This letter from a friend whom I have only been distantly acquainted with until recently. I needed to record this and consider I should live my life to have more of this.
I know I've said it before, but felt compelled to say it again. The whole [Name] family holds a special place in my heart, but your generosity and continued support just has meant a lot. You have a large beautiful family and to take the time you guys have, to do something like run a 5K at 51, and just be who you guys are is amazing. You've leapt across deep lines of faith to support genuine goodness and to me that what all faiths should represent! Families like yours are what real faith is to me. I'm on "the other side" in Utah and I'm happy to know people like you and am grateful we have a beautiful culture here in Utah that doesn't get enough credit on "the other side". I owe my family values to the Mormon religion and although our beliefs are different our values are the same. I deeply appreciate you and hope on this sabbath that you know that your faith spreads beyond the church doors and because of your faith I believe it's why you guys are who you are Keep us in your prayers, as I'm sure you do, and I will do the same.
For me, this was worth mentioning.
Becky, I always think of you when I'm canning, ha ha! I loved spending that time at The [Name]. I don't remember [Name]'s kitchen being so hot during the process, but I love it nonetheless and it brings back wonderful childhood memories with you!
If you guys are ever in need, please don't hesitate to call on us. Really, anything.
Bob, keep training, your family's generosity has me wanting to torture you more Not fundraising, but you kicked butt and should be proud, so gear up, I plan on seeing you in future races.
Okay, I think I got it all out.
Love you guys!
[Friend]
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Depression and Choice
As usual, Matt Walsh blogged about things that upset some of my family and others, gaining inspiration from him, felt to defend.
I read his most recent blog. Perhaps in a time when we mourn a person who has been such a part of memories, we find it difficult to hear what he said regarding Robin William's suicide, but his words are true and his compassion is not absent. I have chosen to contemplate depression rather than the most extreme act from it, suicide.
Depression is a difficult problem made worse by the fact that a big solution is often taken away by the symptoms. Depression is isolating. Those experiencing it feel disconnected and usually disconnect even more. Unfortunately, it is a problem that cannot be solved on your own. It is a disorder that requires others to resolve, but hides the sufferer from others. Whatever triggers depression, it almost always ends up a result of relationship problems or made worse through relationship problems.
Ultimately the sufferer must choose to connect. They must elect to not continue in their own thoughts. They need to engage in healthy relationships. For some, that choice must be made repeatedly, even daily. That is found in supportive family and friends. I fear superstars like Williams find those two commodities in short supply.
As a person dealing with both bipolar disorder and ADHD as determined by multiple tests, I understand some of the difficulties of mental illness, the sense of futility, the feeling of being isolated and somehow too different for most. I understand feelings shame and futility, and yes even the feeling of having no say in my actions even as I committed them.
Over time and through professional help, loving family, and group meetings, I have come to understand that choice is there. When Matt Walsh suggests depression is both mental and spiritual, I agree. I would also go further and say that the sense of choice is more spiritual than mental.
That one can become aware of the feeling, acknowledge it for what it is, accept that they want that which they shouldn't and admit that there is a choice is spoken in scriptural terms as confession.
Confession is not just to admit you did something. Confession means to admit you want to do something even if what you want is contrary to your beliefs, or your common sense.
When one can do this and acknowledge it, even if only to themselves they are able to separate the feeling from the action. Phychologist call this mindfulness, but their term does not mean they invented the idea. It is firmly rooted in the judeo-christian-biblical practice of confession.
When one takes this idea further and confesses not just to themselves, but to their Lord and God, one not only feels the separation, one experiences the sense of power to make the better choice. Choice is a spiritual concept. Feeling like you have none is a satanic deception.
I read his most recent blog. Perhaps in a time when we mourn a person who has been such a part of memories, we find it difficult to hear what he said regarding Robin William's suicide, but his words are true and his compassion is not absent. I have chosen to contemplate depression rather than the most extreme act from it, suicide.
Depression is a difficult problem made worse by the fact that a big solution is often taken away by the symptoms. Depression is isolating. Those experiencing it feel disconnected and usually disconnect even more. Unfortunately, it is a problem that cannot be solved on your own. It is a disorder that requires others to resolve, but hides the sufferer from others. Whatever triggers depression, it almost always ends up a result of relationship problems or made worse through relationship problems.
Ultimately the sufferer must choose to connect. They must elect to not continue in their own thoughts. They need to engage in healthy relationships. For some, that choice must be made repeatedly, even daily. That is found in supportive family and friends. I fear superstars like Williams find those two commodities in short supply.
As a person dealing with both bipolar disorder and ADHD as determined by multiple tests, I understand some of the difficulties of mental illness, the sense of futility, the feeling of being isolated and somehow too different for most. I understand feelings shame and futility, and yes even the feeling of having no say in my actions even as I committed them.
Over time and through professional help, loving family, and group meetings, I have come to understand that choice is there. When Matt Walsh suggests depression is both mental and spiritual, I agree. I would also go further and say that the sense of choice is more spiritual than mental.
That one can become aware of the feeling, acknowledge it for what it is, accept that they want that which they shouldn't and admit that there is a choice is spoken in scriptural terms as confession.
Confession is not just to admit you did something. Confession means to admit you want to do something even if what you want is contrary to your beliefs, or your common sense.
When one can do this and acknowledge it, even if only to themselves they are able to separate the feeling from the action. Phychologist call this mindfulness, but their term does not mean they invented the idea. It is firmly rooted in the judeo-christian-biblical practice of confession.
When one takes this idea further and confesses not just to themselves, but to their Lord and God, one not only feels the separation, one experiences the sense of power to make the better choice. Choice is a spiritual concept. Feeling like you have none is a satanic deception.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
The Abortion and Poverty Paradox
I have been reading a lot of Heather Mac Donald lately. She is the mind of George Will and the elegance and grace that Ann Coulter portrays only on the outside. Actually, I like coulter, but verbally, she is more of a UFC fighter where Mac Donald is more of linguistic ballerina.
Alright, enough crushing on the ladies. Back to work.
I had been reading Heather's articles when a facebook thread about abortion rates came up. The battle began over how many abortions. It was asserted that 43% of all pregnancies ended in abortion. Others corrected this to the 20% range and admitted it was still too many abortions. They then offered solutions that felt similar to how I would feel if Hollywood announced yet another film adaptation of the Three Musketeers, just more of the same warmed up, dressed up, substance free leftovers. They suggested more education, free birth control, WIC, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.
Being influenced by Heather's great work, I jumped in and noted that the 43% was accurate when looking at inner cities or NYC and Philly. I noted the 50% abortion ratio among pregnant black teens. I then challenged the notion that these social programs could solve the problem by looking at abortion ratios in poverty stricken inner cities.
I thought it was worth noting that the places with the highest abortion ratios are also the places with the most taxpayer funded care suggested. If prevalent access to these programs prevented unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions, you have to wonder why there isn't an inverse relationship between these programs and abortion ratios.
In fact, if abortion did reduce poverty as has been offered as a reason since it's proliferation, you have to wonder why poverty is not improving or at least leveling off in the inner cities, where abortion does reach this 43% mark.
The fact is, abortion is an decision based on cultural norms and not on economic considerations.
The numbers show that most abortions occur with women who have no children (PA numbers show 41%). The having of children reduces the motivation for abortion. This contrdicts the supply/demand economics that the taxpayer funded solutions assume. If you have three children, having a fourth is going to be much more burdensome economically than if you have zero. It should follow that they would have more of the abortions. Yet, the numbers show the exact opposite behavior. The answer seems less about supply and demand economics.
It becomes more clear that cultural elements prevail. Abortion occurs most in areas where we people are the most publicly dependent. The same area where drugs, crime, and violence are also the most. It belies the argument that providing more without cost to the recipient is the answer now or ever was in the past.
In fact, it is becoming easier to make the case that social programs are a major part of the problem. If the father feels no responsibility for the life created, then why hang around? If we take the burden from the father and give it to the state, we start creating the culture of the missing parent and this continues until we are here, feeling helpless to solve the problem.
If you try to manage unwanted pregnancies and educate teenagers solely from this economic perspective, you've lost. These will-be moms already know where the money is coming from as do the would-be father. They have seen it in their mothers and grandmother's lives.
You need to teach them the value of parenting and hold them accountable, not by fines and imprisonment, but by putting the mantle of fatherhood back on the father and not the state. You need to help men understand the value of providing instead of enabling their ability to abandon it. Fatherless children with uninvolved mothers is the most common thread in all of these issues.
