For those unfamiliar with the concept of a ward, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the church is divided into large areas. Each area is typically divided into Stakes (the term coming from the prophet Isaiah describing Zion as a tent held down by stakes). (Isaiah 54:2) Each Stake is typically divided into wards, which are congregation-sized units that meet together each Sunday. While there are other types of units where large congregations are not possible, the ward is the basic unit of official church organization.
Most wards consist of families and geographic boundaries. Singles wards are special units of organization that do not typically have only single young adult membership. Since one of the most fundamental teachings of the Mormon church involves eternal marriage and family relationships, in many areas, these special wards provide unique opportunities to meet other singles in addition to the typical ecclesiastical functions found in all wards. In other words, the church promotes, endorses, and attempts to facilitate marriages.
The principles of marriage are emphasized more in some wards than others. The reason for this is the natural sensitivity that many singles have to the subject. Few people are opposed to the idea of romantic involvement, but many singles feel that they will not have the opportunity to be married. When rejections and failures begin to accumulate, encouragement from leaders to date more frequently feels like salt being rubbed into a wound. Well-meaning individuals try to persuade singles to attempt to initiate relationships, but frequently do little more than remind singles that they are lonely.
I was personally in that situation. Being a scrawny nerdy kid in high school, I was not successful in wooing girls for whom I felt affection. Repeated failure made me feel like I had overestimated my value, especially when my friends appeared to be successful in their attempts. I decided to try and bury the nagging feeling of low self-worth by focusing on representing something larger than myself. I served a mission. When I returned home, I felt like I had a much better chance at finding a significant other. I became involved in a singles ward, which was filled with people who were a little older. Many of these people were very nice, and I enjoyed friendships, however, any time I conjured the courage to ask a girl out, it ended in rejection.
Eventually, I moved to wards where the average age was closer to my own, but the pattern of asking a girl out and having her want to be "just friends" and then finding out that "just friends" meant "keep away from me you freak" was taxing. I spent time on my knees begging God to help me in my efforts to not be alone. It seemed like something that God should have helped me with if his church focused so much on eternal families.
The nearly constant reminders of my single status from being surrounded by happy couples at work, at school, at church, and even at home when my roommates brought their girlfriends over was painful. Having some married high councilor come in to priesthood meeting and tell me that girls were upset that men were not asking them out on dates was completely inconsistent with my experience. I concluded that they might want some men to ask them out, but not me.
Trying to improve my dating techniques was an effort in which I improved from being dismally bad to just really bad. I was completely unable to "be myself", as so many people had advised me, when I was desperately worried about not coming off as too "needy." The number of failures I had experienced made it all the more difficult to summon courage to ask girls out... and when I finally did, I was a nervous wreck. The encouragement of friends and peers was negated by dates that ended without a hug, a handshake, a high-five, or even a "have a nice night." Attempts to try again were always met with impossibly difficult scheduling issues and other excuses.
It did not take long before I realized what was happening. These girls were filling their social obligation of agreeing to a first date... the "courtesy date." I never really had any chance with them, but they would allow me to think that I did... at least temporarily. The dishonesty required in these social interactions was upsetting, and it caused me to question my worth altogether. Was I really loved for who I was? After all, my parents and family had to love me because I was family. They had not chosen me based on my merits. I wondered if God felt the same way. I did not feel particularly talented or useful to him. I felt worthless.
Struggling with feelings of depression led me to vow that I would stop the practice of dating which had brought me to that condition. It was by no means a unique thing to take a break from dating to allow one's heart to heal, but I was determined that I would be done with it. I imagined what it would be like to be away from all the happy couples and the beautiful girls whose very presence taunted me. I concluded that if I had lived in the middle ages, I would have joined the Benedictine order and found quiet, humble purpose in prayer and simple work in monastic life. The concept of the monk who never had his value reduced by the rejection of women was quite appealing.
Ultimately, these thoughts became the basis for the creation of something I called "The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy." Over time, I began criticizing the dishonesty involved in the dating process more openly. Some of my friends and relatives that were feeling bad because of rejection (both male and female) would temporarily join the brotherhood. Somewhere in the snacks, the laughter, and the video games, I discovered something that had eluded me... happiness. Suddenly, it no longer mattered that I was alone, because I was voluntarily swearing off dating.
Of course, even I, the Holy Brother, was not perfectly immune to the influence of beautiful girls, particularly those that I determined might have something in common with me, but my departures from the comfort of the Brotherhood grew less frequent, and each rejection reinforced my view that dating had been invented by a liar or an idiot.
