Social media has been talking about the government shutdown for several days. More conservative posts will vilify Senate Majority Leader Reid and President Obama. More liberal posts will vilify Senator Cruz, Senator Paul, and Senator Lee. The majority of posts in the middle will blame all of congress, and blame their apparent lack of ability to compromise.
Of course, the truth is that congress actually represents the views of the people in the United States. The liberals were specifically elected to enact social government programs and expand the role of government in providing goods and services to individuals in lower income brackets. Conservatives in congress were specifically elected to stop the expansion of government that has happened under both Republicans and Democrats since the 1930s. If either side of the aisle agrees to a compromise, they will essentially be breaking the promises made to their constituents.
It is easy to say that congress is filled with people that will not compromise, but the harder truth is that the United States of America is filled with people that are polarized beyond the point of compromise. Ideals of more government and less government are mutually exclusive. Blaming a government of representatives returns the blame to the people who are being represented.
The real question is how did the United States get to the point where we could not agree on government? I suggest that the root of the issue is that the government has progressively taken on more tasks that have been in the domain of religion. Well-meaning liberals want the government to aid the poor using income from the rich. Certainly there are tremendous gaps in the income between the wealthiest 1% and the 99% of the population below as the "occupy" movements point out. It is not difficult to see why people feel that this is unfair, and that those who are struggling might benefit from the resources of those who are not struggling. In the past, it was the role of churches to persuade the population that compassion for their fellow men was as critical to their well-being as it was to the well-being of those in need. In modern times, the government passes laws to try to take more and more of the money of those in high income brackets to fund programs intended to benefit those in lower income brackets. In other words, the state has become like a mandatory church.
Liberals have argued that if the government did not compel the wealthy to contribute to the poor, then they would not do it. Certainly, that is possible. A person granted freedom does not always use their freedom to make responsible decisions. In spite of this, there exist a large number of foundations, charities, and churches that rely exclusively on the donations of generous individuals that seem to be doing fairly well. Certainly many of the liberals who campaign enjoy fundraisers with Hollywood celebrities and benefit from voluntary donations from wealthy individuals in amounts that could help millions of struggling families. Perhaps liberals are too quick to judge the motives of those in a position to help.
If additional motivation is an issue, government ought to ensure that religions are as free as possible to persuade people to make positive moral choices. Throwing religion out of every aspect of government has given atheist activists great pleasure, but there are few calls from these activists to throw the government out of religion.
I suggest that not only can a more religious society better unite and provide for its citizens, it already has.
The prophet Mormon wrote of the time after Christ came to the people of ancient America and united them with religion using the following words:
"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... And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God." (4 Nephi 1:2-3,16-17)
In other words, almost every problem that is currently expected to be solved by the government was solved by people leading religious lives. Poverty was eliminated because people were generous and compassionate toward one another voluntarily. Crime was eliminated because people were religious enough that no one desired to commit crime.
The problems that eventually made their way into this society occurred when people began to leave religion. In the absence of motivation to make moral choices from recognizing religious authority, the people stopped making moral choices, and every vice enumerated in the passage above returned.
In the end, the solution to stalemates and arguments in government or in other aspects of life is the same as it has always been: Christianity. If each individual could themselves be more generous, more kind, more honest, more humble, more chaste, more virtuous, and more religious... the disagreements that divide us would be less important than the moral strength that binds us.
I believe that this Utopian society is not only achievable, but inevitable. Jesus Christ will personally reign on the earth and usher in a glorious age of peace and happiness throughout the entire world. Of course, it is not necessary to wait for his coming before adopting the principles that make bad men good and good men better... I invite all who come here not to postpone heeding the call of Jesus Christ:
"Yea, verily I say unto you, if ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life. Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me." (3 Nephi 9:14)
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Don't get your shorts in a knot... Understanding and modesty
Recently, I have seen a lot of heated discussion regarding a blog post called FYI (if you're a teenage girl).
On one hand, there are many individuals that are grateful for encouraging girls to cover themselves, and express understanding for the mother who wrote the post, who desires to help her sons avoid lustful thoughts and urges.
On the other hand, I have read comments from people who are upset with calls for modesty because it blames girls for the impure thoughts of boys, and teaches boys that they just can't help themselves.
The term modesty has become a item of debate as well. Among religious people of many faiths, modesty has represented a method for dressing, particularly for women, such that they minimize any provocative aspects of their appearance. There have been many individuals that have pointed out that this understanding of modesty is a stretch from the root of the word, which implies restraint and humility. The concept in this case is that modesty represents how an individual views himself or herself rather than how others view them.
One side of this debate emphasizes the effect of provocative styles on men. There can be little doubt that seeing women in skimpy outfits affects men... otherwise there would not be a pornography "industry". Lingerie makers, fragrance producers, and other clothing designers also seem to depend on women noticing the effects their products have on men, and implying that the results are tied to ownership of these goods. Anyone who has attended high school knows that men are willing to part with money, invest time, and provide service for girls that catch their attention.
The opposing side points out that women are being held guilty for an effect they may not intend or of which they may not even be aware. It is also plain that men who are guilty of sexual predation cannot be held guiltless if their victims were wearing revealing or otherwise provocative clothing. Men must control their own impulses. Additionally, the concept of being provocative is relative. One person may be aroused by seeing bare shoulders while another remains completely unaffected. If the line is to be drawn such that no one is remotely aroused ever, then should all people be required to wear large burlap cloaks or dress as Benedictine monks?
Of course, on the other hand, sexual harassment lines are already defined by the perception of the victim as opposed to the intent of the perpetrator. An innocent pat on the back or a shoulder rub can be forms of sexual harassment if they are unwelcome. The same can be said of lewd discussions, displaying racy images in the workplace, or the wearing of tight, revealing, and/or otherwise provocative clothing. Individuals that create a hostile and/or uncomfortable work environment for coworkers are directed to alter their appearance, behavior, and/or speech to accommodate the well-being of others, and people generally understand that such laws and policies are appropriate.