I don't wish to fully discard the options given by others. Some programs may be needed, particularly in education. But the gov't institutions cannot fix what they helped break by doing the same things now that has been done now for three generations. The base social institution, the family, needs to be restored. Any solution that does not include this in its objective is unstainable.
Ironic that in light of what is now becoming overwhelming evidence that the family is key to our social stability, the family unit is more mocked and dismissed than ever. There is a value in parenting that transcends what the government can teach. It is rooted in a spiritual value that results in social strength. Lose one and you will lose the other.
Alright, enough crushing on the ladies. Back to work.
I had been reading Heather's articles when a facebook thread about abortion rates came up. The battle began over how many abortions. It was asserted that 43% of all pregnancies ended in abortion. Others corrected this to the 20% range and admitted it was still too many abortions. They then offered solutions that felt similar to how I would feel if Hollywood announced yet another film adaptation of the Three Musketeers, just more of the same warmed up, dressed up, substance free leftovers. They suggested more education, free birth control, WIC, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.
Being influenced by Heather's great work, I jumped in and noted that the 43% was accurate when looking at inner cities or NYC and Philly. I noted the 50% abortion ratio among pregnant black teens. I then challenged the notion that these social programs could solve the problem by looking at abortion ratios in poverty stricken inner cities.
I thought it was worth noting that the places with the highest abortion ratios are also the places with the most taxpayer funded care suggested. If prevalent access to these programs prevented unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions, you have to wonder why there isn't an inverse relationship between these programs and abortion ratios.
In fact, if abortion did reduce poverty as has been offered as a reason since it's proliferation, you have to wonder why poverty is not improving or at least leveling off in the inner cities, where abortion does reach this 43% mark.
The fact is, abortion is an decision based on cultural norms and not on economic considerations.
The numbers show that most abortions occur with women who have no children (PA numbers show 41%). The having of children reduces the motivation for abortion. This contrdicts the supply/demand economics that the taxpayer funded solutions assume. If you have three children, having a fourth is going to be much more burdensome economically than if you have zero. It should follow that they would have more of the abortions. Yet, the numbers show the exact opposite behavior. The answer seems less about supply and demand economics.
It becomes more clear that cultural elements prevail. Abortion occurs most in areas where we people are the most publicly dependent. The same area where drugs, crime, and violence are also the most. It belies the argument that providing more without cost to the recipient is the answer now or ever was in the past.
In fact, it is becoming easier to make the case that social programs are a major part of the problem. If the father feels no responsibility for the life created, then why hang around? If we take the burden from the father and give it to the state, we start creating the culture of the missing parent and this continues until we are here, feeling helpless to solve the problem.
If you try to manage unwanted pregnancies and educate teenagers solely from this economic perspective, you've lost. These will-be moms already know where the money is coming from as do the would-be father. They have seen it in their mothers and grandmother's lives.
You need to teach them the value of parenting and hold them accountable, not by fines and imprisonment, but by putting the mantle of fatherhood back on the father and not the state. You need to help men understand the value of providing instead of enabling their ability to abandon it. Fatherless children with uninvolved mothers is the most common thread in all of these issues.
I don't wish to fully discard the options given by others. Some programs may be needed, particularly in education. But the gov't institutions cannot fix what they helped break by doing the same things now that has been done now for three generations. The base social institution, the family, needs to be restored. Any solution that does not include this in its objective is unstainable.
Ironic that in light of what is now becoming overwhelming evidence that the family is key to our social stability, the family unit is more mocked and dismissed than ever. There is a value in parenting that transcends what the government can teach. It is rooted in a spiritual value that results in social strength. Lose one and you will lose the other.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Creationism and Evolution and Why I Care.
This is in follow up to my earlier post and in response to Facebook thread on this subject. The thread is found here an this essay is in that post. I decided to put it in my blog.
https://www.facebook.com/richbai90/posts/10151789755732716?comment_id=27311630&offset=0&total_comments=18¬if_t=feed_comment_reply
Let me explain to this group and those who have joined evolution with their LDS beliefs in particular, why I am so adamant about these evolutionary disputes.
Science has a special place in our current world. It is seen so often as indisputable. This world of indisputable science, particularly the natural sciences had an impact on the LDS faith that most do not know.
For most of the 20th century, the Smithsonian Institute would release upon request a statement denouncing the Book of Mormon. The basis for this denouncement was founded on evidence in the natural sciences. According to the Smithsonian, assertions in the Book of Mormon contradicted what is known about the natural world. The denouncement had nine evidences of why the book if false based on natural sciences, mostly archeology and anthropology.
Except that much like the explanation of the Archaeopteryx given by Nathan Liddiard, this evidence was disputable to begin with. However in the present case, they had all been disproven. The nine evidences of the falsehood of the Book of Mormon were not scientifically valid.
In 1982, LDS Scholar John L. Sorenson cited the evidences refuting each of the claims in the Smithsonian denouncement. Still the Smithsonian continued its course of action. In 1995 Sorenson updated his original paper, published it again, and sent a letter of recommendation to the Smithsonian to revise its statement. Later that year The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (now called the Maxwell Institute and now part of BYU) conferred with the Smithsonian. in 1998 they revised their statement to what is now a very neutral view of the Book of Mormon.
Now the Smithsonian had a good reason for a statement. Rumors of the Book of Mormon being a study guide for research at the Smithsonian have circulated among LDS communities for many years. Inquiries into this would be made to the Smithsonian and thus a release created. Why they decided to take such a negative stand on the Book of Mormon remains a mystery.
However the negative affects of this will continue for decades to follow. I can still find the old Smithsonian statement posted in anti-mormon forums and literature of very recent years. It made it's way into a Washington Post Op-Ed piece during the last presidential election.
The Smithsonian Institution is one of our country's jewels, a system dedicated to the preservation and promotion of American scientific research and discovery. Things with their stamp are considered fully authoritative. Yet this inaccurate denouncement has been out there for nearly a century. It was given as based on sciences and not disputed for many years. This was wrong.
It is similarly wrong that evolution be given such indisputable credence. The dismissive nature of those who dispute it as was given in the thread that motivated this essay is equally wrong. Evolution serves us well, but it is not final. While I am against creationism as an equal science, were it not for the scientists who maintain a creationist view, evolutionary theory would go unchecked. Even with them, evolutionary theory enjoys a free pass as demonstrated in this thread. Academia has become dogmatic about evolution. This is not a good place for discovery. It is a good place for censorship.
What the Smithsonian did is a prime example. Had Sorenson and FARMS not challenged a major scientific body, they would still be denouncing the Book of Mormon without sufficient reason or proof. The natural sciences need this challenging and if they will not do it themselves. Creationist theory may not have a valid scientific background as evolution. However if it continues to keep evolution in check, it has a valid place and purpose.
https://www.facebook.com/richbai90/posts/10151789755732716?comment_id=27311630&offset=0&total_comments=18¬if_t=feed_comment_reply
Let me explain to this group and those who have joined evolution with their LDS beliefs in particular, why I am so adamant about these evolutionary disputes.
Science has a special place in our current world. It is seen so often as indisputable. This world of indisputable science, particularly the natural sciences had an impact on the LDS faith that most do not know.
For most of the 20th century, the Smithsonian Institute would release upon request a statement denouncing the Book of Mormon. The basis for this denouncement was founded on evidence in the natural sciences. According to the Smithsonian, assertions in the Book of Mormon contradicted what is known about the natural world. The denouncement had nine evidences of why the book if false based on natural sciences, mostly archeology and anthropology.
Except that much like the explanation of the Archaeopteryx given by Nathan Liddiard, this evidence was disputable to begin with. However in the present case, they had all been disproven. The nine evidences of the falsehood of the Book of Mormon were not scientifically valid.
In 1982, LDS Scholar John L. Sorenson cited the evidences refuting each of the claims in the Smithsonian denouncement. Still the Smithsonian continued its course of action. In 1995 Sorenson updated his original paper, published it again, and sent a letter of recommendation to the Smithsonian to revise its statement. Later that year The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (now called the Maxwell Institute and now part of BYU) conferred with the Smithsonian. in 1998 they revised their statement to what is now a very neutral view of the Book of Mormon.
Now the Smithsonian had a good reason for a statement. Rumors of the Book of Mormon being a study guide for research at the Smithsonian have circulated among LDS communities for many years. Inquiries into this would be made to the Smithsonian and thus a release created. Why they decided to take such a negative stand on the Book of Mormon remains a mystery.