To the dismay of several of my church leaders, I began openly denouncing dating and date-promoting activities. I preached the "blessed doctrine of celibacy" to others, knowing that I was not alone in my frustrations. Many men were frustrated when girls would say things like "I would love to go out with you" when they really meant "I would tolerate you purchasing food and entertainment for me." To my surprise, a number of girls became very angry with me. They would tell me that I was fighting against the doctrine of the church because people had to date to get married, and marriage was ordained of God. Of course such simple arguments were easily refuted by pointing out examples like Isaac and Rebecca, whose marriage was not founded on dating and dishonesty. If scriptural points were insufficient, I could always silence them by asking them out. Of course, none of them wanted me to stop preaching celibacy because they had interest in me.
The disdain and frustration of some became a badge of honor. With pride and vigor I would greet people by labeling them "friends of celibacy." Some of my talented roommates worked with me to create a short film, "The Ascension of the Holy Brother" which humorously portrayed me being rejected and finding happiness in the acceptance of celibacy. People loved it.
It was not in one instant, but over the course of my notorious stent as the Holy Brother of Celibacy, I realized that this was more than just a façade. The Holy Brotherhood represented my efforts to reject rejection itself. In public speaking and bold declarations, I felt strength. It no longer mattered as much that women saw a sniveling, scrawny, nerdy, half-wit in a dating situation, because they were not seeing my strength. The self-esteem that I had so willingly given to girls only to have it trampled upon had been moved so it was mostly out of their reach.
Somewhere as this realization came, I began hanging out with the beautiful woman that would become my wife. There was no dating. There were no mind-games. There was no dishonesty. I did not feel like I had to sell the idea that I was fun, interesting, or desirable. In hanging out, not dating, we fell in love, made plans, and got married.
The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy is no longer a daily subject of preaching. I do not greet people as friends of celibacy anymore. My wife and I have a wonderful family. As important as my marriage and children are to me, and as much as I believe that God himself has blessed me to be with them, their presence is not the reason I believe that God loves me. The realization of God's love came when I rejected a system that emphasized my weaknesses and discovered my strengths. The assessments of girls I attempted to woo were far less important. The Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy represented a concentrated effort to be happy as a single, and while it did not remove the sting of loneliness completely, it helped me to put it in context.
I still believe that dating is not necessarily the answer to being single. I believe that there are many people that are not able to be themselves, let alone be their best, in a dating environment. My heart is filled with empathy for people in these situations. Although I am no longer single, I still feel a bit of contempt for those that oversimplify or underestimate the problems with being single. I understand the bitter bitter taste of loneliness, and the pain of heart-break and disappointment.
For those in this situation, I encourage membership in the Holy Brotherhood of Celibacy. Of course, there is no official organization, and membership does not require any special ceremony. It means to actively seek out situations where you can play to your strengths. Where possible, cut down on involvement in situations where you are not able to be yourself or act freely and honestly. Stop doubting that God loves you, and search for the gifts he has given you.
It may be difficult to immediately see how not helping you to find a spouse is a manifestation of God's love, but in the end, it will all become clear. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) In the end, we will see his hand has been miraculously helping and guiding us all along, and in the end, he will save those that believe in him, even when it is difficult.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Be an American, not a troll...
The political debate in the United States has heated up as election day has approached. Every record not protected by law has been examined. Popular figures have thrown their support behind one candidate or another, and plead for Americans to do the same. Every idle word has fallen under scrutiny, and even the amount of scrutiny given has fallen under scrutiny.
People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates. Some of these posts are civil. Some less so.
Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.
Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best. At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.
Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy. They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create. To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.
The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do. Many people avoid politics altogether as a result. Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens. Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.
There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack. This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally. Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally. A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney." On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."
The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate. While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races. "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.
Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings. People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them. Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.
To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before. Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement. Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions. Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions. The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America." The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans. Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been. It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.
The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll? The following list explores solutions:
The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did). The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us. Be an American, not a troll.
People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates. Some of these posts are civil. Some less so.
Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.
Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best. At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.
Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy. They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create. To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.
The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do. Many people avoid politics altogether as a result. Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens. Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.
There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack. This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally. Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally. A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney." On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."
The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate. While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races. "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.
Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings. People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them. Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.
To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before. Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement. Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions. Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions. The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America." The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans. Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been. It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.
The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll? The following list explores solutions:
- Be informed. Nasty political advertisements are not effective against people who have already looked at the issues and come to their own conclusions. They target the uninformed. This leads into the next point which is...