The question then becomes this: at what point do these standards become inappropriate? If a behavior is unwelcome or a lack of consent exists, does that make it wrong?
If consent is not important to defining what is acceptable, then by what standard are crimes such as rape condemned?
Certainly, the issue of modesty is difficult, if not impossible, to define explicitly. At the ends of the spectrum, most people agree that exotic dancers may be dressing to be seductive, and nuns are dressing to cover themselves, but middle ground seems shifting. What one believes is modest, another finds provocative. One person can be distracted by something they find revealing while most others find it tasteful and appropriate.
To add to the confusion, individuals on both sides of the argument seem quick to use argumentative language. In response to modesty, one side will use the term shaming. This term calls into question the motives of those that are asking for sensitivity, which ironically, is a form of shaming. On the other side, calling someone a slut for the way they dress is attempting to shame or guilt trip them for failing to conform to standards they may not understand or share. Name calling and questioning the motives assumes the worst about others, and generates most of the unnecessary heat in these debates.
It should not be hard to understand that a person who did not intend to do anything wrong does not want to be made to feel as though they did. It is absolutely hypocritical to be insensitive while trying to get someone else to be more sensitive. It is also hypocritical to try to get someone to feel guilty for requesting sensitivity by accusing them of trying to make others feel guilty.
Ultimately, men, women, and children are better protected from complicated, expensive, and dangerous situations when sexual relations are kept between husband and wife. All people have responsibilities with respect to this. For women, it means being aware of how their appearance affects others. For men, it means getting out of situations that might impair judgment or integrity. For parents, it means protecting their children as possible from influences that might steer them toward irresponsibility. (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
Ideally, no one would become defensive or take these discussions personally, and the benefit of the doubt would be given.
If someone tells you that your cleavage is showing, is it possible that they are not intending to make you feel bad, but they are genuinely worried about the effect it has on others, or how it might affect you? What is the right way to tell someone that their appearance is making you feel uncomfortable?
On the other hand, is it possible that a person wearing a tight outfit is unaware of how much of their body shape is visible? Is it possible that a person is not wearing something to try and seduce all the men in the room?
In other words, be sensitive in how you dress and how you treat others.
On one hand, there are many individuals that are grateful for encouraging girls to cover themselves, and express understanding for the mother who wrote the post, who desires to help her sons avoid lustful thoughts and urges.
On the other hand, I have read comments from people who are upset with calls for modesty because it blames girls for the impure thoughts of boys, and teaches boys that they just can't help themselves.
The term modesty has become a item of debate as well. Among religious people of many faiths, modesty has represented a method for dressing, particularly for women, such that they minimize any provocative aspects of their appearance. There have been many individuals that have pointed out that this understanding of modesty is a stretch from the root of the word, which implies restraint and humility. The concept in this case is that modesty represents how an individual views himself or herself rather than how others view them.
One side of this debate emphasizes the effect of provocative styles on men. There can be little doubt that seeing women in skimpy outfits affects men... otherwise there would not be a pornography "industry". Lingerie makers, fragrance producers, and other clothing designers also seem to depend on women noticing the effects their products have on men, and implying that the results are tied to ownership of these goods. Anyone who has attended high school knows that men are willing to part with money, invest time, and provide service for girls that catch their attention.
The opposing side points out that women are being held guilty for an effect they may not intend or of which they may not even be aware. It is also plain that men who are guilty of sexual predation cannot be held guiltless if their victims were wearing revealing or otherwise provocative clothing. Men must control their own impulses. Additionally, the concept of being provocative is relative. One person may be aroused by seeing bare shoulders while another remains completely unaffected. If the line is to be drawn such that no one is remotely aroused ever, then should all people be required to wear large burlap cloaks or dress as Benedictine monks?
Of course, on the other hand, sexual harassment lines are already defined by the perception of the victim as opposed to the intent of the perpetrator. An innocent pat on the back or a shoulder rub can be forms of sexual harassment if they are unwelcome. The same can be said of lewd discussions, displaying racy images in the workplace, or the wearing of tight, revealing, and/or otherwise provocative clothing. Individuals that create a hostile and/or uncomfortable work environment for coworkers are directed to alter their appearance, behavior, and/or speech to accommodate the well-being of others, and people generally understand that such laws and policies are appropriate.
The question then becomes this: at what point do these standards become inappropriate? If a behavior is unwelcome or a lack of consent exists, does that make it wrong?
If consent is not important to defining what is acceptable, then by what standard are crimes such as rape condemned?
Certainly, the issue of modesty is difficult, if not impossible, to define explicitly. At the ends of the spectrum, most people agree that exotic dancers may be dressing to be seductive, and nuns are dressing to cover themselves, but middle ground seems shifting. What one believes is modest, another finds provocative. One person can be distracted by something they find revealing while most others find it tasteful and appropriate.
To add to the confusion, individuals on both sides of the argument seem quick to use argumentative language. In response to modesty, one side will use the term shaming. This term calls into question the motives of those that are asking for sensitivity, which ironically, is a form of shaming. On the other side, calling someone a slut for the way they dress is attempting to shame or guilt trip them for failing to conform to standards they may not understand or share. Name calling and questioning the motives assumes the worst about others, and generates most of the unnecessary heat in these debates.
It should not be hard to understand that a person who did not intend to do anything wrong does not want to be made to feel as though they did. It is absolutely hypocritical to be insensitive while trying to get someone else to be more sensitive. It is also hypocritical to try to get someone to feel guilty for requesting sensitivity by accusing them of trying to make others feel guilty.