However the negative affects of this will continue for decades to follow. I can still find the old Smithsonian statement posted in anti-mormon forums and literature of very recent years. It made it's way into a Washington Post Op-Ed piece during the last presidential election.
The Smithsonian Institution is one of our country's jewels, a system dedicated to the preservation and promotion of American scientific research and discovery. Things with their stamp are considered fully authoritative. Yet this inaccurate denouncement has been out there for nearly a century. It was given as based on sciences and not disputed for many years. This was wrong.
It is similarly wrong that evolution be given such indisputable credence. The dismissive nature of those who dispute it as was given in the thread that motivated this essay is equally wrong. Evolution serves us well, but it is not final. While I am against creationism as an equal science, were it not for the scientists who maintain a creationist view, evolutionary theory would go unchecked. Even with them, evolutionary theory enjoys a free pass as demonstrated in this thread. Academia has become dogmatic about evolution. This is not a good place for discovery. It is a good place for censorship.
What the Smithsonian did is a prime example. Had Sorenson and FARMS not challenged a major scientific body, they would still be denouncing the Book of Mormon without sufficient reason or proof. The natural sciences need this challenging and if they will not do it themselves. Creationist theory may not have a valid scientific background as evolution. However if it continues to keep evolution in check, it has a valid place and purpose.
Evolution and Creation, I know, It Wearies Me Too
The following is in response to an article listed here:
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
I referenece this article and the author throughout.
Addressing the question of evolution as a religion and creation as a science will either result in personal attacks or shift to a much greater question: what is science? The philosophy of science is something I ran into when I did my first of three papers on this subject back in my good ol' college days. The author gets a great many things right about evolution. Much of what I learned about this theory back then seems true now and is documented in this paper.
Even so, the thesis of my research back then was the Creationism should not be taught in schools as a science. I still believe in this thesis. However, it is a thesis that could be revised or reversed should the value of creationism match that of evolution. Currently it does not.
But this does not mean that evolution should have the untouchable status it seems to have. This is a flaw in academia, not the theory itself.
It is true there seem to be evidence of small changes within microorganisms, but it never crosses a species. To put this in perspective, the evidence of evolutionary changes is about the equivalent of physicists successfully transporting an photon atom across a theoretically immeasurable distance of space, something referred to as quantum teleportation.
However one atom of light is not the same as an entire physical structure or a human body. No physicist is predicting or even suggesting that transporters are on the horizon. In fact, the results of this experiment suggest to them that such a feat is not likely possible.
The strict evolutionist seems willing to take that leap by equating the microcosmic change to a macrocosmic ecosystem. In short, if the physicist were the evolutionist, the proclamation of Star Trek type teleporation would have already been announced and funding to engage in it's development sought.
The author is dead on about the lack of science behind evolutionary theory. The fossil records showing certain species never, ever shows any evidence of trans-speciation. We don't know why we have not found any evidence of trans-speciation. It may be that fossil records simply cannot give us an accurate record of it. It may be that it doesn't exist because evolution doesn't exist. The argument could go either way. It isn't necessarily a refutation of evolution, but there seems to be a strong unwillingness of science to acknowledge this weaknesses.
DNA similarities are correctly pointed out as not holding any real value as the similarities between many unrelated species means that any evidence to prove evolution is selective at best. It fails when applied in other examinations. That DNA is similar to in primates ignores that we also have much in common with pigs.
Furthermore, DNA study reveals that the coding sequences that make it up are much less than what was initially thought. It has gone from an estimated millions to hundreds of thousands, to 40,000 when the human genome project began to 20,000 now. Thus fewer coding sequences which is the most researched and most known part of genetics and the part upon which the evolutionist most rely has actually not favored evolution over time. If the sequences for billions of DNA strands use a smaller set of coding sequences, overlap between all species in inevitable.
Some might say that this is proof of evolution as we are all from the similar DNA coding. Of course others could just a easily say we evolved from coal as we are both carbon based. Evolution is not about the elements that make up life, it's about the order in which those elements advanced to more sophisticated life. DNA produces none of this.
Much of this lack of evidence is too quickly dismissed with the old adage, evolution is a slow process and therefore not detectable. Since science is grounded in the empirical, undetectablility is almost an exclusionary factor. Is it not the atheist who proclaims you can't believe what you can't see? Evolution certainly fits this mold, doesn't it?
If not detectable at present, would not the evolutionist seek to find ways to make it detectable? After all, this is what science does: develop theory, conceive outcomes, test, validate or refute or revise theories. Physics has been doing quite successfully with many fascinating discoveries. It does seem that this willingness to move towards better understanding the reality of evolutionary theory seems as slow as evolution in its progress.
These problems with evolutionary theory are made worse by evolutionists, or rather an evolutionist, using these theories to evangelize atheism. I have not doubt that atheism is alive and well among much of the scientific community. I don't see it as universal. For most it isn't about a disdain of the belief as it is about not having any evidence and thus not dealing with it. It's that to them, the belief is inconsequential to their work.
This is different than books written by noted scientists that treat religion with the vitriol that recent publications have. Indeed one author has not only taken the scientific approach to attack a belief in God, he has since published anthologies about the harms of religion and it's imperfections that are not based in anything except a desire to mock religion. Given the known imperfections of his own strict devotion to evolution, one finds such work hypocritical at best.
So yes, it is true that evolution has many things in common with a belief system. Should this denote it as a religion? It's is one thing to critically examine a science. But whenever we discuss evolution and it's efficacy we wind up in philosophy as we try to pin down the rules of science and say these are the parameters that make up science.
There is a whole school of thought on this referred to as the demarcation of science. I will not get into it much, except to say that it continues to be debated because it often allows dis-proven theory in and excludes much useful theory in the process. If we held strictly to some of these demarcations, evolution would likely be tossed out. But then so would relativity.
For example, most astronomy and physics (astrophysics) acted on theories that the universe had a certain parity. For every atomic particle, there was an an opposing atomic particle. This helped explain many things. Unfortunately, there was one huge elephant in the room, the positron. This positively charge brother to the electron could be the answer to energy problems of the world as just a teaspoon could power Los Angeles for a year. Unfortunately this particle is so rare that a teaspoon would bankrupt all the economies of all the countries in the world. Why was the electron so present and the positron not?
The reason for this rarity remained unknown until theories that parity in the universe was not perfect took hold. In 1988 this was tested in a somewhat improvised experiment by scientist, Leon Lederman who demonstrated broken parity and helped drive changes in theory.
Should we have thrown out all the theory of quantum physics before this? We could similarly say the same about Newtonian mechanics as the prediction of planetary orbits in could not account for Neptune until astronomers finally discovered Pluto.
Most theories have flaws and implications that cannot be fully examined. Singularities puzzle us while dark energy has become the new superstar of scientific mysteries.
Evolution is at the extreme of scientifically accepted flawed theories. Why is it so embraced? Largely because by pursuit of this theory, we have obtained so much knowledge about our natural world. We have reached into biology and chemistry and genetics and created solutions to so many world-wide problems. Our natural sciences is founded on this theory and while it's own evidence is uncertain at best, the predictions and paths on which it had led us have been for the betterment of all.
Shall we therefore remove this founding father of all natural science? If so, what would replace it? Certainly, intelligent design or creationism is the competing theory. As a person who believes deeply in God and that his process of creation was not evolutionary in nature, I reject this.
While evolution possesses little evidence for many aspects of it's broad theory, creationism produces no evidence for it's theory. I am doubtful that we would have derived the same physical results from it's pursuit. I believe in God, yet I still take penicillin when prescribed. I doubt that we would have such a simple solution to so many problems in a creationist based science.
This is not an indictment of religion. It is pointing out the very nature of it. It is based on faith. It is based on a belief that there is something greater than us. Evolutionists tell us this is been developed over time as a coping mechanism, but again, nothing but their explanation exists as proof. As such, I see a world where 95% of us believe in some form of theistic involvement and it serves us well. Thus religion for all its flaws and sad histories, has a place in society.
But religion is not a science. I don't know how it could be. How does one prove the finger of God writing the commandments, or the flood of Noah, or the calling of fire from heaven? Better yet, how do we teach the achievement of these in a classroom? I believe in these miracles. I teach the truth of them. I cannot say when they will repeat. In most cases I can use them to see that in time of need God is there, but usually not in the same dramatic way.
