the ladder

Depression in Utah

Sorry it’s been so long. I really don’t get a lot of visitors here anyway, so it’s no big deal. However, I did have three comments on the same day recently, and I really appreciate that feedback. But I do have an interesting topic to bring up today.

Studies have shown that Utah leads the nation in its use of antidepressants. Many point to the Church’s high demands from its members. Most churches do not require so much of their members’ time for no monetary compensation. And the social expectations to live the commandments are difficult to meet. Anti-Mormons take this many steps further, saying that it is due to our reliance on our own works, and not on the grace of Jesus Christ (incidentally, many members do seem to feel this way, and to not rely on the grace of Christ is a serious proble). However, these conclusions are probably oversimplifications. Though they may contribute, I do not believe that they can be the only factors. For one thing, Mormons in general are a practical people, and instead of sitting around when they detect a problem, they do whatever is necessary to fix it. Perhaps a desire to aid depression problems is higher in Utah than in other areas, where they may choose to instead let the problem sit. But that is only one theory. What do you, my audience, think could contribute to the high antidepressant distribution in Utah?

Here is a link to an article on the study:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon64.html

Politics and the Church

I need to keep my articles shorter.  Writing a long one takes a while for me to get around to, and by the time it’s done, it could better serve as an essay for my brother’s and my common blog.

Lately, the political situation of the nation and the world has been rather nerve-wracking.  I, being a conservative Mormon, stick to my good ol’ conservative thought processes.  But being Mormon doesn’t at all require one to hold such views.  They just tend to naturally agree with our religious views (pro-life, financial independence, etc.).  However, the Church generally avoids taking political stances and many faithful members hold a wide variety of political views.

Every now and then, the Church does take a stand on an issue.  One such issue is at the heart of a lot of our present political turmoil: the War in Iraq.  I favor the war and I support our president.  I know that not all he’s done has been wise or flawless, but I believe in him and I believe he is inspired.  Apparently, so does our prophet, as he has states on numerous occasions.  Even a conference talk was devoted to the just nature of the war.

The prophets are fallible, and this is something my brother and I have taken note of more than once.  Is it appropriate for them to make political statements and ecourage the general membership to follow suit?

Falls, Sins, Transgressions, Commandments

A couple of weeks ago, we had an interesting lesson on the Fall of Mankind. A number of things were brought up that interested me. One was the difference between sin and transgression.

The way I see it, a transgression is the breaking of a law, while sin is knowingly breaking the law and willfully disobeying God. By this definition, a sin is a transgression, but a transgression isn’t necessarily a sin. This fits nicely with 1 John 3:4, which I’ve heard numerous times from those unfriendly to the Church to make out the Fall to be a horrible thing, something that we as a Church try to explain as something necessary and beautiful.  They were innocent (2 Nephi 2:23, Genesis 2:25), and therefore their transgression wasn’t so bad.

But my real question isn’t the degree to which Adam transgressed. My question is that which has been asked so many times before me; Why did God make the path to a necessary mortality through a transgression of the commandments of God?

Some have theorized that God was testing them to see if they would be obedient for a period of time, and that later he would command them to partake of the fruit.  This doesn’t make sense to me for a few of reasons: 1) Such a test wouldn’t seem to have any bearing on anything temporal or spiritual.  They still would have been required to enter the lone and dreary world where they would be subject to sin and temptation.  2) I don’t believe God would command someone to do something that would result in separation from him.  All of his commandments are designed to bring us closer.  3) A stronger argument than anything I could offer comes from 2 Nephi 2:22, where it seems to teach that if there had been no transgression, Adam and Eve would still be hanging out in the Garden of Eden.

I offer what I believe is the truer answer.  God knew that the experiences we needed to grow and become gods ourselves required a test of mortality and separation from God.  But by his own laws, he can’t simply remove himself from us.  We have to transgress to part from him.  He set up a law that could be broken in order for them to separate themselves.  Here’s the part that some might consider dangerous.  He allowed them to make a decision that put them in the fallen state necessary for growth via transgression.  Some may believe this to be borderline blasphemous.  I knew a missionary who put it this way: “It sounds like God set them up to get screwed.”  I don’t see it that way.