Ultimately, men, women, and children are better protected from complicated, expensive, and dangerous situations when sexual relations are kept between husband and wife. All people have responsibilities with respect to this. For women, it means being aware of how their appearance affects others. For men, it means getting out of situations that might impair judgment or integrity. For parents, it means protecting their children as possible from influences that might steer them toward irresponsibility. (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
Ideally, no one would become defensive or take these discussions personally, and the benefit of the doubt would be given.
If someone tells you that your cleavage is showing, is it possible that they are not intending to make you feel bad, but they are genuinely worried about the effect it has on others, or how it might affect you? What is the right way to tell someone that their appearance is making you feel uncomfortable?
On the other hand, is it possible that a person wearing a tight outfit is unaware of how much of their body shape is visible? Is it possible that a person is not wearing something to try and seduce all the men in the room?
In other words, be sensitive in how you dress and how you treat others.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Better Questions, Great Discussions
In the August 2013 issue of the Ensign, the LDS magazine, there was an article titled "Great Questions, Great Discussions" by Jack Lyon.
Normally, I do not get really excited about how-to sorts of articles, but the quality of teaching is a subject for which I have passion. While some of the items that were discussed hit the nail on the head, others were disappointing or even incorrect.
From the article:
"“Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to.
“What is the most important principle of the gospel?” is also an ineffective question. No one knows the answer the teacher is looking for except the teacher, who is essentially saying, “Guess what I’m thinking.”"
While the first question is an excellent example of an ineffective question, I immediately had to take issue with the second example. "What is the most important principle of the gospel?" is not an ineffective question... the way that the teacher handled the question, or the intent behind it was ineffective.
It would be completely appropriate for a teacher to ask students what they feel is the most important principle of the gospel, as long as they understood that a case can be made for many different principles. It also becomes the responsibility of a teacher that uses these questions to ensure that discussion and the expression of opinion does not devolve into contention, and that student contributions should be valued as much as possible. A student that answers with "faith" can probably present a strong case for so answering. A good discussion on how vital faith is could ensue. On the other hand, a student that answers "repentance" can present a very strong case for how important repentance is. Neither one of the students needs to be wrong.
On the other hand, if a teacher is attempting to present a lesson of faith, they may want to restrict open ended questions to that subject. A question can be effective in some cases and ineffective in others.
The article uses faith as the assigned topic as it suggests the following:
"If you want the class to have a discussion about something specific like faith, consider saying something like this: “Today we’ll be talking about faith, the first principle of the gospel.” Then ask a question about faith that doesn’t have a specific answer:
1. “What part has faith played in your life?”
2. “Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?”
3. “What are some ways we can increase our faith?”"
Unfortunately, only one out of the three suggestions is actually a good question. Below is an analysis of each one.
1. "What part has faith played in your life?"
Asking what part faith has played in the lives of students is asking for one of the following:
- the student that loves to pontificate going on about their lives
- the student that begins weeping to the point that anything they say is unintelligible
- the student that gives a valid example, followed by three other students that give similar examples
- the student that uses redundant statements to make a thirty-second comment become a fifteen-minute ordeal
Personal experiences may be appropriate for a class... but if people making unprepared statements is superior to the material that the teacher is presenting after having prepared, the teacher needs to improve. When personal stories become the backbone of the lesson, there is little gospel teaching that occurs.
2. "Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?"
This is actually an excellent question. Encouraging thoughtful pondering about gospel topics is a fundamental responsibility of a gospel instructor. Naturally, if the instructor has a preconceived "right" answer in mind, then the question becomes ineffective.
3. "What are some ways we can increase our faith?"
This is a terrible question. Any question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" is a bad idea. What are the odds that a student will hear an answer to this like "prayer can increase faith" and then think to themselves "Wow! I had not previously considered that prayer might increase my faith. This answer has completely changed my outlook on life, and I will always ensure that I pray every day from now till the end of time..."? Not good.
Everyone attending a Gospel Doctrine class should have enough of an understanding of Gospel principles to know that reading scriptures, prayer, church attendance, and other "Sunday School" answers apply. This type of question is just like the first "bad" example the author gave at the beginning: “Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to."
The article goes on to talk about the importance of using the scriptures. This is spot-on:
"Although the manual should be used to prepare the lesson and is a great source of open-ended questions, the scriptures should remain the primary focus of our teaching and learning."
I would suggest this implies that the backbone of the lesson should never be personal experiences. They can be present, but they are not a substitute for canon.
The article then discusses staying focused:
"There is a challenge in having a lot of classroom discussion: it’s easy for the discussion to get off track. It’s important that you prepare your lesson well so that you know where you want it to go and so that you’re ready, if necessary, to bring the class back to the main topic of discussion. Usually all you need to provide is a little guidance: “That’s interesting, but I think we’re a little off track. Let’s get back to our discussion of faith now.”"
While getting focus back is important, the statement that is suggested seems like it could be offensive... (and I am not one to shy away from abrasive statements). Essentially it comes of as "what you said was irrelevant..."
Perhaps more effective would be to (as politely as possible) interrupt the student that is trailing off with a question that asks "so are you saying that..." and then say something that ties into your lesson. If they confirm it, you can immediately move on having regained control. If they indicate that was not their intention, ask them to explain (as politely as possible) how their comment relates to the subject. It is possible that the student was saying something relevant, and that they may not have realized that others were missing a connection that they saw.
Additionally... always remember to thank students for contributions.
Finally, the article went back to discussing personal stories. As I previously mentioned, there is a place for this, but it ought not be the core of any gospel doctrine lesson... The heart of every lesson ought to be the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
After teaching the Nephites about faith, penitence, humility, baptism, and the Holy Ghost, he declared the following:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth." (3 Nephi 11:39-41, emphasis added)
Ultimately, the goal of a teacher is not to talk about their mission, their family, or the missions and families of their students... it is to reiterate the importance of Christian principles that have the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Discussion about triviality or mediocre questions ought to give way to meaningful discussion about the power of Christ himself. Though there are many topics that can occupy time for 45 minutes, discussions that bring classes closer to Jesus will continue to be important to those involved when the 45 minutes have expired.