- Choose reliable sources of information. There is no such thing as an unbiased source, since no source presents all of the information. The decisions regarding what to report and what to ignore are always based on the opinions of editors (and others) as to what is important or what will bring the most viewing.
- Don't get offended. This is of course easier said than done. Try to avoid sources of information that use images and language that will bother you. Unsubscribe to the posts of some of your Facebook friends. Stop following celebrities on Twitter. Of course, eventually you will find something that offends you. Resist the urge to immediately post something in rebuttal. Evaluate whether pursuing a dialog is for the purpose of informing or rebuking can prevent pointless debates. This leads into the next point which is...
- Avoid pointless debates. If you have already made up your mind and cannot be persuaded, talking to someone else who has made up their mind and cannot be persuaded probably wastes time. Debates are only helpful for weighing two opposing views. If you talk to someone who is unsure, being persuasive is perfectly fine. Being a little abrasive might even be ok, depending on the people involved and assuming that arguments presented are founded in facts and honest beliefs rather than clever fallacies.
- Prioritize your principles. Do you know what things you would be willing to compromise? Do you have ideals from which you cannot withdraw support? Candidates and platforms include so many issues, and it is possible that opposing parties might have some elements that are appealing. Those that most firmly support what is most important to you should have support. For Christians, the most important principles must be religious. Saving mankind by embracing good and denouncing evil is more important than saving whales. For environmental purists, saving whales is far more important than other economic or governmental concerns. Choices between platforms become easier when you know what is most important to you.
- Be consistent. Another way this point might be phrased is to examine your beliefs to see if there are any problems. This does not mean to go read everything from people that disagree with you and hate you... It also does not mean that if you find an inconsistency, you should throw out your principles immediately. Is there a better argument to support something that you believe in your heart? Are the arguments to believe something else more compelling? Everyone is guilty of some hypocrisy, but the effort to keep it to a minimum is a good thing.
The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did). The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us. Be an American, not a troll.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Rejecting the Illusion of Ownership
Property is a concept that is learned at an early age. In fact, before children can learn what it means to share something, they must first learn what is theirs. Parents, including myself, frequently define objects by their owners from clothes to shoes to rooms and especially more fragile and valuable belongings such as smartphones, computers, and tablets.
It is no wonder that the concepts of property and ownership seem so important in our culture. Our laws protect property owners from warrantless searches and seizures. Stealing or vandalizing property is illegal in every state. Corporations invest substantially in protecting their ideas, creations, and inventions, labeling these things intellectual property.
In political circles, heated debates arise from laws that may affect health or even life. Defenders of abortion have been known to argue their case using slogans such as "my body, my choice." (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/29/codepink-protesters-heckle-paul-ryan-my-body-my-choice/)
On the other side of the political spectrum, members of the Mormon church differentiate the concept of the law of consecration with socialism or communism principally by pointing out that the law of consecration embraced private ownership. For those unfamiliar with this concept, the idea is largely based on the Utopian society that existed in America based on the account in the Book of Mormon. "And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift." (4 Nephi 1:2-3) The concept of giving all ones belongings to the church is not unique to the Book of Mormon, the Apostles of Christ in the New Testament also practiced a form of this united order. "And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (Acts 4:33-35)
This law as was once practiced by Mormon communities involved giving all property to a church leader, and then claiming back only what was needed. The need of the individual was determined largely based on the claims of the individual, and in this sense differed from Communism or socialism where need is determined by the governing entity. Church leaders have spoken passionately regarding the position of the LDS church on these other practices: Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the united order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the united order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and his needs," (D&C 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the united order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the united order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet." (Conference Report April 1942, emphasis added)
The problem with any of these philosophies is this: Ownership is an illusion.
No man owns anything. While people can argue "it's more mine than yours" regarding a great many things, the ultimate truth for nearly all objects is that do not belong to any man.
Certainly objects may be in the possession of men temporarily, and it is true that men may be responsible for certain things temporarily... They may even be entitled to be responsible for certain things, but the temporary nature of this responsibility prevents true ownership.
If an individual gains possessions throughout their life, they cannot retain them after death. Even the treasures the Pharaohs hoarded for the afterlife have been claimed by thieves and archaeologists. While some control may be carried out by means of a will, typically, a will only reinforces how all of ones possessions will belong to someone else.
Land that may have been occupied by a family for generations was there before any family was. Homes, vehicles, and furnishings were constructed using resources that have been on and/or nurtured by the earth for ages... and in the beginning, God created the earth.