I can say with total confidence that if one holds to their faith by obedience to God's commandments, one will be blessed. I cannot say how this will occur. The foundational writings for my faith show huge diversity in God's ways of responding. There is no formula given to say which way you will be answered, only that you will.
I can further say that my religion is not without evidence. It is the evidence of those who follow it's teachings. Even those not of my faith, if they follow, they wind up better off in this life. Consider that more and more evidence of social problems, poverty, crime, etc. are not about economic factors but cultural factors. People in traditional marriages with a family do better overall and have a much higher chance of financial stability and success than otherwise. This occurs in spite of the fact that economic theory of supply and demand would negate that.
Furthermore, their children stand a better chance at getting a higher education, they are healthier and have more hope. This transcends economic boundaries. Gallup's 20 year study on the well being of students with shows that hope, involvement, and well-being are critical factors in higher education success. We find that those raised in the traditional family have a better chance of having all three of these. Poverty was once seen as the cause of so much social destruction, we now see research showing social destruction being the cause of poverty.
There was no evidence for this before. Those of use who stood to our faith in spite of the rising tide of divorce and the reduction of the value of the family or the loss of morality see the evidence now but acted long before it existed. Those who mocked such devotions often ignore the evidence or blame other factors, but the decay continues. Religion requires faith before evidence, but faith is not as blind as one might think.
A classic collegiate work called "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches" examines the pragmatic aspects of many beliefs. It uses this as a thesis for how societies use religion to control problems. It never considers the possibility that spiritual inspiration resulted in declaring practices that turned out better in for the society examined. Yet, this is often the result.
Such practices do not come because of physical evidence. Even though evidence may now exist and future evidence of beliefs now attacked will become more apparent, they do not follow the scientific processes. All my evidences has come after my trial of faith. Faith does not come from science and those who base their religious beliefs on science will find themselves in constant struggle.
Fortunately, faith does not exclude science. Even though many use evolution to denounce God, this lacks wisdom and based on the evidence we do not have, it lacks reason. Those who use evolution to declare atheism do not see the flaws of the theory or hold to it religiously otherwise. Thus a person who uses evolution as the platform of atheism does turn evolution into religion.
If this is the platform for academia, then the author is correct. If academia refuses to acknowledge evolution issues and refuses scientific minds that question evolution, then they are similar to the leaders of old seeking to execute Galileo or Caperincus, although not as severe.
However, evolution is not based in faith alone. It does use leaps of faith, but it is not without evidence. Furthermore it is not without a track record as indicated. To called evolution a religion on it's face is inaccurate. The religion of evolution depends on the devotion of it's adherents. They can allow the questions of it to be raised and examined or they can censure them.
Creationism has it's roots in religion and not in evidence. Where evolution lacks evidence for many of its major tenets, creationism lacks any evidence that can be tested as proof of creationism. Where are the theories, the predicted outcomes, the tests, and if the results refute the predictions, where is the commitment to revise? While I extol religion for its spiritual and social benefits. It lacks any ability to accurately explain, define, or help us benefit from the natural world. Unlike evolution, creationism is religion on its face.
Both are belief systems. But this does not make them equal. The science of evolution has a reason to hold on. However, the grip must be relaxed to allow the questions to be more clearly examined. Conversely, the creationist must quit trying supplant evolution with creationism. Even if evolution is found to be summarily flawed such that it cannot hold a place in academic science, why do we assume creation immediately takes over?
Creationism is not creationism science at all. It is an anti-evolution science. It's research does not seek evidence of God in natural studies. It seeks to refute evolution. If they succeeded, they would leave a whole so big they cannot possibly fill it with current research.
Is it therefore any wonder if the evolution scientist battles for it's flawed theory with such fervor. It seems to them that creationists would throw out periodic table of elements because of still missing elements and replace it with "God created."
It is also important to note that the theory of evolution has changed. Most of Darwin's original theory has been replaced. A uniform method of evolving has been changed to account for the catastrophic and the mutation. Although there are problems with these, as the author indicates, the idea that this theory has not itself undergone changes from scientific rigor is erroneous.
To the evolutionist, let the questions be asked and researched. If we wind up leaving evolution, it will be done naturally, a tribute to evolution itself. It not likely that creationism would ever supplant it from a scientific pursuit, but if it did, you will have acted with integrity and that should put you in good standing with the creator.
To the creationist. Turn your efforts to increasing the faith of a people desperately in need of it. This will be where you do your best work. Let science be science. Make your faith heard from the rooftops, not legislated into the councils of school districts. Both evolution and creation have a place and both can be embraced by the individual which coincidentally, is the official position of my religion as well.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
I referenece this article and the author throughout.
Addressing the question of evolution as a religion and creation as a science will either result in personal attacks or shift to a much greater question: what is science? The philosophy of science is something I ran into when I did my first of three papers on this subject back in my good ol' college days. The author gets a great many things right about evolution. Much of what I learned about this theory back then seems true now and is documented in this paper.
Even so, the thesis of my research back then was the Creationism should not be taught in schools as a science. I still believe in this thesis. However, it is a thesis that could be revised or reversed should the value of creationism match that of evolution. Currently it does not.
But this does not mean that evolution should have the untouchable status it seems to have. This is a flaw in academia, not the theory itself.
It is true there seem to be evidence of small changes within microorganisms, but it never crosses a species. To put this in perspective, the evidence of evolutionary changes is about the equivalent of physicists successfully transporting an photon atom across a theoretically immeasurable distance of space, something referred to as quantum teleportation.
However one atom of light is not the same as an entire physical structure or a human body. No physicist is predicting or even suggesting that transporters are on the horizon. In fact, the results of this experiment suggest to them that such a feat is not likely possible.
The strict evolutionist seems willing to take that leap by equating the microcosmic change to a macrocosmic ecosystem. In short, if the physicist were the evolutionist, the proclamation of Star Trek type teleporation would have already been announced and funding to engage in it's development sought.
The author is dead on about the lack of science behind evolutionary theory. The fossil records showing certain species never, ever shows any evidence of trans-speciation. We don't know why we have not found any evidence of trans-speciation. It may be that fossil records simply cannot give us an accurate record of it. It may be that it doesn't exist because evolution doesn't exist. The argument could go either way. It isn't necessarily a refutation of evolution, but there seems to be a strong unwillingness of science to acknowledge this weaknesses.
DNA similarities are correctly pointed out as not holding any real value as the similarities between many unrelated species means that any evidence to prove evolution is selective at best. It fails when applied in other examinations. That DNA is similar to in primates ignores that we also have much in common with pigs.
Furthermore, DNA study reveals that the coding sequences that make it up are much less than what was initially thought. It has gone from an estimated millions to hundreds of thousands, to 40,000 when the human genome project began to 20,000 now. Thus fewer coding sequences which is the most researched and most known part of genetics and the part upon which the evolutionist most rely has actually not favored evolution over time. If the sequences for billions of DNA strands use a smaller set of coding sequences, overlap between all species in inevitable.
Some might say that this is proof of evolution as we are all from the similar DNA coding. Of course others could just a easily say we evolved from coal as we are both carbon based. Evolution is not about the elements that make up life, it's about the order in which those elements advanced to more sophisticated life. DNA produces none of this.
Much of this lack of evidence is too quickly dismissed with the old adage, evolution is a slow process and therefore not detectable. Since science is grounded in the empirical, undetectablility is almost an exclusionary factor. Is it not the atheist who proclaims you can't believe what you can't see? Evolution certainly fits this mold, doesn't it?
If not detectable at present, would not the evolutionist seek to find ways to make it detectable? After all, this is what science does: develop theory, conceive outcomes, test, validate or refute or revise theories. Physics has been doing quite successfully with many fascinating discoveries. It does seem that this willingness to move towards better understanding the reality of evolutionary theory seems as slow as evolution in its progress.
These problems with evolutionary theory are made worse by evolutionists, or rather an evolutionist, using these theories to evangelize atheism. I have not doubt that atheism is alive and well among much of the scientific community. I don't see it as universal. For most it isn't about a disdain of the belief as it is about not having any evidence and thus not dealing with it. It's that to them, the belief is inconsequential to their work.
This is different than books written by noted scientists that treat religion with the vitriol that recent publications have. Indeed one author has not only taken the scientific approach to attack a belief in God, he has since published anthologies about the harms of religion and it's imperfections that are not based in anything except a desire to mock religion. Given the known imperfections of his own strict devotion to evolution, one finds such work hypocritical at best.