You see, God knows the beginning from the end.  He doesn’t ever command someone to sin, but he knows they’re going to do it.  So he uses others’ choices to further his own ends.  Take the crucifixion of Christ for example.  In 2 Nephi 10:3 it explains that it was necessary for Christ to live among the Jews, because they were the only ones wicked enough to crucify their Messiah.  He used the bad choices of others to complete his Son’s atonement.

But in the case of Adam and Eve, God didn’t even allow them to sin.  From certain scriptures (Moses 4:14, and others that seem to imply such), we know that children can trangress the law.  Heck, if you punish your 3-year old child for coloring on the wall, you know this.  They break the law, and there are temporal consequences, like time-out.  Nevertheless, they are innocent, and are therefore not eternally accountable for their decisions.  Adam and Eve’s innocence allowed them to pay for their decisions temporally (because it was merely transgression), and yet remain unstained from sin (see Moroni 8:8, 20, 22 that it still required Christ to atone for children, which he did because of their innocence).

Adam and Eve were innocent, and therefore they fulfilled God’s plan by transgressing the law, and yet God didn’t cause them to sin in the process.

I imagine that some readers (if I still have any after my absence) might have qualms with this doctrine.  I invite any comments, as this is a merely a question and a theoretical answer.

Sorry

I have so much I have been wanting to write about, but I have been so busy with school that it is difficult to find the time. I apologize for my negligence, and will have a post soon.

God the Son, with a capital “G”

A couple weeks ago at church, another issue that bothers me came up. We were discussing the Book of Moses, reviewing the first chapter. There, we find the story of Moses speaking with God, and learning that he is a son of God. The person speaking asked who was speaking. The answer was Jesus Christ, or Jehovah in LDS theology, differing of course from the Father, Elohim. Though the perspective in that chapter is that of the Father, it is the Son speaking on his behalf. In fact, in virtually every case of Father speaking, except to introduce his Son, it is actually Christ speaking.

I have no problem with that doctrine, and can in fact show its doctrinal basis in this statement from the First Presidency in 1916. What I have dispute with is the question that our instructor posed: “It says God is speaking here, but who really is speaking?” To me, that is very bothersome to refer to only the Father as God. Christ is just as deserving of the title, and with a capital “G.” For one thing, they act as one, and therefore there is no need to distinguish, since they are one God (2 Nephi 31:21, for instance). But even apart, he still is God. Many refer to him as the God of the Old Testament, I suspect largely because the Israelites only had a relationship with Jehovah. It wasn’t until after Christ taught of the Father and restored a lost relationship through the Atonement that the Father again became well-known. But even today, every revelation that was ever received was through Jesus Christ. And reading a number of scriptures will teach that he is God. I will give you two scriptures, though I could cite numerous others: John 1:1-2 and D&C 19:16-19.

Just to sum it all up, I don’t see too much need to distinguish between the Father and Son when crediting an act or word. They act as one. But when we do distinguish, I don’t believe it is appropriate to not ascribe the holy Godhood to Christ that is actually his.

The Priesthood Ban

I have never understood the priesthood ban. Why, for so many years, were black members of the Church restricted from holding the priesthood? Why would a race that has already suffered to such great extents be forced by the hand of the Lord to undergo further repression?

Though I know it is unwise to question the Lord’s judgment, these issues have poked at me for a while. To add to it, I found it difficult to accept any of the answers presented. “Blacks were unfaithful in the pre-earth life,” “the Negro race descended from Cain,” “African-Americans did not descend from Cain, but actually from Canaan,” and others. These just didn’t make sense to me. Besides, few members of the Church are aware that black members were ordained by Joseph Smith, notably a man named Elijah Abel. Yet, as time waxed on, Joseph Smith stopped ordaining blacks and Brigham Young instituted it as a policy with a doctrinal (true or not) foundation. But why would the Lord allow this? I couldn’t see how choices in the pre-earth life would curse us in this life. I found it hard to believe that because of a choice there, we would have the adds stacked further and further against us here.