Even more than things around us, our bodies are not our own. The effort that mothers invest in bearing and delivering children is difficult to fathom. The care of many parents for young children to help them is vital, especially since humans are unable to care for themselves in their early years. In having a body, each person also has a debt to those that helped them obtain and maintain it.
More than this, each human being can find themselves owing far more when they realize the magnitude of the sacrifice that Christ himself offered to purchase immortality and eternal life for the children of men. The Apostle Paul observed: "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) Another way to put this is instead of "my body, my choice" it is "not your body, so be careful with your choice."
After considering all things, no one really owns possessions, they simply borrow and modify them during their brief lives. No one really owns their body, they are occupying it temporarily. Those that have gone before to develop tools and technologies, or those that have nourished and nurtured people in their youth have laid the foundation for any accomplishment or acquisition later in life.
God's role in the foundation of all property or his investment in humanity is impossible to quantify. The amount of effort in making a world as complex and beautiful as the earth and setting in motion all the natural processes that have sustained humanity from the days of Adam and Eve represents more than a whim. Even Christ who seemed to restore sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and life to the dead with ease asked for some other way than to face the suffering that he inevitably endured. (Luke 22:42) In the end, he not only suffered for sin, but he single-handedly broke death. Leaving his tomb not only brought life to him, but promises permanent life, peace, and healing to all those who have had cause to suffer in mortality.
The question then becomes, if God sacrificed so much and invested so much in humanity, why does he hide himself? Why does he not plainly walk among men exclaiming his love personally? Why create the illusion that man owns anything, body or property, if he does not? If God was always capable of immediately saving us, why create such an elaborate façade in which some men who are good are made to suffer and some who do evil appear to triumph?
The truth is that God is an engineer. He is like a computer programmer. Frequently, the purpose for writing a program is to assist in solving a problem or finding the answer to a challenging question. A program is particularly useful for repeating similar steps with variable input. Even God, who knows everything, invested to find the answer to a difficult question and to repeat the general algorithm for each human being that ever has or ever will live.
The question is "what do you want?"
This may seem like a simple question. Why not simply ask it?
Of course the question is more complicated than the possible answers one might receive. For a hungry man, food might be the answer. The man that is lonely might answer companionship. The man that is bored might answer entertainment. Perhaps every man has wanted each of these things at different times.
How do we know what we really want?
Living in a world with an illusion that possessions are long-lasting if not permanent, or that the satisfaction of appetites and passions are the only source of positive feelings allows people to pursue these things without needing to consider what lies outside the illusion. A truth that cannot be clearly seen and that demands investment of those who seek it is less desirable when the promised positive outcomes are not verifiable. Consequently, spiritual truths are only sought after by those that truly want them, not by those that have a casual curiosity, or that wait for proof instead of leaping in faith.
This is not to say that life is completely artificial, or that those who work hard in professions which may be temporary or of little spiritual significance are misplacing their effort. In the life to come for example, we will not have need of doctors, but those that ease the suffering of the sick provide important and real service here and now.
Principles of religious piety such as chastity, honesty, benevolence, and the desire to learn are not backward ideas from spiritual nuts. These principles represent the pursuit of God himself... the quest to find the truth beyond the illusion of mortality. Those that embrace these principles reject the illusion of ownership.... or at least ownership here. They believe that Christ was literal when he taught "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:19-21)
There will come a time when God's program reaches a conclusion for each of us. There will be a day when life on earth has manipulated us into revealing what we really want. Fortunately, desires are malleable. There is time for everyone to learn to see through the illusion. The end is not yet here.
Whether or not you accept the principles of Christianity, realize that it is worth the investment to find the truth, even if it means experimenting with less scientific principles such as faith. Illusions may have their purposes, but ultimately, the truth shall make us free.
It is no wonder that the concepts of property and ownership seem so important in our culture. Our laws protect property owners from warrantless searches and seizures. Stealing or vandalizing property is illegal in every state. Corporations invest substantially in protecting their ideas, creations, and inventions, labeling these things intellectual property.