So yes, it is true that evolution has many things in common with a belief system. Should this denote it as a religion? It's is one thing to critically examine a science. But whenever we discuss evolution and it's efficacy we wind up in philosophy as we try to pin down the rules of science and say these are the parameters that make up science.
There is a whole school of thought on this referred to as the demarcation of science. I will not get into it much, except to say that it continues to be debated because it often allows dis-proven theory in and excludes much useful theory in the process. If we held strictly to some of these demarcations, evolution would likely be tossed out. But then so would relativity.
For example, most astronomy and physics (astrophysics) acted on theories that the universe had a certain parity. For every atomic particle, there was an an opposing atomic particle. This helped explain many things. Unfortunately, there was one huge elephant in the room, the positron. This positively charge brother to the electron could be the answer to energy problems of the world as just a teaspoon could power Los Angeles for a year. Unfortunately this particle is so rare that a teaspoon would bankrupt all the economies of all the countries in the world. Why was the electron so present and the positron not?
The reason for this rarity remained unknown until theories that parity in the universe was not perfect took hold. In 1988 this was tested in a somewhat improvised experiment by scientist, Leon Lederman who demonstrated broken parity and helped drive changes in theory.
Should we have thrown out all the theory of quantum physics before this? We could similarly say the same about Newtonian mechanics as the prediction of planetary orbits in could not account for Neptune until astronomers finally discovered Pluto.
Most theories have flaws and implications that cannot be fully examined. Singularities puzzle us while dark energy has become the new superstar of scientific mysteries.
Evolution is at the extreme of scientifically accepted flawed theories. Why is it so embraced? Largely because by pursuit of this theory, we have obtained so much knowledge about our natural world. We have reached into biology and chemistry and genetics and created solutions to so many world-wide problems. Our natural sciences is founded on this theory and while it's own evidence is uncertain at best, the predictions and paths on which it had led us have been for the betterment of all.
Shall we therefore remove this founding father of all natural science? If so, what would replace it? Certainly, intelligent design or creationism is the competing theory. As a person who believes deeply in God and that his process of creation was not evolutionary in nature, I reject this.
While evolution possesses little evidence for many aspects of it's broad theory, creationism produces no evidence for it's theory. I am doubtful that we would have derived the same physical results from it's pursuit. I believe in God, yet I still take penicillin when prescribed. I doubt that we would have such a simple solution to so many problems in a creationist based science.
This is not an indictment of religion. It is pointing out the very nature of it. It is based on faith. It is based on a belief that there is something greater than us. Evolutionists tell us this is been developed over time as a coping mechanism, but again, nothing but their explanation exists as proof. As such, I see a world where 95% of us believe in some form of theistic involvement and it serves us well. Thus religion for all its flaws and sad histories, has a place in society.
But religion is not a science. I don't know how it could be. How does one prove the finger of God writing the commandments, or the flood of Noah, or the calling of fire from heaven? Better yet, how do we teach the achievement of these in a classroom? I believe in these miracles. I teach the truth of them. I cannot say when they will repeat. In most cases I can use them to see that in time of need God is there, but usually not in the same dramatic way.
I can say with total confidence that if one holds to their faith by obedience to God's commandments, one will be blessed. I cannot say how this will occur. The foundational writings for my faith show huge diversity in God's ways of responding. There is no formula given to say which way you will be answered, only that you will.
I can further say that my religion is not without evidence. It is the evidence of those who follow it's teachings. Even those not of my faith, if they follow, they wind up better off in this life. Consider that more and more evidence of social problems, poverty, crime, etc. are not about economic factors but cultural factors. People in traditional marriages with a family do better overall and have a much higher chance of financial stability and success than otherwise. This occurs in spite of the fact that economic theory of supply and demand would negate that.
Furthermore, their children stand a better chance at getting a higher education, they are healthier and have more hope. This transcends economic boundaries. Gallup's 20 year study on the well being of students with shows that hope, involvement, and well-being are critical factors in higher education success. We find that those raised in the traditional family have a better chance of having all three of these. Poverty was once seen as the cause of so much social destruction, we now see research showing social destruction being the cause of poverty.
There was no evidence for this before. Those of use who stood to our faith in spite of the rising tide of divorce and the reduction of the value of the family or the loss of morality see the evidence now but acted long before it existed. Those who mocked such devotions often ignore the evidence or blame other factors, but the decay continues. Religion requires faith before evidence, but faith is not as blind as one might think.
A classic collegiate work called "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches" examines the pragmatic aspects of many beliefs. It uses this as a thesis for how societies use religion to control problems. It never considers the possibility that spiritual inspiration resulted in declaring practices that turned out better in for the society examined. Yet, this is often the result.
Such practices do not come because of physical evidence. Even though evidence may now exist and future evidence of beliefs now attacked will become more apparent, they do not follow the scientific processes. All my evidences has come after my trial of faith. Faith does not come from science and those who base their religious beliefs on science will find themselves in constant struggle.
Fortunately, faith does not exclude science. Even though many use evolution to denounce God, this lacks wisdom and based on the evidence we do not have, it lacks reason. Those who use evolution to declare atheism do not see the flaws of the theory or hold to it religiously otherwise. Thus a person who uses evolution as the platform of atheism does turn evolution into religion.
If this is the platform for academia, then the author is correct. If academia refuses to acknowledge evolution issues and refuses scientific minds that question evolution, then they are similar to the leaders of old seeking to execute Galileo or Caperincus, although not as severe.
However, evolution is not based in faith alone. It does use leaps of faith, but it is not without evidence. Furthermore it is not without a track record as indicated. To called evolution a religion on it's face is inaccurate. The religion of evolution depends on the devotion of it's adherents. They can allow the questions of it to be raised and examined or they can censure them.
Creationism has it's roots in religion and not in evidence. Where evolution lacks evidence for many of its major tenets, creationism lacks any evidence that can be tested as proof of creationism. Where are the theories, the predicted outcomes, the tests, and if the results refute the predictions, where is the commitment to revise? While I extol religion for its spiritual and social benefits. It lacks any ability to accurately explain, define, or help us benefit from the natural world. Unlike evolution, creationism is religion on its face.
Both are belief systems. But this does not make them equal. The science of evolution has a reason to hold on. However, the grip must be relaxed to allow the questions to be more clearly examined. Conversely, the creationist must quit trying supplant evolution with creationism. Even if evolution is found to be summarily flawed such that it cannot hold a place in academic science, why do we assume creation immediately takes over?
Creationism is not creationism science at all. It is an anti-evolution science. It's research does not seek evidence of God in natural studies. It seeks to refute evolution. If they succeeded, they would leave a whole so big they cannot possibly fill it with current research.
Is it therefore any wonder if the evolution scientist battles for it's flawed theory with such fervor. It seems to them that creationists would throw out periodic table of elements because of still missing elements and replace it with "God created."
It is also important to note that the theory of evolution has changed. Most of Darwin's original theory has been replaced. A uniform method of evolving has been changed to account for the catastrophic and the mutation. Although there are problems with these, as the author indicates, the idea that this theory has not itself undergone changes from scientific rigor is erroneous.
To the evolutionist, let the questions be asked and researched. If we wind up leaving evolution, it will be done naturally, a tribute to evolution itself. It not likely that creationism would ever supplant it from a scientific pursuit, but if it did, you will have acted with integrity and that should put you in good standing with the creator.
To the creationist. Turn your efforts to increasing the faith of a people desperately in need of it. This will be where you do your best work. Let science be science. Make your faith heard from the rooftops, not legislated into the councils of school districts. Both evolution and creation have a place and both can be embraced by the individual which coincidentally, is the official position of my religion as well.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
The Mariner’s Resolution
The Mariner’s Resolution
In 1830, a debate between Senator Daniel Webster and Senator Robert Y. Hayne culminated in a speech by Webster that many historians regard as the greatest congressional speech ever given. Towards the end of his speech he made this statement:
Mr. President: When the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself at the first pause in the storm, at the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence, and, before we float farther on the waves of this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we now are. I ask for the reading of the resolution.
Today, I feel the desire to follow this same example. The storms that come from trying and failing to live righteously in an unrighteous world have many times set me off course and I have found myself feeling adrift on the waters with no land in sight, my sails torn, and feeling ill from the buffeting of the sea.
When I feel lost at sea, when emotions twist reason, and when twisted reasoning questions my resolve, I desire to give up this journey of faith. I feel much like the mariner in Webster’s analogy. I too must ask for a rereading of my resolution.