Normally, I do not get really excited about how-to sorts of articles, but the quality of teaching is a subject for which I have passion. While some of the items that were discussed hit the nail on the head, others were disappointing or even incorrect.
From the article:
"“Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to.
“What is the most important principle of the gospel?” is also an ineffective question. No one knows the answer the teacher is looking for except the teacher, who is essentially saying, “Guess what I’m thinking.”"
While the first question is an excellent example of an ineffective question, I immediately had to take issue with the second example. "What is the most important principle of the gospel?" is not an ineffective question... the way that the teacher handled the question, or the intent behind it was ineffective.
It would be completely appropriate for a teacher to ask students what they feel is the most important principle of the gospel, as long as they understood that a case can be made for many different principles. It also becomes the responsibility of a teacher that uses these questions to ensure that discussion and the expression of opinion does not devolve into contention, and that student contributions should be valued as much as possible. A student that answers with "faith" can probably present a strong case for so answering. A good discussion on how vital faith is could ensue. On the other hand, a student that answers "repentance" can present a very strong case for how important repentance is. Neither one of the students needs to be wrong.
On the other hand, if a teacher is attempting to present a lesson of faith, they may want to restrict open ended questions to that subject. A question can be effective in some cases and ineffective in others.
The article uses faith as the assigned topic as it suggests the following:
"If you want the class to have a discussion about something specific like faith, consider saying something like this: “Today we’ll be talking about faith, the first principle of the gospel.” Then ask a question about faith that doesn’t have a specific answer:
1. “What part has faith played in your life?”
2. “Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?”
3. “What are some ways we can increase our faith?”"
Unfortunately, only one out of the three suggestions is actually a good question. Below is an analysis of each one.
1. "What part has faith played in your life?"
Asking what part faith has played in the lives of students is asking for one of the following:
- the student that loves to pontificate going on about their lives
- the student that begins weeping to the point that anything they say is unintelligible
- the student that gives a valid example, followed by three other students that give similar examples
- the student that uses redundant statements to make a thirty-second comment become a fifteen-minute ordeal
Personal experiences may be appropriate for a class... but if people making unprepared statements is superior to the material that the teacher is presenting after having prepared, the teacher needs to improve. When personal stories become the backbone of the lesson, there is little gospel teaching that occurs.
2. "Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?"
This is actually an excellent question. Encouraging thoughtful pondering about gospel topics is a fundamental responsibility of a gospel instructor. Naturally, if the instructor has a preconceived "right" answer in mind, then the question becomes ineffective.
3. "What are some ways we can increase our faith?"
This is a terrible question. Any question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" is a bad idea. What are the odds that a student will hear an answer to this like "prayer can increase faith" and then think to themselves "Wow! I had not previously considered that prayer might increase my faith. This answer has completely changed my outlook on life, and I will always ensure that I pray every day from now till the end of time..."? Not good.
Everyone attending a Gospel Doctrine class should have enough of an understanding of Gospel principles to know that reading scriptures, prayer, church attendance, and other "Sunday School" answers apply. This type of question is just like the first "bad" example the author gave at the beginning: “Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to."
The article goes on to talk about the importance of using the scriptures. This is spot-on:
"Although the manual should be used to prepare the lesson and is a great source of open-ended questions, the scriptures should remain the primary focus of our teaching and learning."
I would suggest this implies that the backbone of the lesson should never be personal experiences. They can be present, but they are not a substitute for canon.
The article then discusses staying focused:
"There is a challenge in having a lot of classroom discussion: it’s easy for the discussion to get off track. It’s important that you prepare your lesson well so that you know where you want it to go and so that you’re ready, if necessary, to bring the class back to the main topic of discussion. Usually all you need to provide is a little guidance: “That’s interesting, but I think we’re a little off track. Let’s get back to our discussion of faith now.”"
While getting focus back is important, the statement that is suggested seems like it could be offensive... (and I am not one to shy away from abrasive statements). Essentially it comes of as "what you said was irrelevant..."
Perhaps more effective would be to (as politely as possible) interrupt the student that is trailing off with a question that asks "so are you saying that..." and then say something that ties into your lesson. If they confirm it, you can immediately move on having regained control. If they indicate that was not their intention, ask them to explain (as politely as possible) how their comment relates to the subject. It is possible that the student was saying something relevant, and that they may not have realized that others were missing a connection that they saw.
Additionally... always remember to thank students for contributions.
Finally, the article went back to discussing personal stories. As I previously mentioned, there is a place for this, but it ought not be the core of any gospel doctrine lesson... The heart of every lesson ought to be the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
After teaching the Nephites about faith, penitence, humility, baptism, and the Holy Ghost, he declared the following:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth." (3 Nephi 11:39-41, emphasis added)
Ultimately, the goal of a teacher is not to talk about their mission, their family, or the missions and families of their students... it is to reiterate the importance of Christian principles that have the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Discussion about triviality or mediocre questions ought to give way to meaningful discussion about the power of Christ himself. Though there are many topics that can occupy time for 45 minutes, discussions that bring classes closer to Jesus will continue to be important to those involved when the 45 minutes have expired.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
You have more than five senses: don't let Aristotle limit your perception!
Greek philosopher Aristotle is widely credited with being the first to define the five senses by which humanity perceives the world. The concept that the acquisition of knowledge is limited to sight, sound, odor, flavor, and touch is taught even today. This concept appears at first to be logical as each of these senses seem to correspond well to an obvious sensory organ: eyes provide vision, ears provides hearing, noses reveal odors, tongues detect flavors, and skin detects the many varieties of touch.
