Exactly What Must Be 100% True or 100% False?

One of my biggest problems with human nature, in general, and the way that members, in particular, tend to interpret things is the tendency to read something applied to one thing or person and extrapolate it to everything or everyone else.

Let me give two examples to illustrate my point:

1) Oliver Cowdery was told how HE received a witness from the Spirit. HE felt a burning in HIS bosom, and HE experienced a stupor of thought in HIS mind. That passage says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how anyone else will or should recognize the influence of the Spirit in their own life - nothing, at all. However, members and missionaries alike tend to promise others that they will feel it in that exact same way. I rarely feel it that way, and I know others who rarely feel it that way, but thousands of people are being told that is how they can experience it. That really is a HUGE concern and pet peeve of mine.

2) Moroni 10:3-4 promises those who remember, read, ponder and pray that God will manifest the truth of the Book of Mormon unto them - but it says absolutely nothing about how that will be done - how any particular reader will experience that manifestation. It also does NOT say in those verses that everyone who reads will "know" it is true; all it says is that the truth will be manifest somehow. One person might feel it is true; another one might sense it is true; another might have a classic Cowdery burning; one might have a powerful dream; one simply might feel compelled to continue reading it and be drawn into it inescapably; one might experience it in a way that is unimaginable to you and me. Only one of these "manifestations" match Oliver Cowdery's method of manifestation, but each and every one is "real" to the person involved.

President Hinckley didn't say, "Every single thing taught in the Church either is 100% true or else the Church is a fraud," nor did he say, "The Church is never wrong or else it is not of God." What he said, in essence, included three foundational claims: 

1) Joseph spoke with God (somehow); 

2) Moroni appeared to Joseph, who "translated" the Book of Mormon (somehow); and 

3) the Priesthood authority to perform eternal ordinances was restored (somehow). 

Either those three things happened (again, somehow) or they didn't. Either heavenly personages appeared to Joseph (somehow), or he made it up. They either are "real" or "fraudulent". Joseph either believed in his visions, or he lied about them intentionally. He either was sincere, or he was a fraud. That's essentially all Pres. Hinckley said in the quote.

To me, the crux of his comment is that either Joseph was telling the truth about the biggest things (the heavenly manifestations), or he was a fraud. Either he believed it, or he faked it. I can accept that, since I couldn't remain faithful if I was convinced he lied about those foundation things. There are lots and lots and lots of things that I believe are totally open to ambiguity and mistakes; the heavenly visitations/visions aren't among them - even though I think there are multiple, legitimate ways that those visitations could have occurred without being fraudulent.

Beauty vs. Character - A Great Discussion Thread

The Perils of Beauty - Kevin Barney (By Common Consent)

The comments are fascinating.

The Importance of Marriage: Cleave Unto Her and None Else - Including, Ultimately, God

In the movie, "What Dreams May Come", a man comes to realize that he would rather live in Hell with his wife than live in Heaven without her.  This post is about that idea - that we are meant to be with someone other than God eternally - that we must accept Him, His grace and the atonement, but that part of such an acceptance is a willingness to place our spouse ahead of Him ultimately.  


Please bear with me as I explain why I believe this. 

Genesis 3:12 says:

"And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

I believe the straightforward meaning of this verse, strictly parsed into modern terms, would be something like:

"You made this woman and commanded that she should remain with me. She gave me the fruit, and I ate it."

Personally, to add a bit of the background story, I would fill it out thus - knowing that it is going beyond simple parsing, but confident that it is not wildly speculative or off-the-wall:

"You made this woman and commanded that she should remain with me. That was the first and greatest commandment you gave me. Therefore, when she gave me the fruit to eat, and I realized we would be separated as a result, I ate it also in order to remain with her - and fulfill the first and highest law you gave me. I had a choice to stay with you alone forever or be with her outside your presence, and I chose to remain with her rather than to remain alone with you."

I have read quite a few varying interpretations of this verse, but each of them requires that the interpreter make some core assumptions about the relationship between Adam and Eve - and, in almost all cases, those assumptions are a direct reflection of either our modern conception of relationships, an obvious argument for a particular political or gender-specific issue or a view that simply is not supported by the text itself. As someone who sees the story figuratively rather than literally, I understand differing interpretations, but the one I have outlined is the only one that makes sense to me - given the totality of the account and the initial command to "cleave unto her and none else". 