To this end, I use a checklist of 6 questions to help determine where I must go. I pray that my experience may be of some use to you.
Question 1: Do I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the creator of the earth, born of the Virgin Mary and the Savior of the World?
If this answer is true, then regardless of my current struggles in this life, I am not without hope. There is a person always waiting for me to reach out my hand to him.
Regardless of my current position in life, he is there to guide me safely back to shore. He is there to trade my burdens with his much lighter and easier load. I can always repent and reset my course and steer myself to safer waters. The words of Isaiah bear this out:
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool (Isa 1:18).
Elder Packer expressed this in the April 1995 Conference:
Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fullness, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness.
If the answer to my first question is yes, then hope is always my motivator.
Question 2: Did Joseph Smith really see God the Eternal Father and his son Jesus Christ?
If this is true then regardless of what the other philosophies may arise in the world today. There is a reality that the true path of God is had by revelation. The heavens are not closed. God is not dead. A person can receive answers through searching, pondering, and praying.
If he answer to my second question is yes, answers to my prayers can be every bit as important to me as this was to Joseph Smith. My answers may not be as dramatic as was the prophet’s answer, but they are no less importatnt.
Question 3: Is the Book of Mormon truly the word of God written by ancient prophets and revealed to us by a Heavenly Angel and translated by the gift and power of God?
If this is true, then the word of God is not isolated to a single volume of scripture.
If true, it reinforces the truth of the Holy Bible while at the same time expanding and clarifying many doctrinal uncertainties. It reveals to the truth the reality of the Mission of Jesus Christ and expounds the doctrine of the Atonement while at the same time giving evidence of the holy calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
If true, it prepares us against the storms of men that will try to dissuade us from the true path of Christ. From Laman and Lemuel, to Sherem, from Sherem to Noah’s priests, to Nehor, from Nehor to the Zoramites, to the city of Ammonihah, to Ammoron, to Korihor and so on, the power of testimony over wicked teachings and tactics is irrefutable
There is yet a complaint against the restored gospel of Jesus Christ whose recipe is not derived from the extracts of those anti-Christs found in the Book of Mormon. If fact, the more I read this book, the more I realize that the worldly philosophies designed to release our grip from the iron rod are hardly innovative at all. They seem tired, worn out, and passé.
If the answer to my third question is yes, there is a compass, a Liahona to help me re-plot my course regardless of how far I have drifted.
Question 4: Were all the rights, powers, and authorizations, to fully act in the name of Christ, commonly known as the priesthood keys, granted to Joseph Smith who in-turn bestowed them on others by inspiration?
If true, then there is an order to the workings of our Heavenly father. It follows the pattern of truth revealed when the Savior called his apostles saying “Ye have not Chosen Me, but I have chosen you.” It shows that the teachings of Paul about the organization of this Christ’s church was not some random listing of titles, but an established order for one set purpose, to keep us on the path of righteousness:
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ…
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians 4:11,12,14)
Thus the modern expression “I don’t believe in organized religion” is as useless as it is short. I may as well express “I don’t believe in disorganized religion” and be on equal philosophical footing.
The Lord has given us the leadership we need to not only help us return to God but to bring others to the Gospel as well. The priesthood is central to this success.
If the answer to question four is yes, then there is a place of refuge for me that that I may go and better learn the saving truths of God. There is a stop where I may repair my wounded ship restock it with supplies and where others may help me fix the errors of my navigation.
Question 5: Does this exact same priesthood power that was given to Joseph Smith through heavenly manifestations exist in our leadership today. From the prophet on down the Bishop, and Deacons Quorum president, do we have leaders called and ordained by God?
Ultimately, I have to decide whether or not I continue to follow today’s prophet and perhaps more importantly, our own local leaders. This may be a large challenge as the closer we get to those God has called, the easier it is to see faults and the more likely it is that we question their leadership.
In those moments, we have to ask if we are willing to not only raise our hands in sustaining them but open our hearts to embrace them for as long as they are called. This includes all who are called by them, including the Relief Society, the Primary, all teaching and administrative callings.
If the to my fifth question answer is true, I must set aside any negative feelings about the others and strive to see them as God does. Elder Holland expressed it this way in the April 2013 conference:
Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work…when the infinite fullness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.
Final Question: If yes, then what?
When I answer yes to each of these previous questions, which I inevitably do, I have a fixed point and from there I can determine my position. But more importantly I can see that this fixed point remains the desired destination of my journey.
I find myself strengthened and ready to repair my ship. I find my sea sickness abating and the strength returning and I feel I can continue the journey rather than abandon it or change course to seemingly closer, but perilous mirages on horizon.
This final question may pose many other questions. Like those asked in Alma Chapter Five or the ten-question test given by Elder McConkie in his classic conference talk, “The Caravan Moves On.” I can use these I can plot my way back, perhaps avoiding the storms in the future.
But for now, I know that I can and want to continue. If these answers are true, there is one destination only.
In his talk “The Caravan Moves On,” Elder McConkie explained it this way:
The Church is like a great caravan—organized, prepared, following an appointed course, with its captains of tens and captains of hundreds all in place.
What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on.
Is there a ravine to cross, a miry mud hole to pull through, a steep grade to climb? So be it. The oxen are strong and the teamsters wise. The caravan moves on.
Are there storms that rage along the way, floods that wash away the bridges, deserts to cross, and rivers to ford? Such is life in this fallen sphere. The caravan moves on.
Ahead is the celestial city, the eternal Zion of our God, where all who maintain their position in the caravan shall find food and drink and rest. Thank God that the caravan moves on!
Saturday, February 16, 2013
my weaknesses Step 6
List some of your character weaknesses, and next to them list the strengths they may become as you come unto Christ
I am easily angered. I can see that offenses are not truly offenses and find new perspectives that will increase patience and make forgiveness more rapid.
I get my feelings hurt too quickly. I can stop relying on the views of others for my self worth and thus not feel so threatened by their behaviors.
I am too dependent on the approval of others. I can look to the approval of the Lord as the only approval needed.
I am lazy. I can push through my fatigue just a little more each day.
I am prideful. I need to avoid places where argumentation is part of the activity. This includes social networking. I have reduced my contacts considerably in order to avoid those who profess ideologies I singly oppose. I dislike this as I value the debate and want to hear the other side's view. But I am to willing to oppose and defend my position which allows pride to overwhelm my thinking.
I lack meekness. For me meekness is about dealing with the conflicts that come from activities in our life. If my focus is about me winning and not about acting Christlike, I have lost my meekness. If I can get myself to think about the love of God at times like these, I think I can begin the path to meekness.
I am a sore loser. I can strive to do my best without feeling like winning in any competitive situation is the path to success. I can remember that growing, improving and getting nearer to God is the important thing.
I am argumentive. I can concede things instead of always trying to win. I can also quit using argumentation to avoid doing the things I don't want to do. I often raise an argument rather than do the things I need to do. Arguing is a way to avoid responsibility or to avoid being asked to do things.
I have a lot of self pity. It is not so much that I feel victimized by others, but I feel my own sins have resulted in others in my family losing their faith. I feel a failure and incapable of producing good results. I can forgive myself and embrace love of those who have rebelled against me and my faith.
I feel all attacks are personal. This is an arrogant feeling. It assumes that I am at the center of many people's thoughts. I don't assesses issues as misunderstanding, but as deliberate attacks. I can acknowledge that others are weak and make mistake that merely I impact me. I can also see others add making decisions to my disfavor that are not mistakes and not attacks.
I have attention issues. This is the type of thing that one may not consider to take to the Lord. It may not be a spiritual weakness. But when Moroni lamented his weaknesses before the Lord he addressed the awkwardness of his hands, not any specific spiritual weakness. It was a physical weakness that he word about. So maybe Ether 13 means as much about physical as spiritual weakness.
I think my view is the only view. This is an extension of pride. I believe other differing views are substandard. I can find joy in learning from others instead of ceiling driven to teach others.
I do not engender trust in others. I can be kinder more giving and more willing to serve others and create close connections that make it safe for them to share.
I do not apologize when I should. I simply need to learn to say I am sorry. This is shockingly difficult for me. Even when I know I am wrong, I find moving to apology is really hard. Why is doing this so hard?
I am especially worried about being viewed as foolish. I thinks I am coming to terms with this.