Unfortunately, this list is far from complete. Consider the sense of balance that most people possess. Tiny canals in the inner ear help us determine whether we are upright or upside down. These same canals also help provide humans with the ability to detect acceleration.
Additionally, pain is not only limited to things that touch our skin. Certainly anyone who has experienced a headache, stomachache, or other internal ache realizes that their body is capable of slowing them down dramatically when it detects some problem.
Consider the ability of humans to know when their bodies require more food or water through hunger or thirst. Anyone who has indulged at a buffet may also recognize the sensation of being full, particularly when they may have over-indulged. We also are able to detect when our bodies are reaching their use limits through the sense of fatigue. Additionally, expecting mothers are perhaps most familiar with food cravings that can help them obtain vitamins, minerals, and chemicals that they need.
Though no specific organ is associated with it, humans have the ability to determine the passage of time. Though it may seem longer when waiting for water to boil or during an uninteresting meeting, even closed away from the light of the sun, people can have a general sense of time passing.
Current scientific understanding will likely discover additional ways that human bodies are able to perceive information about their surroundings and circumstances. One sense that may not be detected so easily is the ability of humans to detect spiritual truth.
The sense that something is spiritually true is dismissed by some because there are diverse views on what is spiritually true. Also, falsehoods have in some cases been peddled as truth using appeals to this sense. That having been said, its use is well documented.
Consider the following conversation between Christ and his Apostles:
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)
Certainly Peter had seen miracles and evidences that contributed to his belief that Jesus was the Son of God, but Christ did not point to the use of his sight and observation as the source of his acquired knowledge. He clearly stated that "flesh and blood" had not been the cause of his revelation, but his Father in heaven. He further declared that the ability to obtain truth from our Father in heaven, or sense spiritual truth was the rock upon which his church would be built.
Consider the following from the disciples of Christ on the road to Emmaus:
" ¶And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:13-32)
The method by which these disciples recognized the identity of the man with whom they walked as the risen Lord was not sight, even though they saw him. They had sensed spiritual truth as he spoke, and noted this with one another as they described how their "heart[s] burn[ed] within" them.
The Apostle John declared at the beginning of his gospel how Christ was "the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9)
Additionally, Christ himself taught "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14) Of course, the only way that he could be "known" by others is if they had some mechanism for recognizing who he was, just as Peter did.
Just as any other sense, there are limitations on our ability to discern spiritual truth. Optical illusions trick our sense of sight into seeing something that may not be. Spiritual illusions can fool people into trusting incorrect sources, or withholding trust from accurate sources. The children of Israel famously decided it was in their best interest to create a golden calf while Moses communed with God on Sinai. (Exodus 32) True prophets such as Jeremiah, Isaiah, and John the Baptist were killed by people who should have had spiritual sense to recognize them for who they truly were.
It is also important to note that like other senses, spiritual perception can be dulled. A person that first encounters the odor of rotting flesh will be repulsed immediately, but if they spend long enough around it, the odor becomes far easier to tolerate to the point that it may not be noticeable. The same thing is true of moral questions. King David went from seeing a woman bathing to arranging the death of her husband to cover his sins over a period of time. Additionally, senses that are not properly used, or are abused, will not be as missed when they are gone. People who as youth listened to loud music too often may not be able to distinguish sounds when they are older. People who intentionally ignore their spiritual senses are most likely to conclude later that they never had any to begin with.
There are those who might say that because spiritual sensitivity can lead people to different conclusions, it cannot be trusted. Of course, if that is true, then the same should be true of all other senses, which also tend to lead people to different conclusions. What inspires one observer of modern art to call a piece "moving" and "skillful" while another observer calls it "a heap of crap" and "something my kid could do blindfolded"? What is it that inspires one listener to enjoy the rhythm of a song, and another to complain of its "repetitive noise"? What causes one person to relish the flavor of a sushi roll, and another to spit it out in disgust? What causes the masochist to enjoy pain while others perceive it so negatively?
Ultimately, everyone embraces an incorrect view or perspective from time to time. The point of life is not to shut off your perception... A person is wiser when using all their senses to perceive the world around them. It is also wise to question the motivation of individuals that would have others disregard or avoid perceptions of any particular sense or group of senses.
If you are new to exercising spiritual senses, or if you have not used them in some time, do not let discouragement prevent you from persisting. Prayer and scripture study have aided people in developing their spiritual senses for thousands of years. Humility, diligence, faith, and penitence are as vital to recognizing spiritual truths as opening the eyelids or unstopping the ears are to improving vision and hearing.
In the end, whatever conflicts or discrepancies may arise with various perceptions will be overcome, and we will all understand the truth. "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) Ultimately, we will all know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that his gospel offers solutions to every problem humanity faces. The sooner we use our perceptions to see him, the sooner his power will help to save us all.
Unfortunately, this list is far from complete. Consider the sense of balance that most people possess. Tiny canals in the inner ear help us determine whether we are upright or upside down. These same canals also help provide humans with the ability to detect acceleration.
Additionally, pain is not only limited to things that touch our skin. Certainly anyone who has experienced a headache, stomachache, or other internal ache realizes that their body is capable of slowing them down dramatically when it detects some problem.
Consider the ability of humans to know when their bodies require more food or water through hunger or thirst. Anyone who has indulged at a buffet may also recognize the sensation of being full, particularly when they may have over-indulged. We also are able to detect when our bodies are reaching their use limits through the sense of fatigue. Additionally, expecting mothers are perhaps most familiar with food cravings that can help them obtain vitamins, minerals, and chemicals that they need.
Though no specific organ is associated with it, humans have the ability to determine the passage of time. Though it may seem longer when waiting for water to boil or during an uninteresting meeting, even closed away from the light of the sun, people can have a general sense of time passing.