Consider carefully the following point: "None else" includes the Lord, Himself - so, in a very real way, Adam was making the choice we teach that all will have to make in the eternities (to "leave home" and the presence of the Father and Son and embark on our own eternal journey as a united couple - "God" to our own spirit children). Thus, I see figurative meaning in the Garden for both our mortal and immortal existences - and I see Adam's statement in Genesis 3:12 as his straightforward explanation of his choice to accept the Father's full plan, by placing life with his wife ahead of life alone with God.

I live with five females, none of whom smoke...so I laughed at this

This link shall remain nameless, just so I don't give anything away. Read and enjoy!! (or at least laugh hysterically) - slate.com

Multiple Currents Within the Mainstream

In most ways, I am as mainstream as it gets - in the way I live and in the eyes of most members in my ward and stake. My politics and perspectives on quite a few topics are quite different than many of theirs, but I don't make a big deal out of it. I try to comment quietly and kindly and calmly, even when I am trying to "correct" something that has been said (and I almost always preface my comments with something like "I think ...") - so most people don't take what I say as "radical" or "non-mainstream". Honestly, probably almost half of what I say in Church is different than what others are saying, but since I'm not confrontational or subversive in any way it's cool. Everyone knows I am fully committed to the Church, so my opinions aren't viewed as threatening or argumentative or non-mainstream. 

I don't think I'm the exception as far as my actual views being slightly (or even significantly) different than others. I think there are lots of members who have widely varying views about lots of things - but most aren't as comfortable expressing those views as I am expressing mine.  However, I think there are many who don't want or need to try to construct their own puzzle. They are fine with taking the puzzle built by others and living within it - and most of them live righteous, productive, caring lives. I don't begrudge them their perspective, since it works for them. It just doesn't work for me - and many others.

Frankly, I think there are two basic currents within the "mainstream" (with various sub-groups within each):

1) The ones I've just described who really don't think much about the details swim in the middle of the stream - generally in a pretty tight bunch with life jackets firmly attached;

2) The ones who like to try to play around in the details swim on the sides of the stream - generally spread all over the place diving and snorkeling and splashing away - sometimes totally out of direct sight of the other group.

Neither of the groups is "right" or "wrong" - just as swimmers who use different strokes aren't "right" or "wrong". Each might look like they are on different journeys to some in the other group, but I think we're all in the same main stream. In other words, we sometimes think we are swimming in a local creek or tributary when, in reality, we all are swimming in the Mississippi River and just might not be able to see those in a different current all the time.

The Song of Redeeming Love

My New Year's Resolution for this month is to "feel more deeply to sing the song of redeeming love" - taken from Alma 5:26.  This is a direct result, I believe, of recognizing what was the focus of my monthly resolutions thus far this year - that we are, in fact, loved enough to be redeemed.  Since I have focused on that foundational belief in those resolution posts, I have been contemplating how to approach this month's resolution in a specific manner that builds upon and adds to what I have written thus far.

As I thought about how to begin, I realized I want to make one simple, yet critical, point:

In order to feel to sing a song of redeeming love, it is necessary to feel redeemed.

As I stated last month, there is a fundamental difference between being "redeemed" (bought back, purchased, etc.) and being "saved" (kept from being sold / lost).  Mormon theology is crystal clear that all have been redeemed from the Fall and the influence eternally of evil - that the only people who are not redeemed are those who know they are being offered that redemption and consciously choose to reject it and embrace evil instead.  Everyone else, regardless of their actions in mortality, are redeemed and "rewarded" in some way. 

This recognition should bring a degree of joy and rejoicing to those who believe it - but, unfortunately, our focus on the "final reward" (salvation and exaltation) often gets in the way of a simple appreciation of the initial gift (redemption).  Too often, the obsession with the final reward blinds us to the obligation we should feel to "sing the song of redeeming love" - and that's a shame.

Therefore, my only plea at the beginning of this month is for anyone who reads this to consider the love of God that would motivate a God to promise redemption for all who agreed to come to this mortal sphere - to not let us be separated forever - to do whatever it took to purchase us from a fallen state and, subsequently, offer to keep us from falling again.