In political circles, heated debates arise from laws that may affect health or even life. Defenders of abortion have been known to argue their case using slogans such as "my body, my choice." (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/29/codepink-protesters-heckle-paul-ryan-my-body-my-choice/)
On the other side of the political spectrum, members of the Mormon church differentiate the concept of the law of consecration with socialism or communism principally by pointing out that the law of consecration embraced private ownership. For those unfamiliar with this concept, the idea is largely based on the Utopian society that existed in America based on the account in the Book of Mormon. "And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift." (4 Nephi 1:2-3) The concept of giving all ones belongings to the church is not unique to the Book of Mormon, the Apostles of Christ in the New Testament also practiced a form of this united order. "And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (Acts 4:33-35)
This law as was once practiced by Mormon communities involved giving all property to a church leader, and then claiming back only what was needed. The need of the individual was determined largely based on the claims of the individual, and in this sense differed from Communism or socialism where need is determined by the governing entity. Church leaders have spoken passionately regarding the position of the LDS church on these other practices: Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the united order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the united order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and his needs," (D&C 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the united order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the united order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet." (Conference Report April 1942, emphasis added)
The problem with any of these philosophies is this: Ownership is an illusion.
No man owns anything. While people can argue "it's more mine than yours" regarding a great many things, the ultimate truth for nearly all objects is that do not belong to any man.
Certainly objects may be in the possession of men temporarily, and it is true that men may be responsible for certain things temporarily... They may even be entitled to be responsible for certain things, but the temporary nature of this responsibility prevents true ownership.
If an individual gains possessions throughout their life, they cannot retain them after death. Even the treasures the Pharaohs hoarded for the afterlife have been claimed by thieves and archaeologists. While some control may be carried out by means of a will, typically, a will only reinforces how all of ones possessions will belong to someone else.
Land that may have been occupied by a family for generations was there before any family was. Homes, vehicles, and furnishings were constructed using resources that have been on and/or nurtured by the earth for ages... and in the beginning, God created the earth.
Even more than things around us, our bodies are not our own. The effort that mothers invest in bearing and delivering children is difficult to fathom. The care of many parents for young children to help them is vital, especially since humans are unable to care for themselves in their early years. In having a body, each person also has a debt to those that helped them obtain and maintain it.
More than this, each human being can find themselves owing far more when they realize the magnitude of the sacrifice that Christ himself offered to purchase immortality and eternal life for the children of men. The Apostle Paul observed: "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) Another way to put this is instead of "my body, my choice" it is "not your body, so be careful with your choice."
After considering all things, no one really owns possessions, they simply borrow and modify them during their brief lives. No one really owns their body, they are occupying it temporarily. Those that have gone before to develop tools and technologies, or those that have nourished and nurtured people in their youth have laid the foundation for any accomplishment or acquisition later in life.
God's role in the foundation of all property or his investment in humanity is impossible to quantify. The amount of effort in making a world as complex and beautiful as the earth and setting in motion all the natural processes that have sustained humanity from the days of Adam and Eve represents more than a whim. Even Christ who seemed to restore sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and life to the dead with ease asked for some other way than to face the suffering that he inevitably endured. (Luke 22:42) In the end, he not only suffered for sin, but he single-handedly broke death. Leaving his tomb not only brought life to him, but promises permanent life, peace, and healing to all those who have had cause to suffer in mortality.
The question then becomes, if God sacrificed so much and invested so much in humanity, why does he hide himself? Why does he not plainly walk among men exclaiming his love personally? Why create the illusion that man owns anything, body or property, if he does not? If God was always capable of immediately saving us, why create such an elaborate façade in which some men who are good are made to suffer and some who do evil appear to triumph?
The truth is that God is an engineer. He is like a computer programmer. Frequently, the purpose for writing a program is to assist in solving a problem or finding the answer to a challenging question. A program is particularly useful for repeating similar steps with variable input. Even God, who knows everything, invested to find the answer to a difficult question and to repeat the general algorithm for each human being that ever has or ever will live.
The question is "what do you want?"
This may seem like a simple question. Why not simply ask it?
Of course the question is more complicated than the possible answers one might receive. For a hungry man, food might be the answer. The man that is lonely might answer companionship. The man that is bored might answer entertainment. Perhaps every man has wanted each of these things at different times.
How do we know what we really want?
Living in a world with an illusion that possessions are long-lasting if not permanent, or that the satisfaction of appetites and passions are the only source of positive feelings allows people to pursue these things without needing to consider what lies outside the illusion. A truth that cannot be clearly seen and that demands investment of those who seek it is less desirable when the promised positive outcomes are not verifiable. Consequently, spiritual truths are only sought after by those that truly want them, not by those that have a casual curiosity, or that wait for proof instead of leaping in faith.
This is not to say that life is completely artificial, or that those who work hard in professions which may be temporary or of little spiritual significance are misplacing their effort. In the life to come for example, we will not have need of doctors, but those that ease the suffering of the sick provide important and real service here and now.