The other day, a thought came to me. I have really been pondering over the nature of trials and temptations. The verse 1 Corinthians 10:13 has been striking me, as I’ve labored over the significance of the God not allowing us to be tempted above what we are able to endure. If that is the case, why would he take those with more of a disposition to do evil (someone unfaithful in the pre-earth life) and put extra baggage upon them? I’ve always believed that the stronger were further tried. And then it hit me: that trial was given to the black race because those who were willing to accept the gospel were strong enough with withstand the trial. The temptation to turn away from truth because it seems to insult one’s race would be strong, but perhaps the Lord wanted to strengthen his black members. It’s even possible that if anything could be attributed to pre-earth life behavior, maybe choices were made back then that actually demonstrated the virtues necessary to face such a trial in mortality.
I know that our trials are specifically suited to us. Isn’t it possible that black people were given that trial to strengthen them. Just like I have certain trials of my own to try me. I don’t believe any race is superior to another, but the Lord shapes us all in our own way. I have come to believe that the priesthood ban was meant to shape that entire race, just as any other trial shapes us individually.

I always add side notes, but I wish to mention a couple extra items. First, I cannot say that just because I don’t believe the explanations already given by leadership, that doesn’t make it untrue. Second, I have heard some say it was a mistake to withhold the priesthood, and that it never came from God. I disagree, as I don’t believe that God would allow that sort of thing to perpetuate for so long, and that it took a special revelation to reverse it. Third, the reader might find this link interesting. These are the only three official statements made by the First Presidency, and here they are.

Not Christian?

I was just reading another blog about the Church of Jesus Christ being un-Christian. I was reminded of my mission days in Georgia, where I was faced with this accusation with great frequency. I always found it disturbing and rude, but I still learned to love the people and their dedication to Christ. I was deep in the Bible belt, and virtually everyone was a hardcore Protestant. However, a certain issue came to mind as I served my mission:

“Why am I not Christian in your eyes?” I would wonder. I believe the main reason for that conclusion was because we believed in “a different Jesus,” one who was not Trinitarian, but a distinct individual from his Father. The other denominations believed that because we accepted a different Jesus, we would go to Hell, and whenever we were working an investigator find his or her testimony of the Restored Gospel, others would work their hardest frustrating our efforts. As I have often found with their efforts and beliefs, it appears that the majority of laypersons attending a “true Christian church” would still be doomed to Hell. I taught a great deal of first discussions on my mission, where I would quote the First Vision to each investigator. I would always emphasize the fact that two beings appeared to Joseph Smith, the Father and the Son. And nearly everyone willing to listen also believed that this was possible. Many accepted that they were separate beings without any question or qualm. According to that, they are already Hell-bound without even being baptized into our Church. It seems to me that if there is more concern with keeping our religion down, and less with actually instilling a proper understanding of what they hold to be salvation-necessary doctrine.

I think that’s just a residual frustration from those days. But feel free to comment.

Eternal nature

A question was recently posed to me. We are children of God, created by God as spirits before the world was (Abraham 3:22). But we are also told we are eternally existent, being in the beginning with God, much like Christ (D&C 93:29, cross-referenced with John 1:1-3). Even Joseph Smith said in his King Follett Discourse, “There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are [co-eternal] with our Father in Heaven.” The question was this: How can we be both eternal/uncreated, and yet be created children of our Heavenly Father?

I have a thought: perhaps there are two definitions of intelligence or spirit. One refers to its unorganized form and one after it’s been organized. Everything is made of intelligence, even the lifeless rocks and dirt. God built everything out of that basic item: intelligence. But we were intelligences organized to be in God’s image, carrying his traits, spiritual, physical, ethical, etc. All matter is uncreated, but when God chose to organize beings to reflect his character, we became his children.

That’s my theory. There’s an interesting article written by J. Stapley that delves into this matter in great detail here.

What do you, my faithful readers (hey, nobody but my brother reads this, hah), think about this matter?

Analogies of the Atonement

Today at church, something was said that sort of bothered me. Truth be told, I’ve been bothered by this before: numerous analogies of the nature of the Atonement have been put forth, and I often find them to be flawed in a way that just grates my spiritual nerves. Understanding that no analogy is perfect, I think this particular aspect should be remedied.

Today’s analogy was about us being stuck in a pit. There were wood and nails all about, and we were told that we could get out of the pit if we used our supplies to build a ladder and get out. After exhausting our supplies, we find that we still come short of the top of the pit. But at the top, Christ lowers a rope to allow us to complete our climb. Now nice as that may sound, I believe it holds an inherent flaw. It appears that we can make significant progress without the help of Christ. Some other analogies I’ve heard have actually even tied precentages to how much someone may have done (i.e. a man does 60% and Christ makes up 40%). I believe that I can come up with a better parable, actually taken from true, scriptural events.

