmed", they feel little responsibilty for their actions, or remorse from them.
We probably could have guessed those results, but this author noted something interesting... that these scientists that disbelieve in free will actually typically feel just as morally obligated as most others. From this author's observation, I must conclude that either they don't truly disbelieve in free will, or that they don't actually act on it. This is interesting because if they're right, and we are programmed by what we learn, then they should have been programmed to feel little remorse or moral responsibilty. This doesn't appear to be the case.
It can be argued that free will was a concept that was invented by man for a couple of reasons, one being a way to maintain order, and another to improve quality of life.
But here's the thing... The idea of "I am who I am" just doesn't work. Why? Because we can change ourselves. We experience things and choose which of them we like, and as a result we learn what we choose to learn. In other words, we can program ourselves. We choose what we like, believe what we want believe, and learn what we decide is true. Affected by others? Sure. But ultimately we choose what becomes our nature and we can change our nature with effort.
This article went on to discuss an experiment that was performed. Basically they informed their subjects what I just noted, that there was no free will. They questioned the subjects whether they believed in free will or not. They then went through a quick mathematics test and informed them that there was a glitch in the software, and if they hit the space bar they would see the answer. They asked them not to cheat, but they were on the honor system. Results showed that those that didn't believe in free will cheated a lot more. Conclusions were made that moral responsiblity is a result of the belief in free will, and that when a person believes he or she is "programmed", they feel little responsibilty for their actions, or remorse from them.
We probably could have guessed those results, but this author noted something interesting... that these scientists that disbelieve in free will actually typically feel just as morally obligated as most others. From this author's observation, I must conclude that either they don't truly disbelieve in free will, or that they don't actually act on it. This is interesting because if they're right, and we are programmed by what we learn, then they should have been programmed to feel little remorse or moral responsibilty. This doesn't appear to be the case.
It can be argued that free will was a concept that was invented by man for a couple of reasons, one being a way to maintain order, and another to improve quality of life.
But here's the thing... The idea of "I am who I am" just doesn't work. Why? Because we can change ourselves. We experience things and choose which of them we like, and as a result we learn what we choose to learn. In other words, we can program ourselves. We choose what we like, believe what we want believe, and learn what we decide is true. Affected by others? Sure. But ultimately we choose what becomes our nature and we can change our nature with effort.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Evolution
I've been chatting a lot recently with friends and family about creation vs. evolution. It's quite the interesting topic, and each side has some convincing arguments, but also several gaping holes in their arguments. Here's a couple of things I've recently learned or come to realize.
Did you know that humans' DNA is 99.4% similar to monkeys? That's pretty freakin' close. But, on the other hand, there is no species of animal as uniform and similar in DNA as humans. We, even with all of our deviations and differences, ar 99.99something% identical in DNA. We're realtive clones! The only way we could all be so similar without more deviation is if we all started from the same point realtively recently, whether by some catastrophic event that eliminated all but very few of the human race (this is one scientific theory, but how this catastrophe would only affect the human race is not something I can try to answer), or, more likey in my opinion, by creation.
Another pitch for creationism: The human mind is incredibly powerful and complex. We use remarkably little of it, and yet we are still incredibly intelligent relative to other life. If we were to evolve by natural selection and evolution, our minds would have become as powerful as necessary for survival. As omnivores, there isn't really a predator/prey realtionship that humans face that would drive such an extreme adaptation. If our minds were in fact the product of evolution, we would necessarily have been, at some point, a race of geniuses that would have made Einstein seem mentally challenged, and for some reason must have digressed and become stupid. This just doesn't sit right.
But, on the other hand, who are to say exactly how life was created? Plant life and animal life were what... days 4 and 5 of the creation? Would evolution seem a possible explanation of how that life was created? It wasn't until a later period, from our scritural account, that man was placed on the earth. How much later? Perhaps long enough for life to evolve to what it is today? I think that's possible, even probable. I know it's been said that there was no death until the fall, but that is officially not church doctrine.
Turns out evolution and creation might just be the same thing.
Did you know that humans' DNA is 99.4% similar to monkeys? That's pretty freakin' close. But, on the other hand, there is no species of animal as uniform and similar in DNA as humans. We, even with all of our deviations and differences, ar 99.99something% identical in DNA. We're realtive clones! The only way we could all be so similar without more deviation is if we all started from the same point realtively recently, whether by some catastrophic event that eliminated all but very few of the human race (this is one scientific theory, but how this catastrophe would only affect the human race is not something I can try to answer), or, more likey in my opinion, by creation.
Another pitch for creationism: The human mind is incredibly powerful and complex. We use remarkably little of it, and yet we are still incredibly intelligent relative to other life. If we were to evolve by natural selection and evolution, our minds would have become as powerful as necessary for survival. As omnivores, there isn't really a predator/prey realtionship that humans face that would drive such an extreme adaptation. If our minds were in fact the product of evolution, we would necessarily have been, at some point, a race of geniuses that would have made Einstein seem mentally challenged, and for some reason must have digressed and become stupid. This just doesn't sit right.