Principles of religious piety such as chastity, honesty, benevolence, and the desire to learn are not backward ideas from spiritual nuts. These principles represent the pursuit of God himself... the quest to find the truth beyond the illusion of mortality. Those that embrace these principles reject the illusion of ownership.... or at least ownership here. They believe that Christ was literal when he taught "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:19-21)
There will come a time when God's program reaches a conclusion for each of us. There will be a day when life on earth has manipulated us into revealing what we really want. Fortunately, desires are malleable. There is time for everyone to learn to see through the illusion. The end is not yet here.
Whether or not you accept the principles of Christianity, realize that it is worth the investment to find the truth, even if it means experimenting with less scientific principles such as faith. Illusions may have their purposes, but ultimately, the truth shall make us free.
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Word of Foolishness
Recently, the Mormon church produced an official clarification regarding the stance of consuming caffeine. For a long time, members of the LDS church have had varying opinions regarding whether it was permissible to drink colas or other caffeinated beverages. I have listened to passionate exchanges regarding the exact wording of section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants (which is known as the Word of Wisdom to Mormons) and the implication of Gordon B. Hinckley's words in the CBS program 60 Minutes where he implied that faithful members of the church avoid caffeinated soft drinks.
On the one hand of the debate, I have heard people in favor of drinking caffeinated beverages ask "where does sit say caffeine in the Word of Wisdom?" True enough, the word cannot be found there. On the other hand, the word "heroin" or the phrase "huffing markers" and a variety of other practices seem to be missing, although the church openly condemns addictive and/or illegal drugs. (http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf?lang=eng pp 25-27)
On the other hand of the debate, I have heard people interpreting "addictive" such that it applies to almost anything. While pain killers and stimulants may be described by those that use them as needful, the need for food and water obviously does not represent an addiction to be avoided.
Along with a list of prohibitions, the Word of Wisdom also contains a list of practices that are encouraged. These items also spark controversy among Mormons... particularly those that believe in the divinity of vegetarianism.
I recall a time when I was proclaiming my affinity to meat (I believe I was referencing delicious Memphis-style pulled pork barbecue) when I was rebuked by another member who pointed out passages from the Word of Wisdom. The actual verses that describe the concern expressed read as follows: "Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger." (D&C 89:12-15)
There was an individual with whom I spoke that was convinced that this was the most important element of the Word of Wisdom. They believed that the reason these lines were present was to warn us of the evils of farming cattle. The wide-eyed, sincere explanation I was given indicated that cattle produced a large amount of methane gas, and that if we allowed all that methane to be produced the ice caps would melt and life as we knew it would end.
While I have heard many theories about events and actions that might lead to the end of civilization, that was the only occasion of which I know where cow farts were suggested.
I have also heard arguments that were better crafted in favor of vegetarianism. Many of them quote prominent church leaders. Bruce R. McConkie said in his The Millenial Messiah " Isaiah gives us these poetically phrased particulars about animal life during the Millennium. ‘The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,’ he says, ‘and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock.’ Implicit in this pronouncement is the fact that man and all forms of life will be vegetarians in the coming day; the eating of meat will cease, because, for one thing, death as we know it ceases. There will be no shedding of blood, because man and beast are changed (quickened) and blood no longer flows in their veins.” (p 658) George Q. Cannon stated "We should by every means in our power impress upon the rising generation the value of life and how dreadful a sin it is to take life. The lives of animals even should be held far more sacred than they are. Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport. The practice of hunting and killing game merely for sport should be frowned upon and not encouraged among us. God has created the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience and comfort and for his consumption at proper times and under proper circumstances; but he does not justify men in wantonly killing those creatures which He has made and with which He has supplied the earth” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon p 24)
Certainly these statements gain credibility from members who recognize the names of Apostles. I have read that Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith were also proponents of eating meat only very sparingly in accordance with the Word of Wisdom.
Why then do modern leaders seem to place such an emphasis on avoiding alcohol, tobacco, and harmful drugs instead of echoing the words in the scriptures themselves? I submit it is because they are privileged to give interpretation of the scriptures (not just the Word of Wisdom, but all scriptures) that is both currently prudent and generally applicable to all people. In other words, prophets are authorized to prophesy. The current emphasis as spoken through general conferences and general statements constitutes authoritatively the will of God himself.