Current scientific understanding will likely discover additional ways that human bodies are able to perceive information about their surroundings and circumstances. One sense that may not be detected so easily is the ability of humans to detect spiritual truth.
The sense that something is spiritually true is dismissed by some because there are diverse views on what is spiritually true. Also, falsehoods have in some cases been peddled as truth using appeals to this sense. That having been said, its use is well documented.
Consider the following conversation between Christ and his Apostles:
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)
Certainly Peter had seen miracles and evidences that contributed to his belief that Jesus was the Son of God, but Christ did not point to the use of his sight and observation as the source of his acquired knowledge. He clearly stated that "flesh and blood" had not been the cause of his revelation, but his Father in heaven. He further declared that the ability to obtain truth from our Father in heaven, or sense spiritual truth was the rock upon which his church would be built.
Consider the following from the disciples of Christ on the road to Emmaus:
" ¶And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:13-32)
The method by which these disciples recognized the identity of the man with whom they walked as the risen Lord was not sight, even though they saw him. They had sensed spiritual truth as he spoke, and noted this with one another as they described how their "heart[s] burn[ed] within" them.
The Apostle John declared at the beginning of his gospel how Christ was "the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9)
Additionally, Christ himself taught "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14) Of course, the only way that he could be "known" by others is if they had some mechanism for recognizing who he was, just as Peter did.
Just as any other sense, there are limitations on our ability to discern spiritual truth. Optical illusions trick our sense of sight into seeing something that may not be. Spiritual illusions can fool people into trusting incorrect sources, or withholding trust from accurate sources. The children of Israel famously decided it was in their best interest to create a golden calf while Moses communed with God on Sinai. (Exodus 32) True prophets such as Jeremiah, Isaiah, and John the Baptist were killed by people who should have had spiritual sense to recognize them for who they truly were.
It is also important to note that like other senses, spiritual perception can be dulled. A person that first encounters the odor of rotting flesh will be repulsed immediately, but if they spend long enough around it, the odor becomes far easier to tolerate to the point that it may not be noticeable. The same thing is true of moral questions. King David went from seeing a woman bathing to arranging the death of her husband to cover his sins over a period of time. Additionally, senses that are not properly used, or are abused, will not be as missed when they are gone. People who as youth listened to loud music too often may not be able to distinguish sounds when they are older. People who intentionally ignore their spiritual senses are most likely to conclude later that they never had any to begin with.
There are those who might say that because spiritual sensitivity can lead people to different conclusions, it cannot be trusted. Of course, if that is true, then the same should be true of all other senses, which also tend to lead people to different conclusions. What inspires one observer of modern art to call a piece "moving" and "skillful" while another observer calls it "a heap of crap" and "something my kid could do blindfolded"? What is it that inspires one listener to enjoy the rhythm of a song, and another to complain of its "repetitive noise"? What causes one person to relish the flavor of a sushi roll, and another to spit it out in disgust? What causes the masochist to enjoy pain while others perceive it so negatively?
Ultimately, everyone embraces an incorrect view or perspective from time to time. The point of life is not to shut off your perception... A person is wiser when using all their senses to perceive the world around them. It is also wise to question the motivation of individuals that would have others disregard or avoid perceptions of any particular sense or group of senses.
If you are new to exercising spiritual senses, or if you have not used them in some time, do not let discouragement prevent you from persisting. Prayer and scripture study have aided people in developing their spiritual senses for thousands of years. Humility, diligence, faith, and penitence are as vital to recognizing spiritual truths as opening the eyelids or unstopping the ears are to improving vision and hearing.
In the end, whatever conflicts or discrepancies may arise with various perceptions will be overcome, and we will all understand the truth. "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) Ultimately, we will all know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that his gospel offers solutions to every problem humanity faces. The sooner we use our perceptions to see him, the sooner his power will help to save us all.
Monday, July 15, 2013
"...on my mission..." - why women should avoid using the mating call of 21 year old Mormon men...
Every young man in the LDS church knows there is an expectation... a commandment even... to prepare and serve a two-year mission. Church leaders frequently explain how important it is to share the gospel with everyone, and how substantial the opportunities are for learning and gaining experience through missionary service.
In some areas, the importance of this service translated into grand and glorious farewells and homecomings to honor those that had given such service. Such displays certainly contribute to generating interest in missionary service, but not always in positive ways.
Additionally, leaders of LDS young women frequently encourage the attitude that they ought to seek out a spouse that is a returned missionary. Nearly every time a young woman in LDS meetings or activities described the qualities and accomplishments of their "ideal" husband, returned missionary was among them.
For all the difficulties that men may have when it comes to listening, this fact is known by all men that serve as missionaries. When these young men return home, particularly those with limited dating abilities will fall back to this memory, and any conversation in which they participate will recall a story or experience from their mission that will allow them to spread the word that they are a returned missionary.
In some cases, these efforts can help make girls that would otherwise been unavailable open enough to present a dating opportunity. In cases where the area is already saturated with returned missionaries, the value of completing such service, while still something, is substantially less valuable to women.
At some point after missionary service, whether successful or not in using the "on my mission" mating call, men tend to realize that the glorious return where people lined up to shake their hand is fleeting, and it is important to build new experiences and accomplishments in employment, education, and religious service, just like everyone else.
While young men are told in the form of a commandment that they should prepare and serve a mission, young women are offered this service opportunity as an option. For some of these sisters, missionary service becomes appealing only when there are no imminent marriage prospects, while for others, it is appealing regardless. Sisters from both of these categories can achieve success in missionary efforts.
When service concludes for sister missionaries, many of them seem to fall into the same pattern as returned Elders. Every conversation and every comment they offer in church includes the male mating call "...on my mission..." along with some anecdote or experience.
