Sin, Transgression, Repentance: "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

As a follow-up to yesterday's post and Matthew's comment on it: 

In the purest scriptural sense, I view "transgression" as everything that keeps us from becoming like God. I believe many of those things are the natural result of "the Fall" - or, in other words, are the by-product of Adam's transgression. I believe our 2nd Article of Faith teaches that we have been redeemed / saved from many of those things already, since we didn't choose them willfully.

I view "sin", on the other hand, as those things we intentionally choose to do (or not do) that keep us from becoming like God - knowing or believing that we need to do (or not do) them to become like God. I view "repentance" as the process of trying to change our nature and become more Godlike - so, at the most basic level, I view sin as NOT trying to repent (change). To me, it's really not more complicated than that.

I believe sin generally is defined communally by those who want to tell others what to do and not do for the overall good of the collective group (and I have no problem with that general concept, even as I believe much of what is considered to be collective sin is somewhat arbitrary and not "eternal law"), but I believe sin is defined by God on an individually sliding scale - since He is the only one who can look upon the neurology, heredity, environment, societal norms, intelligence, spiritual sensitivity, etc. of each child and know exactly what that child is capable of doing - and what actions are willful rebellion vs. ignorant transgression - proactive vs. reactive - simple correction vs. deeply ingrained inclination - honest mistake vs. intentional error - etc.

In other words, I believe that what is "sin" for me might not be "sin" for another individual (although it all is transgression) - and that there are VERY few things that are "sin" for every single individual in every single situation (rather than sin for one and transgression for another or sin in one situation vs. command in another).  Perhaps the best example of this in all of our recorded scriptures is Nephi and Laban. 

A modern example is also instructive:

Did each and every person who participated in the attacks on 9/11/01 commit sin in doing so - or were the actions of one or more accounted to them as transgression, given their upbringing and youthful indoctrination? I don't know - and I don't take time or spend effort trying to decide.

I believe that "Judge not, that ye be not judged" is MUCH more universal than many people think - and that our 2nd Article of Faith is MUCH more powerful than even most members realize.

Accepting Each Other for Who We Are, Not Just Who We May Become

I have mentioned this in a tribute post to my father, but my mother has a rare form of schizophrenia. Growing up, all we knew was that she needed “sleeping pills” to function properly.

My mother was an amazing example of Christ-like love and acceptance throughout my childhood. I never heard her raise her voice in anger; I never heard her say anything (not one word) negative about anyone else. She was amazing. She was active and aware and fully-functioning in the life my father built for her. Nobody other than my father and her own parents and siblings even knew there was anything wrong with her, since mental issues were not discussed openly at that time.

A few years ago her medication finally stopped working. For the few months it took to find a new combination that would work for her, she was a totally different person. She was paranoid; she had horrible hallucinations; she swore without provocation, using words we didn’t even realize she knew. Once the medication was adjusted properly, she was back to her normal condition - a sweet, incredibly spiritual woman.

“My mother” is the woman I knew while properly medicated, not the monster she became without it. She had a degree of agency during those years that was absent when her meds stopped working. During those months, she literally could not control her mind or her actions - and what came out of her mind and her mouth would have horrified her if she had been aware of it. She literally was not accountable during that time - not at all.

I don’t pretend to understand mental illness, nor do I pretend to understand how such illness interfaces with agency and the interaction of our spirit and body. That is so far beyond my ken that I would be shooting in the dark at a moving target if I tried. All I know is that we have been commanded to judge not, and that I have been told I will be judged as I judge others. I know how desperately I desire mercy and meekness at my own day of judgment, so I try as hard as I can to be merciful and meek myself.

If we truly understood the Atonement better, I think we would understand this issue better - and much of our stress and guilt and heartache would melt away. If we also allowed for those who can’t understand it better (for whatever reason), much of the pressure we tend to apply also would vanish - and we would be more able to accept and love others and ourelves for who we are amid our struggles, not just who we will become once those struggles have ended.

Learning the Process of "Gentling"

I Was Raised to Be a Cannibal - but I Got Better - Margaret Young (BCC)

The Burden of Depression: Judge Not

I once gave a woman a blessing who was suffering from depression and other related issues. I had no idea of this at the time; she simply called and asked for a blessing.