But, on the other hand, who are to say exactly how life was created? Plant life and animal life were what... days 4 and 5 of the creation? Would evolution seem a possible explanation of how that life was created? It wasn't until a later period, from our scritural account, that man was placed on the earth. How much later? Perhaps long enough for life to evolve to what it is today? I think that's possible, even probable. I know it's been said that there was no death until the fall, but that is officially not church doctrine.
Turns out evolution and creation might just be the same thing.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The Desires of our Hearts
I was talking with a friend of mine about a few doctrinal questions, which I'll likely discuss later. But we discussed the concept of being judged by the desires of our hearts. This point of doctrine is amazing considering what people had been believing previous to the restoration of truth, and sadly still do. But yet it still leaves a few questions to be understood.
Nearly everyone has good intentions, or at least believe they do. But are intentions the same as desires? Why do you do the right thing? Why do you help and serve others? Is it because you truly love them? Or is it just because you should? Do you feel duty bound or even obligated by your religion?
So you intend to do good... by why? Those are the desires of your heart.
As I thought about the idea of being judged by our desires, I realized that our desires are not constant. Do you desire the same things as you did when you were a kid? What about when you were a teenager? What about a couple of years ago? We keep maturing, and our desires change with us based on the experiences that we have. Shoot, how often do you realize that you don't even know what you really want??
Can God then judge a youth that had died, without giving him the opportunity to develop his desires? A young man or woman can have such radical desires. They've never had the experiences of life that lead to a full understanding. They are just discovering feelings of physical passion. They're desire is to simply have fun by whatever method possible. Can they be judged for that? It seems to me each person must have a chance at some point before judgement to fully discover and develop his or her desires.
I'll have more on these ideas later....
Nearly everyone has good intentions, or at least believe they do. But are intentions the same as desires? Why do you do the right thing? Why do you help and serve others? Is it because you truly love them? Or is it just because you should? Do you feel duty bound or even obligated by your religion?
So you intend to do good... by why? Those are the desires of your heart.
As I thought about the idea of being judged by our desires, I realized that our desires are not constant. Do you desire the same things as you did when you were a kid? What about when you were a teenager? What about a couple of years ago? We keep maturing, and our desires change with us based on the experiences that we have. Shoot, how often do you realize that you don't even know what you really want??
Can God then judge a youth that had died, without giving him the opportunity to develop his desires? A young man or woman can have such radical desires. They've never had the experiences of life that lead to a full understanding. They are just discovering feelings of physical passion. They're desire is to simply have fun by whatever method possible. Can they be judged for that? It seems to me each person must have a chance at some point before judgement to fully discover and develop his or her desires.
I'll have more on these ideas later....
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Home
This post is less intellectual and more sentimental for me, but interesting nonetheless. I watched a movie today... a movie I quite enjoyed. Anyway, there was some great dialogue that I found very interesting. This one really interested me:
"You know that point in your life when you realize that the house that you grew up in isn't really your home anymore? All of a sudden, even though you have a place to put all your crap, that idea of home is gone."
"I still feel at home at my house."
"You'll see. When you move out. It just sort of happens one day, it's gone. And you feel like you can never get it back. It's like you feel homesick for a place that doesn't even exist. Or maybe it's like this right of passage, you know? You won't ever have that feeling again until you create a new idea of home for yourself, you know, for your kids, for the family you start. It's like a cycle or something. I don't know, but I miss the idea, you know? Maybe that's what a family really is... a group of people that miss the same imaginary place."
"Maybe."
I don't really know when this happened to me. Maybe it was while I was in college. Maybe it was when I was in Boise, making my own living. Maybe it was the time period when all my siblings all got married.
I can tell you the first time I really realized it though (I didn't put the idea together like they did in the movie, but it's exactly how I felt). It was Christmas a couple of years ago. Everyone else was at the in-laws that year, and I was the only one without in-laws.
As much as I love my parents, I came to realize that it was my brothers and sisters that were home for me. They were, after all, who I spent all my time with growing up. So my home had been taken by others, strangers. It's not so bad. I happen to be quite fond of my in-laws. But all the same, they've now got exclusive rights to my home. Even when we all get together, it's not the same. Home is gone for me.
I need a new idea of home, my own home. If only it were so simple...
"You know that point in your life when you realize that the house that you grew up in isn't really your home anymore? All of a sudden, even though you have a place to put all your crap, that idea of home is gone."
"I still feel at home at my house."
"You'll see. When you move out. It just sort of happens one day, it's gone. And you feel like you can never get it back. It's like you feel homesick for a place that doesn't even exist. Or maybe it's like this right of passage, you know? You won't ever have that feeling again until you create a new idea of home for yourself, you know, for your kids, for the family you start. It's like a cycle or something. I don't know, but I miss the idea, you know? Maybe that's what a family really is... a group of people that miss the same imaginary place."
"Maybe."