Of course, almost no men have "returned missionary" on their list of required achievements and accomplishments when seeking a wife. Additionally, since numerous men in the LDS church have served missions, they know that missionary service does not guarantee that a person is kind, honest, intelligent, or even that they have good communication skills. Returned missionaries know that they themselves, regardless of their intentions, made numerous mistakes.
Additionally, most men do not look for a woman that has a good resume or an impressive list of accomplishments. They want someone that is attractive and will agree with them about things they will not compromise (such as religious truths, political views, whether it's ok to eat steak, and the belief that investing some time in the Legend of Zelda is a good thing). Missionary experience does not make a woman more appealing. If women intend it as a mating call of their own, it is a poor choice.
For some people, the phrase "...on my mission..." causes negative feelings. Although missionary service is an option for women, those that persist in relating everything to an experience they had on their mission can cause women who made choices beside full-time missionary service to feel regret, guilt, or inferiority. Particularly for women who were married and started families, there are already enough voices in society telling them that motherhood is not as valuable as careers or other accomplishments... Members of the church ought to avoid guilt tripping women for making correct choices.
Some might respond to this assertion by asking why it would be acceptable for men to talk about their missions and not women. I suggest that men also need to temper the degree with which they use "...on my mission..." Of course since there are so many LDS single women who are determined to marry a returned missionary, a single man may feel the need to communicate that they meet this requirement. That having been said, people ought to see it for what it is: a mating call... and all mating calls are meant to be declarations of superiority.
In other words, a person that says "...on my mission, I [accomplished feat]..." is really saying "consider me to be a superior choice for romantic commitment because I [served a mission]..." Even if the return missionary is female, anyone that frequently refers to their mission comes off as though they are claiming superiority to those who have not served a mission, regardless of whether or not they intend to.
Please do not misunderstand to think that the point of this article is to treat missionary service as a skeleton in the closet. The experiences of missionary service can be remembered, enjoyed, and shared... The point is that these experiences do not make a person superior to another who does not have them. Many times, relating a story about an experience during missionary service can convey the desired point without pontificating about the fact that it may have occurred during missionary service.
Instead of "on my mission, I talked to a person who..." why not say "I once talked to a person who..."? Is it necessary to announce to everyone (especially in an Elders Quorum or Relief Society meeting) that you served a mission? And if you are married, who exactly are you trying to impress by touting your accomplishments?
Ultimately, almost every full time missionary comes to the conclusion that the decisions they made as a 19-21 year old may not always have been the right ones... and that while a full-time mission can offer tremendous opportunity to learn and improve... ultimately, we are all beggars before God (Mosiah 4:19).
A mission should probably not be used as a trumpet announcing good deeds (Matthew 6:2)... and a person's good deeds should not be limited to a time when they served a full time mission. In the end, no amount of accomplishment will hold a candle to the triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ over sin and death... and that is the accomplishment of which all Christians should be most anxious to share.
In some areas, the importance of this service translated into grand and glorious farewells and homecomings to honor those that had given such service. Such displays certainly contribute to generating interest in missionary service, but not always in positive ways.
Additionally, leaders of LDS young women frequently encourage the attitude that they ought to seek out a spouse that is a returned missionary. Nearly every time a young woman in LDS meetings or activities described the qualities and accomplishments of their "ideal" husband, returned missionary was among them.
For all the difficulties that men may have when it comes to listening, this fact is known by all men that serve as missionaries. When these young men return home, particularly those with limited dating abilities will fall back to this memory, and any conversation in which they participate will recall a story or experience from their mission that will allow them to spread the word that they are a returned missionary.
In some cases, these efforts can help make girls that would otherwise been unavailable open enough to present a dating opportunity. In cases where the area is already saturated with returned missionaries, the value of completing such service, while still something, is substantially less valuable to women.
At some point after missionary service, whether successful or not in using the "on my mission" mating call, men tend to realize that the glorious return where people lined up to shake their hand is fleeting, and it is important to build new experiences and accomplishments in employment, education, and religious service, just like everyone else.
While young men are told in the form of a commandment that they should prepare and serve a mission, young women are offered this service opportunity as an option. For some of these sisters, missionary service becomes appealing only when there are no imminent marriage prospects, while for others, it is appealing regardless. Sisters from both of these categories can achieve success in missionary efforts.
When service concludes for sister missionaries, many of them seem to fall into the same pattern as returned Elders. Every conversation and every comment they offer in church includes the male mating call "...on my mission..." along with some anecdote or experience.
Of course, almost no men have "returned missionary" on their list of required achievements and accomplishments when seeking a wife. Additionally, since numerous men in the LDS church have served missions, they know that missionary service does not guarantee that a person is kind, honest, intelligent, or even that they have good communication skills. Returned missionaries know that they themselves, regardless of their intentions, made numerous mistakes.
Additionally, most men do not look for a woman that has a good resume or an impressive list of accomplishments. They want someone that is attractive and will agree with them about things they will not compromise (such as religious truths, political views, whether it's ok to eat steak, and the belief that investing some time in the Legend of Zelda is a good thing). Missionary experience does not make a woman more appealing. If women intend it as a mating call of their own, it is a poor choice.
For some people, the phrase "...on my mission..." causes negative feelings. Although missionary service is an option for women, those that persist in relating everything to an experience they had on their mission can cause women who made choices beside full-time missionary service to feel regret, guilt, or inferiority. Particularly for women who were married and started families, there are already enough voices in society telling them that motherhood is not as valuable as careers or other accomplishments... Members of the church ought to avoid guilt tripping women for making correct choices.
Some might respond to this assertion by asking why it would be acceptable for men to talk about their missions and not women. I suggest that men also need to temper the degree with which they use "...on my mission..." Of course since there are so many LDS single women who are determined to marry a returned missionary, a single man may feel the need to communicate that they meet this requirement. That having been said, people ought to see it for what it is: a mating call... and all mating calls are meant to be declarations of superiority.