I have to confess that even writing these down is hard. It seems strange to me. I had such a flow of self honesty when I worked on my Moral Inventory that doing task in step 6 is surprisingly hard. It seems clear to me that I am not wanting to face up to things in my life that are weaknesses. I might be able to describe myself as immature and weak but to explain in specifics is challenging. Having recent conflicts with my daughter has brought more of these weaknesses to my attention.
I never really think about my weaknesses. I think I live with the delusion that I am not weak. If I think about it, I realize I am weak, but if I don't take time to ponder it, I consider myself beyond weakness. This puts me outside the feeling that I need the Lord. Until such time that I can be continually aware of myself as a weak and dependent person, I need to take time and remind myself that I am nothing without the Lord.
Currently my list comes from trying to be aware of myself while having contention with her. It is not something I would want to do, but, it is something I can benefit from now that we are here at this point.
I have to say that with her and me colliding so much, I am learning the other side of recovery, being the person who feels the hurt because of another who refuses to live according to the standards they have been taught. Now I feel what it was like to be the family member dealing with my challenges. It is a new and not altogether pleasant experience.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Obituary: Edith Webster McBride (Aunt Edith)
 |
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Step 6 - Recovery Journal
“If men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them” (Ether 12:27).
Being mortal and imperfect, we are all subject to many weaknesses. In this verse, the Lord explains His purpose in allowing us to experience mortality and to encounter such weaknesses—to help us be humble. Notice, though, that we choose to humble ourselves. How is becoming ready in step 6 part of humbling yourself?
Step 6 requires humility if you are going to be honest with yourself. I may ask God to remove my shortcomings in Step 7, but if I do so with reservation, or unwillingness, then Step 7 ineffective. To me Step 7 seems to be asking for perfection. It is a challenge I am worried about. I am told we cannot achieve perfection in this life, but it seems that is the intent of step 7. I feel like I cannot really move to this step without truly becoming ready and I still do not feel ready. Step 6 is about humbling myself. It is about really becoming aware of my weaknesses and my inability to remove them on my own in spite of my desires to do so. I am not certain I even have the desire yet. I have things I do not perceive as weaknesses, but if I were fully honest, are just that. I am needing to focus on taking steps to avoid things that allow my weaknesses to grow and control me.
Chief among these is my passion for argumentation and political discourse. It has absorbed me over the past months and in this season of very bitter and nasty things being said, mostly against a man I admire deeply and who invested much to help this country get back on the right track, it is hard for me to keep my mouth shut or my anger in check. I feel I checked my religion at the door as Elder Holland spoke about during a recent BYU devotional. I need to return to full kindness and gentleness. I need to let this go if I am unable to manage my words or emotions. Yet I haven’t even wanted to. I took myself out of social networks and am going to consider a permanent disconnect.
This is just one example of things I don’t treat as weaknesses, but bind me down.
Being mortal and imperfect, we are all subject to many weaknesses. In this verse, the Lord explains His purpose in allowing us to experience mortality and to encounter such weaknesses—to help us be humble. Notice, though, that we choose to humble ourselves. How is becoming ready in step 6 part of humbling yourself?
Step 6 requires humility if you are going to be honest with yourself. I may ask God to remove my shortcomings in Step 7, but if I do so with reservation, or unwillingness, then Step 7 ineffective. To me Step 7 seems to be asking for perfection. It is a challenge I am worried about. I am told we cannot achieve perfection in this life, but it seems that is the intent of step 7. I feel like I cannot really move to this step without truly becoming ready and I still do not feel ready. Step 6 is about humbling myself. It is about really becoming aware of my weaknesses and my inability to remove them on my own in spite of my desires to do so. I am not certain I even have the desire yet. I have things I do not perceive as weaknesses, but if I were fully honest, are just that. I am needing to focus on taking steps to avoid things that allow my weaknesses to grow and control me.
Chief among these is my passion for argumentation and political discourse. It has absorbed me over the past months and in this season of very bitter and nasty things being said, mostly against a man I admire deeply and who invested much to help this country get back on the right track, it is hard for me to keep my mouth shut or my anger in check. I feel I checked my religion at the door as Elder Holland spoke about during a recent BYU devotional. I need to return to full kindness and gentleness. I need to let this go if I am unable to manage my words or emotions. Yet I haven’t even wanted to. I took myself out of social networks and am going to consider a permanent disconnect.
This is just one example of things I don’t treat as weaknesses, but bind me down.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Dependent on the Savior
During the Sermon on the Mount, the Savior fulfilled the Law of Moses. He did not remove the commandments. Simple reading of the sermon on the Mount reveals not only did he not remove the necessity for obedience, he significantly raised the bar for obedience.
During this sermon the Savior took the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and extended it to command us to be reconciled with those who have angered us, to forgive them. In fact he went so far as to give a timeframe for that forgiveness. Do not come to do your alms without first being reconciled. In our day it would be the same as saying do not come to the this meeting and partake of the Sacraments, do not pay your offerings, do not perform your service without first being reconciled to those who have offended you. Leave thy gift at the Altar, the savior said, and remember thy brother who hath ought against thee.
The sermon includes similar additions to the commandment of not committing adultery and higher law about loving one another with a special emphasis on loving, doing good, and praying for your enemies. Indeed the teachings of Jesus and what he wishes us to be is no less that "be there for perfect even as I or your father in heaven is perfect."
The Savior concludes his sermon with the parable of the wise man in the foolish man and the respective homebuilding venues. Those who follow the Savior's commandments are like the wise men and built his house upon the rock and the tribulations of the world allowed to hold firm. The foolish man who hears these things only as built his house on sand and is unable to withstand the tribulations of the world. Clearly the gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of action, it moves beyond believing and focuses on doing.
This teaching is reinforced in the Doctrine and Covenants when he says “I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” and in the Book of Mormon when it is written that “No unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of God.”
This fact, that the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree allowance, combined with the fact that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and continue to do so puts the latter-day Saint at risk of spiritual frustration. These feelings can turn the gospel into a burden that one must carry. We may desire to remove this burden but a sense of duty and responsibility to live according to the gospel keeps us carrying it.
However, if unchecked, these feelings of frustration and turn to feelings the desperation. And in the most sorrowful situations, these feelings of desperation become abandonment of Gospel principles.
I have heard these emotions expressed in different ways. They appear in statements like: Lord would not want someone like me as a missionary. I am just a bad person. I have decided that I am not meant to be happy in this lifetime. I feel out of place a church because they’re all so good and I am not. Or, they know my life and I just feel judged there. I heard in the sisterly laments of “I’m not like sister Jones.” or I can’t keep a clean house or bottle fruit. I hear in rebellious statements such as, your religion is all about control and fear and you can’t ask people to change who they are. Or you are all like robots.
These statements, varied though they are, are all expressing the same thing; a sense of an inability to live successfully according to the commandments of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. We try, but we find ourselves failing again and again.
This feeling, that one is simply inadequate to live the gospel of Jesus Christ is not new. The Prophet, Alma declared the desire to claim the gospel as an angel and then later lamented that he was sinning in this desire. The Apostle Peter asked the Savior to depart from him for he was a sinful man and unworthy of the Lord's favor. The prophet Elijah had shown great miracles and demonstrated the power of the Lord over the pagan gods only to be pursued by soldiers seeking his life. He wished he Lord to take his life for he believed he had failed in his mission.
Isaiah upon seeing the Lord in the heavens proclaimed himself to be a man of unclean lips. And perhaps the most beautiful and instructor of all lamentations, Nephi whose demonstrated capacity to have faith and follow and obey and achieve things that would seem to be impossible to the normal man cried out not as a child but as a grown man rich in a of service, "O wretched man that I am."
Thus latter-day Saints can take comfort in knowing that our feelings about inadequacies and our frustrations at being unable to completely perform all that Lord asks of us are not unusual. But this is not enough.
We are told to be of good cheer. The first time this was spoken was Just before Jesus’ betrayal which resulted in his arrest and arraignment. Just before his illegal and mocking trial. Just before scourge of a whip, a crown of thorns, the scattering of his twelve apostles, a vocal denial of him by Peter. Just before his tortuous crucifixion at the hands of those who had mastered the art of inflicting pain. He stated this before his apostles would be left to carry on the ministry, which resulted in the martyrdom of all but one. Just before this chain of events would occur, the Savior instructed his followers to “Be of good cheer.”
Later, the Apostle Paul would be imprisoned and while there, visited by the resurrected Lord. Wherein the Lord told him to be of good cheer. In the early days of the restoration, the heavenly admonition to be of good cheer, was given following life threatening journeys on the Missouri river and while trying to figure how to provide for the poor.