Salvation and exaltation are impossible without redemption occurring first - so we should feel the emotion expressed within a song with which I will end this post:

I Stand All Amazed 

(Click the circle next to "Words and Music" at the top, left of the page - then click the "Play" button above that spot.)

Parsing the Book of Mormon

Today, I want to illustrate what I said in a much earlier post about the Book of Mormon being misunderstood. I'm going to respond to a statement I read online recently:

I think it could be a historical record. It's possible. It just doesn't seem to be what I was raised to think it was. It might not be the historical record of the Native American Indians.

Answer: The book itself never makes that claim.  

 

I personally believed something similar to the limited geography model LONG before I ever heard that phrase, and I also believed that we have absolutely no idea where it occurred in the Americas. None whatsoever. (I think the research into the Old World location is compelling, but not the New World research as to any specific location.) I also believed that the "principle ancestors" phrase was wrong at a very early age, and I'm glad it was changed. (I think the Jaredites might be the Principle ancestors, and that they were Asiatic, so I believe the most recent DNA research actually comes close to validating the Book of Mormon [and I believed the Jaredite connection long before I knew of the DNA controversy] - but that is for another discussion.)

So, just because it isn't what members assumed it was doesn't mean it isn't what it actually claims to be.

Honestly, I have never encountered an actual claim within the pages themselves that I believe is demonstrably false. There are numerous assumptions of people on both sides of the validity debate that I think are incorrect, lame, ludicrous and even frightening - but there's no actual claim of the book itself that I have found to be indefensible or preposterous. Over the decades I have been reading it, on the other hand, there are numerous things that have snapped my head back and made me realize I had misunderstood it previously.

The Blessing Didn't Change Anything; I Suspect It Wasn't Meant To

The Blessing - Tracy M. (By Common Consent)

Advocating Extremes Is Easy; Real Life in the Middle Is Hard - but Worthwhile

I'm old enough to have "shifted" substantially on various issues over time. Much of the perception of my beliefs in the Bloggernacle is based on the fact that I don't like inconsistency and one-sided arguments - so I end up addressing comments that exhibit those traits. Those comments tend to be the most extreme on both sides. That means I end up on predominantly liberal sites being called too conservative, while I end up on predominantly conservative sites being called too liberal - all because I tend to believe the best solutions lie somewhere in the middle of the extremes in most cases. 

Frankly, and as bluntly as I can say this while still grinning from ear to ear, I have found that my current path is MUCH harder to walk and requires a complete lack of complacency - while advocating most extremes is incredibly easy. It's very difficult and taxing to read every single comment in a post before commenting, try to read very carefully every word everyone says, remember the gist and general content of every comment, go back and re-read former comments prior to responding to make sure I don't misinterpret, consider each word in a comment to which I respond and what it might mean, look for any ways to read others' comments charitably (seeing, for example, where a particular word used probably, based on overall context, means what a different word would have conveyed better), contemplate the best way to structure a response, re-read each response I construct, edit it at least once before submitting it, etc. Honestly, I go through that process almost every time I comment (and regret it almost every time I don't), and there is no complacency involved in it.  

I try to tackle every issue of every topic that same way - reading each and every comment for insight into how it can influence my own view of the topic. This approach has molded my view on many issues over the years, and those views have changed and continue to change. It's just that I tend to respond in public settings to the comments that are the most extreme (on both sides of whatever the issue is being discussed), so my comments on group blogs generally are more in response to others than passionate statements of my own beliefs. As I have spent more time in the Bloggernacle, I have written those (passionate statements of my own beliefs) in group settings more often, but they are nowhere near the majority of my comments. 

I expect others to be more passionate about some topics than I will be. It is more personal to them than to me, and it hits them much harder than it hits me. If that means I appear to be more “complacent” about those particular topics than some others are, perhaps that is a fair statement. It just doesn’t mean I am a complacent person. What it means is that I am trying my best to walk my own path in the way that is most consistent with the dictates of my own conscience - and, while that approach is harder than advocating extremes, it is MUCH more worthwhile, in my opinion. 

Naming Moses: A Truly Insightful Post

The Name "Moses" - Kevin Barney (By Common Consent)