To illustrate the need for current interpretation of the scriptures (even more modern scriptures such as the Doctrine and Covenants), here is a scripturally based argument that drinking beer is consistent with the Word of Wisdom:
"That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make. And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies." (D&C 89:5-7) This passage implies that wine is permissible to drink only if it is home-made and used only in Sacrament services. The conclusion is that not all alcohol is bad. Further on, the Word of Wisdom reads "All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground— Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain." (D&C 89:16-17, emphasis added) In this passage, the use of grains for mild drinks is approved. Barley is particularly used in the brewing of beer, which is not necessarily a "strong" alcoholic beverage. Since other grains can be used in the starch source for beer, the clause at the end of verse 17 seems to permit beer that contains other grains. The conclusion based on this reading of the scriptures themselves is that it is ok for Mormons to have a cold one!
Of course, the argument that beer is ok is tongue-in-cheek. Modern prophets are very clear on the current standards necessary to show compliance with the Word of Wisdom. President Thomas S. Monson said "Hard drugs, wrongful use of prescription drugs, alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco products destroy your physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. Any form of alcohol, including beer, is harmful to your spirit and your body. Tobacco can enslave you, weaken your lungs, and shorten your life." (http://www.lds.org/new-era/2008/10/standards-of-strength?lang=eng, emphasis added)
The truth is that the scriptures, while vitally important, are only one tool to learning the will of God. God called circumcision an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:10-14), yet later, the Apostle Paul said "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." (1 Corinthians 7:19) These scriptural points seem to be mutually exclusive. While some of the law of Moses including animal sacrifice was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, Paul was clear that works of the flesh, most of which being at odds with the law of Moses, would prevent entrance to the Kingdom of God: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galations 5:19-21)
Even the laws of health given by God have changed over time. Through Moses, God declared the laws for animals which were and were not permissible to eat. (Deuteronomy 14:3-20) Through Peter, God declared that this law had been changed. (Acts 11:2-18)
The ultimate conclusion that Latter-Day Saints should draw is that if God really had a problem with caffeine, he would probably tell us through prophets. If God's biggest worry was the low number of Mormon vegetarians, we would hear General Conference talks on it frequently. Based on recent conference addresses, it seems that generally he is far more worried about the use of tobacco, alcohol, and harmful drugs than he is about burgers and Mountain Dew. That is not to say that individually, he may want certain people to be more healthy, and it is possible on an individual basis that people may be moved to change their diets or exercise habits, but this is not the doctrine to be preached to all members from the pulpit or in Sunday School.
God may be the same yesterday today and forever, but the things he asks his followers to do may change. Taking into account only one source of truth will never result in a complete understanding. Those that only look to the scriptures, or only look to prayer, or only look to a prophet may miss out on truths of God that can be found elsewhere. Being stuck on a few words in scripture that are resolved by modern prophets can turn the Word of Wisdom into the Word of Foolishness.
When everything is visible, when all truth is known, the concepts that may seem to mutually exclude one another will no longer be seen as contradictory. Mormons should not limit their search for truth to any one source. President Joseph F. Smith said "We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.” (Conference Report, Apr. 1909 p 7)
On the one hand of the debate, I have heard people in favor of drinking caffeinated beverages ask "where does sit say caffeine in the Word of Wisdom?" True enough, the word cannot be found there. On the other hand, the word "heroin" or the phrase "huffing markers" and a variety of other practices seem to be missing, although the church openly condemns addictive and/or illegal drugs. (http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf?lang=eng pp 25-27)
On the other hand of the debate, I have heard people interpreting "addictive" such that it applies to almost anything. While pain killers and stimulants may be described by those that use them as needful, the need for food and water obviously does not represent an addiction to be avoided.
Along with a list of prohibitions, the Word of Wisdom also contains a list of practices that are encouraged. These items also spark controversy among Mormons... particularly those that believe in the divinity of vegetarianism.
I recall a time when I was proclaiming my affinity to meat (I believe I was referencing delicious Memphis-style pulled pork barbecue) when I was rebuked by another member who pointed out passages from the Word of Wisdom. The actual verses that describe the concern expressed read as follows: "Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger." (D&C 89:12-15)
There was an individual with whom I spoke that was convinced that this was the most important element of the Word of Wisdom. They believed that the reason these lines were present was to warn us of the evils of farming cattle. The wide-eyed, sincere explanation I was given indicated that cattle produced a large amount of methane gas, and that if we allowed all that methane to be produced the ice caps would melt and life as we knew it would end.
While I have heard many theories about events and actions that might lead to the end of civilization, that was the only occasion of which I know where cow farts were suggested.