In the blessing, I remember distinctly hearing her be told that the greatest source of her pain in this life would never go away - that she would struggle with it until the day she died. (Again, I had no idea what the source was. I figured it was some physical ailment when I thought about it afterward.) I also remember distinctly hearing her be told that the joy and freedom she would experience in the next life would be even more exquisite than the pain she would feel here. It was a powerful blessing, and I walked out of her house feeling grateful for the blessing of having been the voice.

Years later (after we had moved away), I was back in town visiting, and I mentioned her blessing to her and asked how she was doing. She told me that she had been crushed by it and had decided to not ask me for a blessing ever again. I asked why, since the promised blessings had been so great. She looked at me with a perplexed look and asked what I meant, so I explained my memory of the blessing.

Her face registered shock, and she said to me, “I never heard the statement that I would be blessed. When I heard that the source of my pain would not be healed, I was so crushed that I tuned out the rest of the words.”

That experience taught me more about depression and other related issues than anything I have ever studied. She had carried an additional burden with her for years after receiving that blessing. She had seen that “blessing” as a “cursing” - and that “understanding” wasn’t at all her “fault”. It wasn’t anyone’s “fault”; it simply was what it was - the reaction of a woman caught in the middle of depression.

Oh, and my son’s insulin is no different in my mind than a pill someone takes for depression. They both are wonderful blessings.

On Abandoning My Friend

"On Abandoning My Friend" - Margaret Young (By Common Consent)

Book of Mormon Historicity: I Don't Care

We don't know enough about the location of the BofM account once it leaves the Old World to have any idea of how to prove its historicity based on site discoveries, and we don't know enough about the overall genetic makeup of Lehi's group and the Jaredites - or about how widespread each culture was - or about how extensively they intermingled with other groups (especially the Lamanites, who didn't keep a record to which we have access) - or about the genetic makeup of the other numerous peoples who were led to the promised land - or any other factors that would help us identify and trace the people mentioned in it. When you discount some of the assumptions of the early church leaders (that truly were no more than assumptions and aren't supported by the book itself) by parsing the text closely, it is next to impossible to make solid historicity claims on either side - pro or con. 

Therefore, I don't fret about it. I take it as primarily three men's interpretation of history (Nephi, Mormon and Moroni - with a very little of other individuals) - written in an adapted language different than the spoken one of the time (much like the relationship between written Japanese - borrowed and adapted from the very different Chinese - and spoken Japanese) and then translated into a third language by someone who only had his own vocabulary available to use (meaning the record had to be revealed in the limited language of the translator). Add to that dilemma, words that simply wouldn't have been translatable from one culture or region to another culture or region, and you have almost nothing that can be verified objectively. Add to that the regular assertion that not 1/100 of what was taught was recorded, then that not 1/100 of what was recorded was compiled into the abridgment . . .

If the Book of Mormon was a hoax, it was one of the most elaborate, brilliant hoaxes ever conceived, when evaluated against its own internal claims, but I don't fret it. It's next to impossible to prove it one way or the other, so I take historicity off the table (in my case, by accepting it at face value) and focus instead on what it actually says. That works for me, and I get to avoid wasting time worrying about what can't be proven either way.

Welcome to My Mind and My Heart

I have been traveling this week and am exhausted tonight. I am not ready to put my thoughts together for a typical New Year's Resolution post on charity, so I ask that anyone reading this be charitable and understand why I am choosing instead to re-post a long-past post.

I have considered which post to choose, and I hope the decision was inspired. If not, at least enjoy reading something from long enough ago that perhaps you missed it when I first wrote it - just over three years ago. It struck me that most of you who read my blog now did not do so when I first started recording the things of my soul, so I decided to re-post the personal introduction I wrote when I started this blog.

So, without further ado, here is a look at me:

Welcome to my life and mind.

Unlike my wife, I lean more toward the "record the things of my spirit" motivation for blogging. I blog primarily to record how I view life, in order to preserve for my posterity my perspective on eternity and the mortal issues that, IMO, influence eternity. Generally, I am not as verbose as my wife - which really says something about her prodigious compilations. Concise, I am not. Furthermore, I have been told my common sentence composition puts Dickens and Hugo to shame - linguistic slackers that they are - not in quality of their vocabulary, but rather in the simplicity of their sentence structure. My mind meanders from point of interest to point of interest, and it takes more exertion than I often am willing to offer to restrict the journey to a straight and narrow path.