In other words, a person that says "...on my mission, I [accomplished feat]..." is really saying "consider me to be a superior choice for romantic commitment because I [served a mission]..." Even if the return missionary is female, anyone that frequently refers to their mission comes off as though they are claiming superiority to those who have not served a mission, regardless of whether or not they intend to.
Please do not misunderstand to think that the point of this article is to treat missionary service as a skeleton in the closet. The experiences of missionary service can be remembered, enjoyed, and shared... The point is that these experiences do not make a person superior to another who does not have them. Many times, relating a story about an experience during missionary service can convey the desired point without pontificating about the fact that it may have occurred during missionary service.
Instead of "on my mission, I talked to a person who..." why not say "I once talked to a person who..."? Is it necessary to announce to everyone (especially in an Elders Quorum or Relief Society meeting) that you served a mission? And if you are married, who exactly are you trying to impress by touting your accomplishments?
Ultimately, almost every full time missionary comes to the conclusion that the decisions they made as a 19-21 year old may not always have been the right ones... and that while a full-time mission can offer tremendous opportunity to learn and improve... ultimately, we are all beggars before God (Mosiah 4:19).
A mission should probably not be used as a trumpet announcing good deeds (Matthew 6:2)... and a person's good deeds should not be limited to a time when they served a full time mission. In the end, no amount of accomplishment will hold a candle to the triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ over sin and death... and that is the accomplishment of which all Christians should be most anxious to share.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
A land choice above all others...
Is the United States of America a Christian nation?
Many of the arguments regarding this question attempt to
examine documents or quotations from the late 1700s… but I would like to draw
from a much older source.
After the flood in the Old Testament, in a land called
Shinar, people aspired to build a great tower that they hoped would let them
ascend to heaven without having to live the laws of God. The Lord confounded the languages of many of these
people rendering them unable to communicate, but before the process was
completed, a man named Jared and his brother pled that God not confound the
language of their family. Their faith
pleased the Lord and he not only allowed them to keep their tongue, but offered
to guide their people to a land of promise.
The journey ultimately brought them to the shores of the ancient
sea. There the God of the Old Testament
revealed his identity as Jesus Christ, who would be born in the future and
perform a great sacrifice to save all men.
He also spoke of the land to which they were being led.
“…but he would that they should come forth
even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which
the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people. And he had sworn in his
wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of
promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and
only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come
upon them.” (Ether 2:7-8)
The land across the sea was the American continent. Tragically, these Jaredites eventually
abandoned the guidance of Christ and his prophets, and destroyed themselves in
a civil war that had but one survivor… Just as had been promised, they had been
swept off the land, and God guided another group of people seeking refuge from
the wickedness of Zedekiah in Jerusalem to his land of promise. Among these travelers was a prophet named
Nephi. He foresaw that in spite of his
efforts to preach of the Messiah, his own people would eventually reject Jesus
and be swept off the land, but he had hope that his efforts might be valued by
those to whom Christ would lead to his promised land afterward: Christopher
Columbus and other European colonists:
“And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was
separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the
Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth
upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the
promised land. And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that
it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the
many waters.” (1 Nephi 13:12-13)
This ancient Christian prophet foretold the hand of God in
aiding the American Revolution and establishing an independent nation:
“And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles
who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and
the power of the Lord was with them. And I beheld that their mother Gentiles
were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle
against them. And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also
that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against
them to battle. And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out
of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other
nations.” (1 Nephi 13:16-19)
The founding fathers were not just imagining divine
providence, they were brought here and preserved by God himself. The witness and warning of ancient Christians
regarding this place echoes across time:
“…and that after the waters had receded from off the face of
this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the
Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell
upon the face thereof;” (Ether 13:2)
Perhaps it is not important to ask “is the United States of
America a Christian nation?” Christ is
responsible for the existence of our nation, and as he has done with the land’s
previous inhabitants, he has prospered us when we have put our trust in
him. As this is his promised land, a more prudent question might be “what can we do
to make the United States of America a more Christian nation?” Our knowledge and understanding has not
advanced us so far as to make faith and penitence, charity and forgiveness,
humility and diligence, or any of the teachings of Christ obsolete. Adhering to these principles is the ultimate
in patriotism.
For more information about the role of Jesus Christ on the
American continent, visit http://mormon.org/beliefs/book-of-mormon
Music credit: Destiny of the chosen – Immediate
Monday, July 1, 2013
Tolerating Unethical Behavior
John Dillinger was a depression-era gangster that robbed banks. He had quite a number of successful heists before the BOI (precursor to the FBI) eventually tracked him down. He was shot multiple times in a final escape attempt.
During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular. There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown. Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad. Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.
Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber. In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.
Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue. Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level. The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States. In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars. In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.
Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this. For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States. For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.
Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity. There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.
The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners. While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.
There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision. Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics. Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical.
I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits. I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be. I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured. The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.
Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical. The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:
John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child." After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted. He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity. In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them. The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported. Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.
In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime.
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.
Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point. The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior. The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."
In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].
Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.
Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.
The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.
Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness. They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.
This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good. Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes. The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"
For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify. Homosexual behavior is unethical. Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it. Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior.
The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)
Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior. That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular. There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown. Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad. Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.
Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber. In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.
Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue. Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level. The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States. In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars. In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.
Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this. For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States. For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.
Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity. There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.
The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners. While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.
There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision. Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics. Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical.
I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits. I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be. I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured. The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.
Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical. The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:
John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child." After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted. He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity. In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them. The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported. Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.
In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime.
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.
Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point. The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior. The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."
In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].
Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.
Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.
The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.
Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness. They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.
This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good. Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes. The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"
For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify. Homosexual behavior is unethical. Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it. Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior.
The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)
Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior. That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)