I have also heard arguments that were better crafted in favor of vegetarianism. Many of them quote prominent church leaders. Bruce R. McConkie said in his The Millenial Messiah " Isaiah gives us these poetically phrased particulars about animal life during the Millennium. ‘The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,’ he says, ‘and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock.’ Implicit in this pronouncement is the fact that man and all forms of life will be vegetarians in the coming day; the eating of meat will cease, because, for one thing, death as we know it ceases. There will be no shedding of blood, because man and beast are changed (quickened) and blood no longer flows in their veins.” (p 658) George Q. Cannon stated "We should by every means in our power impress upon the rising generation the value of life and how dreadful a sin it is to take life. The lives of animals even should be held far more sacred than they are. Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport. The practice of hunting and killing game merely for sport should be frowned upon and not encouraged among us. God has created the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience and comfort and for his consumption at proper times and under proper circumstances; but he does not justify men in wantonly killing those creatures which He has made and with which He has supplied the earth” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon p 24)
Certainly these statements gain credibility from members who recognize the names of Apostles. I have read that Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith were also proponents of eating meat only very sparingly in accordance with the Word of Wisdom.
Why then do modern leaders seem to place such an emphasis on avoiding alcohol, tobacco, and harmful drugs instead of echoing the words in the scriptures themselves? I submit it is because they are privileged to give interpretation of the scriptures (not just the Word of Wisdom, but all scriptures) that is both currently prudent and generally applicable to all people. In other words, prophets are authorized to prophesy. The current emphasis as spoken through general conferences and general statements constitutes authoritatively the will of God himself.
To illustrate the need for current interpretation of the scriptures (even more modern scriptures such as the Doctrine and Covenants), here is a scripturally based argument that drinking beer is consistent with the Word of Wisdom:
"That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make. And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies." (D&C 89:5-7) This passage implies that wine is permissible to drink only if it is home-made and used only in Sacrament services. The conclusion is that not all alcohol is bad. Further on, the Word of Wisdom reads "All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground— Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain." (D&C 89:16-17, emphasis added) In this passage, the use of grains for mild drinks is approved. Barley is particularly used in the brewing of beer, which is not necessarily a "strong" alcoholic beverage. Since other grains can be used in the starch source for beer, the clause at the end of verse 17 seems to permit beer that contains other grains. The conclusion based on this reading of the scriptures themselves is that it is ok for Mormons to have a cold one!
Of course, the argument that beer is ok is tongue-in-cheek. Modern prophets are very clear on the current standards necessary to show compliance with the Word of Wisdom. President Thomas S. Monson said "Hard drugs, wrongful use of prescription drugs, alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco products destroy your physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. Any form of alcohol, including beer, is harmful to your spirit and your body. Tobacco can enslave you, weaken your lungs, and shorten your life." (http://www.lds.org/new-era/2008/10/standards-of-strength?lang=eng, emphasis added)
The truth is that the scriptures, while vitally important, are only one tool to learning the will of God. God called circumcision an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:10-14), yet later, the Apostle Paul said "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." (1 Corinthians 7:19) These scriptural points seem to be mutually exclusive. While some of the law of Moses including animal sacrifice was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, Paul was clear that works of the flesh, most of which being at odds with the law of Moses, would prevent entrance to the Kingdom of God: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galations 5:19-21)
Even the laws of health given by God have changed over time. Through Moses, God declared the laws for animals which were and were not permissible to eat. (Deuteronomy 14:3-20) Through Peter, God declared that this law had been changed. (Acts 11:2-18)
The ultimate conclusion that Latter-Day Saints should draw is that if God really had a problem with caffeine, he would probably tell us through prophets. If God's biggest worry was the low number of Mormon vegetarians, we would hear General Conference talks on it frequently. Based on recent conference addresses, it seems that generally he is far more worried about the use of tobacco, alcohol, and harmful drugs than he is about burgers and Mountain Dew. That is not to say that individually, he may want certain people to be more healthy, and it is possible on an individual basis that people may be moved to change their diets or exercise habits, but this is not the doctrine to be preached to all members from the pulpit or in Sunday School.
God may be the same yesterday today and forever, but the things he asks his followers to do may change. Taking into account only one source of truth will never result in a complete understanding. Those that only look to the scriptures, or only look to prayer, or only look to a prophet may miss out on truths of God that can be found elsewhere. Being stuck on a few words in scripture that are resolved by modern prophets can turn the Word of Wisdom into the Word of Foolishness.
When everything is visible, when all truth is known, the concepts that may seem to mutually exclude one another will no longer be seen as contradictory. Mormons should not limit their search for truth to any one source. President Joseph F. Smith said "We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.” (Conference Report, Apr. 1909 p 7)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)