Having said that, I am an unrepentant parser. I try to be very clear about what I say, which is one reason I have a hard time writing simple, non-complex sentences - as my tendency to try to avoid confusion and misunderstanding often leads to a type of verbosity that requires slow and careful reading and, by extension, sometimes causes confusion. Such is life. I insist on addressing what others say, not what the reader assumes or thinks they must mean behind the words, since that is a courtesy I request from others.

I am personally conservative in my own lifestyle and, I have been told by many, quite perplexing in the balance I strive to achieve in my religious and political views. I believe in teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves - primarily as a product of believing the Golden Rule. I will request a conversation cease if people are talking past each other, not listening in order to understand and merely trying to shout down the other party; however, I never will request such a cessation simply because of fundamental disagreement - regardless of the intensity of the discussion.

I am a teacher by inclination and initial training, a salesman / admissions counselor by trade, a preacher at heart (if not a Mormon, I would live at a pulpit), a musical performer and public speaker by nature and, most importantly, a husband of 24 years and father of 6 kids (and numerous non-biological "children" - hence, "Papa D") by choice and grace.

Welcome to my mind and my heart (and my sense of humor that both makes my wife laugh and embarrasses her on a regular basis). I hope you welcome me to yours.

When the Voice of Warning Is Not Appropriate

I believe there is an important line between a "loving" warning given gently and sincerely and a "loving" warning given from a sense of superiority and condescension to "save" someone. However, I also think losing the sense of concern that motivates a warning is worse than the warning itself. If we ever get to the point where we truly don't care enough to warn someone we love when we believe they are hurting themselves . . .

To be clear, some of the most obnoxious, hurtful statements I've ever heard have been given by people who did so thinking they were correcting out of love. I also understand that the most loving thing I can do in certain situations is to shut up - after it's been made clear that the other person doesn't share my view of the danger. That's one of my points - that once a "warning" has been given and understood clearly, generally it's up to us to honor agency and stop warning.

For example, if someone says, "I don't want to be contacted by Home Teachers or the Church," we should honor that and stop contacting them. Ironically, that is HT in the truest sense - providing the service the individual wants. I have no problem with an annual "check up" phone call or note ("Do you still want no contact?"), but anything more is moving from a warning voice to a constant and alienating telemarketing call.

When Our Leaders Speak, the Thinking Has Only Just Begun

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done - Steve P (BCC)

Atheism, Agnosticism,Theism & Mormonism

I see atheism and agnosticism as diametrically opposed to each other or exactly the same thing, depending on the type of agnosticism one practices.

I see "pure" atheism as the assertion that God does not exist and that those who believe in God are wrong. Pure atheism is a religion in every meaningful way. I see "pure" agnosticism as the assertion that we can't know whether or not God exists, so it is up to us to live whatever moral or societal code we believe best matches what God would want if He does exist or what would be best for us individually and collectively if He does not exist - which generally respects religious conviction as good even if the central claim of knowledge of God's existence is assumed to be false, as long as the practical results of that conviction are good. On the other hand, I see "distorted" agnosticism as the assertion that any claim to know of God's existence is destructive and delusional and should be educated out of the ignorant believers and replaced with uncertainty. In other words, it's OK to believe in God as long as you don't claim to know that God exists. That stance, in practice, is just atheism's more attractive twin.

Pure atheism and distorted agnosticism share the same missionary focus at heart as most forms of theism. Pure agnosticism does not share this focus, as its central core is that all must work out their own understanding, as the pure agnostic only can be sure of his or her own perspective. In other words, agnosticism is personal and focused on the individual; atheism and theism are collective and focused on spreading "the truth".

The interesting category to me are those religions, like Mormonism, that are a mixture of a deeply personal theism that includes actively sharing that theism with others and yet, ultimately, agnostic in the practical application of individual accountability - teaching that those who believe differently but act in dedicated accordance with their sincere beliefs have just as much chance for every "reward" received by those who believe the "Truth". Mormonism is SO much more complex than any other Christian religion I have studied (and I have studied them all of any significant size) that I am blown away by its origins and evolution.

As a religion, atheism is easy and simple and immature. It is the couch critic who inherited money, never had to work and looks down on everyone who struggles to understand their life's meaning amid pain and suffering. In that sense, atheism is meaningless at the purely personal level. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is deeply meaningful at the individual level.