Finally, in the cold and damp of the cellar of a jail cell in the ironically named Liberty, the savior gave comfort to Joseph Smith and after sharing his perspective, gave him a similar admonition, “therefore hold on thy way, thy days are known and thy years shall not be numbered less.
It would seem that regardless of the burdens of our life, whether we feel them from external or internal forces, the Lord wants us to be happy. Yet, so often the burdens of our own inadequacy bring us down into sorrow. Are we wrong for feeling sorrow? Of course not. It was only last week during one of the most profoundly comforting sacrament meetings I have attended, a beautiful examination of scriptures revealed to us the truth that it is okay to feel sorrow. This was followed up with instruction on what to do about it. It is something I feel the need to expound upon.
Those of us who labor under the burden of inadequacy while trying to live the gospel of Jesus Christ feel as though there is something missing in us. We somehow feel fundamentally flawed and incapable of the celestial life and thus unworthy of the celestial eternities. We feel as though there's something missing in us that others seem to have.
There is nothing missing. There is no flaw that makes us unable to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Often, the only thing we are lacking in many cases is perspective.
We understand how the sinner must come to Christ through faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. We understand that those trapped grievous sin or who have yet to understand that they are sinners need to turn to the Savior.
But what about those that we may not classify as sinners? What about those who are not steeped in serious sin or committing sins habitually. What about those who strive to follow the Savior and stumble along the way? What about the lamenting Nephi, the guilt ridden father of a wayward child, the heavily burdened Bishop or Relief Society president? Or, my personal favorite, one about the Relief Society sister feels incapable of doing all she supposed to do and believe herself inadequate when compared to the other sisters feels her work is hopeless and in vain?
There are no more comforting words in all of the Scriptures than the oft quoted but perhaps seldom understood passages in Matthew 11:28-30.
28. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
For me I find the universal nature of the invitation significant. He wasn't speaking only to sinners or saints. He was not addressing any specific burden he was addressing all who feel burden under whatever way it is whether it be the burden of a sinful life or the burden of attempting to do more than be just good or the burden put upon us by others. Come unto me, all ye that labour, he said.
Whether we see ourselves as the sinner trying to find a way back to relief, or the person who has long embraced the gospel and strives to live it but feels inadequate, even if we see ourselves as something in between that we cannot fully define, perhaps progressed to a certain level and now stuck in a rut with habits or behaviors that we just cannot shake, regardless of where we are in our lives, the path to get to where we want to be is the same. Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.
Nowhere is this more instructive than in 2 Nephi 4, Nephi’s lament.
16 Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; and my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard.
17 Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.
18 I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me.
19 And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.
Too often the result of this passage is the the thought, if Nephi feels this way, what hope is there for me? This expression completely misses the point. Regardless of what how you view Nephi, he was human and subject to weakness, his willingness to express his humanness openly and honestly to the reader makes him my most cherished of scriptural heroes. What is important in this passage is not only his recognition of inadequacies, but how he resolved this feeling.
In verse 19 he ends with “Nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.” Prior to this when Nephi laments he looks at only himself and examines only his weaknesses. When he does this he sees himself as sinful, inadequate, unworthy. He resolves burden this by immediately turning his attention to the Savior.
19 ...nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.
20 My God hath been my support; he hath led me through mine afflictions in the wilderness; and he hath preserved me upon the waters of the great deep.
21 He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh.
22 He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me.
23 Behold, he hath heard my cry by day, and he hath given me knowledge by visions in the night-time.
He then reminds himself where he is to look for his own life
30 Rejoice, O my heart, and cry unto the Lord, and say: O Lord, I will praise thee forever; yea, my soul will rejoice in thee, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
31 O Lord, wilt thou redeem my soul? Wilt thou deliver me out of the hands of mine enemies? Wilt thou make me that I may shake at the appearance of sin?
32 May the gates of hell be shut continually before me, because that my heart is broken and my spirit is contrite! O Lord, wilt thou not shut the gates of thy righteousness before me, that I may walk in the path of the low valley, that I may be strict in the plain road!
33 O Lord, wilt thou encircle me around in the robe of thy righteousness! O Lord, wilt thou make a way for mine escape before mine enemies! Wilt thou make my path straight before me! Wilt thou not place a stumbling block in my way—but that thou wouldst clear my way before me, and hedge not up my way, but the ways of mine enemy.
Then finally he re-commits himself to the same path that got him thus far in his life:
34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.
35 Yea, I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh. Yea, my God will give me, if I ask not amiss; therefore I will lift up my voice unto thee; yea, I will cry unto thee, my God, the rock of my righteousness. Behold, my voice shall forever ascend up unto thee, my rock and mine everlasting God. Amen.
My question to those who feel unrequited burdens is this. Where is our trust at this moment? Is it in the Lord or in our own selves? Have we begun to be like the wild branches Zenos’s of the olive tree and feel as though we have grown beyond the roots of the good trees and are trying to take strength unto ourselves?
To those who read Nephi’s lament and think if he declares himself a sinner, I am without hope, I respond, if those devoted like Nephi are needing to put their trust in the savior for continued growth, then how much more am I needing to do this.
Perhaps we have come to this as result of pride, believing ourselves now to have sufficient strength. Perhaps we have allowed complacency to come into our lives. As a result our prayers have weakened or been forgotten. Perhaps we are among those who've reached a point in our life that we feel that we must do things to be worthy of God's love and grace.
Often times the Scripture found in 2 Nephi 25:23 is misinterpreted:
23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
Many times that last phrase after all we can do with these people to believe that they cannot receive the help of God nor his love and compassion until they have completed their part first. For example I have often heard an analogy that's similar to this I know that if I am swimming and there is a marker out there is about a half-mile away I must first reach that marker and then the Lord will help me with the second half of a mile. The problem with this analogy and the problem with this way of thinking is that if we do not experience the relief we want we can always look in our life and finding something we failed to do good enough. In other words we all know more about what we should do and what we actually do.
Therefore if we continue with the belief that we will only receive from God when we have contributed our own down payment sufficiently we will continually find ourselves frustrated and unable to rely on the Lord. I am most intrigued by this creature because it is spoken by the same prophet that gave us the salt that I have just read. Consider those words by Nephi, "Oh Lord I have trusted the and I will put my trust in the forever." Consider what he said just before this. Does this sound like a man who feels like he must wait for the Lord's help? Does this sound like a man who feels as though he has not done enough to receive the love of God? Nephi sorrows when he looks only at himself but when he looks to the Lord he rejoices and seeks his mercy regardless of his inadequacies. When one considers this, then the phrase we are saved by grace after all we can do simply can not be in chronological separation. The idea that we have to do X amount before the Savior comes in and helps us is simply not God's plan.
To this extent our religious scholars including BYU professor and author Stephen E. Robinson have stated that it phrase does denote a timeline, but a separation of actions. Restated: We are saved by grace apart from all that we can do.
This does not mean that we are not to do our part, it does not mean that we can sit back and literally proclaim our belief in Christ and expect salvation to come to us. This is a gospel of action is clear that the Lord expects us to do and do all that we can. However it is also clear that since the beginning of time from the fall of Adam forward the Lord has also expected this to stumble. Indeed one might be able say he built this that way. In Ether 12:27-28 we read:
27 ... I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.
28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.
Jesus wants us to return to him. He wants us to come to him with our burdens whatever they may be, he has gone so far as to make us imperfect, weak, fallible, so that we in our own inadequacies will turn to him. Come unto me and I will give you rest.
Our faith must not just be faith in Christ the person. We must accept his actions and words and apply them to us. We must be willing to accept that what he has done he has done for us and that what he has spoken he has spoken to us. We must be willing to give him our burdens and then seek those who are also burden and bear them by the same means.
We have the right, the privilege and the Power to go to our heavenly father and as was spoken so eloquently last week at this pulpit, cry unto the lord and express our sorrows.
The atonement of Jesus Christ is infinite. It reaches into every corner and every edge this universe. It is able to change the most vile of sinners. It is able to bring about repentance and forgiveness of sin. It is capable of removing those things which we are. The Lord expects us to weary him with our weariness of our inadequacies.
If you have reached a point where obedience to the commandments is commonplace, I am happy for you, perhaps even envious, but congratulations and glory belong to God the Eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Failing to recognize their hand in this not only offends God, it moves you forward on your own in your own strength a strength which at its greatest is nothing.
I implore all of us to become or reliant, more dependent, or needing the strength of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)