I don't really know when this happened to me. Maybe it was while I was in college. Maybe it was when I was in Boise, making my own living. Maybe it was the time period when all my siblings all got married.
I can tell you the first time I really realized it though (I didn't put the idea together like they did in the movie, but it's exactly how I felt). It was Christmas a couple of years ago. Everyone else was at the in-laws that year, and I was the only one without in-laws.
As much as I love my parents, I came to realize that it was my brothers and sisters that were home for me. They were, after all, who I spent all my time with growing up. So my home had been taken by others, strangers. It's not so bad. I happen to be quite fond of my in-laws. But all the same, they've now got exclusive rights to my home. Even when we all get together, it's not the same. Home is gone for me.
I need a new idea of home, my own home. If only it were so simple...
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Stubbornness
Have you ever wondered why someone who is obviously wrong will sometimes not admit it, even when you've clearly shown them their error? Why do older folks hold on to their ancient way of doing things, when new methods are clearly more effective?
We judge these people harshy, I think. We think them stupid to not choose the better way. But is it really so simple for them?
Let's look at this in a more scientific view (note that while much of this is fact, the conclusions are simply my theories). The mind is a large and complex system of electric paths that we call neural networks. When we learn something, the mind forms a path for electrons to flow, allowing the transfer of knowledge from memory to the forefront of our conciousness. Creating these paths takes a lot of energy, but changing them is even tougher. Unlearning is not an easy task. You have to give up all branches from that path as well... all other conclusions you've made as a result of that idea.
Over time, other neural paths are formed around these paths, virtually holding them in place. Thus appealing to pure logic and convincing becomes useless. These paths require far too much energy if they are to be modified. Only a high energy experience, such as a very emotional experience, will be strong enough to make the necessary changes.
So keep this in mind the next time you get in a logical debate. Whether you're right or not, you are unlikely to change the mind of anyone that is not already open-minded on the particular subject. Be considerate, for the stubbornness isn't really them just being stupid.
We judge these people harshy, I think. We think them stupid to not choose the better way. But is it really so simple for them?
Let's look at this in a more scientific view (note that while much of this is fact, the conclusions are simply my theories). The mind is a large and complex system of electric paths that we call neural networks. When we learn something, the mind forms a path for electrons to flow, allowing the transfer of knowledge from memory to the forefront of our conciousness. Creating these paths takes a lot of energy, but changing them is even tougher. Unlearning is not an easy task. You have to give up all branches from that path as well... all other conclusions you've made as a result of that idea.
Over time, other neural paths are formed around these paths, virtually holding them in place. Thus appealing to pure logic and convincing becomes useless. These paths require far too much energy if they are to be modified. Only a high energy experience, such as a very emotional experience, will be strong enough to make the necessary changes.
So keep this in mind the next time you get in a logical debate. Whether you're right or not, you are unlikely to change the mind of anyone that is not already open-minded on the particular subject. Be considerate, for the stubbornness isn't really them just being stupid.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Please read before continuing
The mysteries of God are mysteries for a reason. It's not that we aren't supposed to know them. It's just that often times we aren't ready to know. Concepts that we don't understand we tend to disbelieve.
God has instructed us not to disbelieve just because we don't know or understand. This is what we call faith. Faith is enough to get trusting individuals to carry on. But as we learn more things that we can't understand, we must either increase our faith, or we will waiver, as our faith is not enough to carry our non-understanding.
I'm not implying that I have more faith than any of you. How can you measure such a thing? But my ideas may be tangential to other theories and ideas, and therefore will not be all completely founded on accepted doctrine. They are puzzle pieces that I try to place in the order that makes the most sense to me. The purpose of this blog is to create a place for my own ideas, whether I believe them myself or not, and to help others interested in expanding their views a bit, creating new opportunities to learn some of these mysteries for themselves.
If they ever cause you to doubt your faith in the gospel, please stop reading and take a step back. Remember that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true, period. And if what I say contradicts something that you believe to be part of that gospel, believe the gospel. Perhaps at some later point what I say may make better sense to you. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong. It is for you to judge. May the Spirit help you discern the truth from the error.
God has instructed us not to disbelieve just because we don't know or understand. This is what we call faith. Faith is enough to get trusting individuals to carry on. But as we learn more things that we can't understand, we must either increase our faith, or we will waiver, as our faith is not enough to carry our non-understanding.
I'm not implying that I have more faith than any of you. How can you measure such a thing? But my ideas may be tangential to other theories and ideas, and therefore will not be all completely founded on accepted doctrine. They are puzzle pieces that I try to place in the order that makes the most sense to me. The purpose of this blog is to create a place for my own ideas, whether I believe them myself or not, and to help others interested in expanding their views a bit, creating new opportunities to learn some of these mysteries for themselves.
If they ever cause you to doubt your faith in the gospel, please stop reading and take a step back. Remember that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true, period. And if what I say contradicts something that you believe to be part of that gospel, believe the gospel. Perhaps at some later point what I say may make better sense to you. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong. It is for you to judge. May the Spirit help you discern the truth from the error.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