One evening, as the Savior’s apostles were sailing upon the Sea of Galilee, they saw the Savior walking upon water. He invites his chief apostle, Peter, to come and join him. Peter climbs out of the boat, and perhaps takes a couple of steps, but begins to sink into the depths. He knows that Christ can save him, and so he calls to his Master, while offering his arms to grab hold. Jesus takes hold of him, and pulls him back up to safety.

Comparing this with the original story(Matt. 14:24-31), one will notice I took a few minor liberties. However, I believe this relates the story very well, and it illustrates how I feel the Atonement really takes places.

Christ is above all sin, much like walking on water. He beckons us to follow in his paths, but we will always fall short. Even one sin separates us from God with an infinite gulf. We begin to sink, and are unable to get out of the waters. No amount of treading will put our feet again on the surface, and we are surely doomed. But Christ stands, waiting for us to call out his name in faith, and do all we can, by merely stretching forth our arms to the best of our ability. He then will lift us up, and we are saved.

Now, my analogy may not be perfect either, but it at least illustrates the one point I feel so many lack. We can cry for the Lord and have all the faith that we want. We can reach and grope and struggle for salvation until our lives are exhausted. Yet, we still sink. But our reaching isn’t futile. As long as we accept Christ’s Atonement, our outstretched hands and his are clasped, and we find salvation through Christ. Otherwise, our efforts are meaningless.

I think a large part of the confusion arises from 2 Nephi 25:23, which reads that “it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do.” This is true, but it is not a one-two process; we do our part, then he does his, and we meet somewhere in the middle. It is a completely collaborative process, with every minute of our lives we give all we can and Christ gives it meaning, and compensates for our shortcomings.

Ultimately, there is no percentage we can tie to the amount we can do. Our breath, our capacity to choose, the privilege of repentance, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and virtually everything else are dependant upon the grace of Christ. All we can do is nothing. Nothing without Christ. But with Christ, all we can do is everything. He closes all gaps, and makes meaningless works meaingful.

These are my feelings on the matter. I know there are other interpretations. What do my readers think?

By the way, I recommend reading Believing Christ by Stephen E. Robinson. It holds some wonderful insights on the Atonement.

Cornering the market

Recently, in our correctprinciples.blogspace.com blog, I wrote an essay on the virtues of Brigham Young. The only comment I received was some off-topic anti-mormon criticism of Joseph Smith. I rebutted his comment, and pointed out that I am not an unstudied or unintelligent person. I encouraged him to check out my brother’s site. Today, I read a couple of articles on his own log that had the exact criticism leveled in his comment to me, and others of a similar nature. Either he never bothered to check on how I felt, or he just disregarded my words. A little irritated at this, I commented on his article, though it is pending authorization before it will even be posted.

Other articles written on that blog have a rather self-righteous nature. Things have been said, such as if you are only 95% correct in your beliefs, you won’t make it to heaven. However, most of America is at least 50% off on their ideas. I can’t help but wonder at this phenomenon I have seen ever since my mission to Georgia. So many believe they are exactly right. They corner the market on truth. Certain things are essential to believe, or else no heaven for you. Then they all start finding faults and flaws in other’s belief systems. I am not referring just to Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses. I mean other Protestants. It seems that so many ultra-conservative evangelicals just love to exclude everyone they can. I recall reading a pamphlet that even claimed readers of the NASB and NRSV translations of the Bible were literally doomed to Hell (not just a little off course). It all is a game; a game where one can claim heaven for himself/herself, but exclude as many as possible. It makes me sad to see such harsh criticism of those around you, and with whom you even have so much in common.

One thing ultimately brings all these various self-appointed Heaven-goers together: a common distaste for the Latter-day Saints. I mean, they all dislike a few other churches as well, but despite all their criticism of each other, they still fall into the “Christian” category. Somehow, they decide that only a few specific groups are barred from that club, and their mutual differences are melted away. United by a common enemy.

I suppose their is a lesson or two to be learned. No one has a monopoly on truth, not even the Latter-day Saints. Brigham Young taught that there is truth to be learned in every religion. Also, we cannot look to exclude everyone else. We cannot decide who makes it past the pearly gates and who gets the brimstone bedwarmers. We must be accepting of all.

Any thoughts?