Wednesday, December 5, 2018

Elements of "Reality" the Self and its Brain

Hamblin & Peterson: William Hamblin and Daniel Peterson: Two knights, the self and its brain - Deseret News 23 Nov 2018

“World 1,” as they call it, is the realm of physical objects and states, the whole cosmos of matter and energy and biology (including human brains). The paper and ink of books are part of “World 1,” but not the ideas they contain. “World 1 is the total world of the materialists. They recognise nothing else. All else is fantasy.”

“World 2” is the sphere of states of consciousness, of subjective knowledge and perceptions such as light and color, sound, music and harmony, touch, smells, flavors and the like. “These qualities do not exist in World 1, where correspondingly there are but electromagnetic waves, pressure waves in the atmosphere, material objects, and chemical substances.” World 2, say Eccles and Popper, “is our primary reality.” (The fact that consistent materialism tends to reject it as fantasy, in their judgment, says far more about materialism than about reality.)

Finally, “World 3” is the world of culture, created by humans and, in turn, shaping humans. “World 3 is the world that uniquely relates to man. It is the world which is completely unknown to animals. They are blind to all of World 3.”

Justice, Mercy, and Law

...
So, justice stems from God’s nature and hence is unchangeable. Therefore, there are some things God can’t change or do.[xxi] Hence His warnings to us sometimes sound harsh and unloving. Mortality’s crises and injustices cause some to conclude that either He is not all powerful or not loving. But, in light of the realities of eternity and His nature, there is no leeway to this part of justice even though He is the epitome of love and kindness. Given the need for us to be capable of living in His presence and our independent agency and fallen natures, we need help.
Mercy
We need time and some kind of system, without this fatal consequence, that would allow us to learn from our mistakes and mortal nature, then change and become capable to live at that celestial level of law/light; a system of prescriptive law. The system must also allow the reception and aggregation of light unto a fulness[xxii] so that we could eventually live in His presence. This is His work and glory motivated by His love for us, His children.
Alma calls this system, “a probationary time” or “preparatory state” or “plan of redemption” or “the plan of mercy.”[xxiii] The vast majority of times the word mercy as found in the Old Testament, is translated from one of two Hebrew words: checed = spousal love, or raham = parental love. Both of these two most profound kinds of love are tough-love resulting in growth through prescriptive law. Alma notes that without law, we cannot progress since neither justice nor mercy could have an effect.[xxiv] These prescriptive laws within this plan and as part of this state, are enacted by two things, according to Alma:
  1. Man’s repentance while in the probationary state[xxv]
  2. And an atonement by God[xxvi]
So, in order for God to not become a sponsor of sin, as He would if He just allowed it, man must change or repent in order to receive forgiveness. And, there had to be a plan for this system that allowed sinning without immediate and fatal consequence like those from the descriptive laws outside the system. God had to “take upon himself” or “kaphar”[xxvii] (cover) our sins from the descriptive consequences of His nature, during a temporary time that would allow for repentance. Then, we would need something so enticing and moving to motivate us to both deny ourselves of the appetite-rewards of physical matter and to repent, once we discovered by our own experience to “prize the good.”[xxviii] Therefore, “God himself”[xxix] came among men to atone (kaphar) for our sins and “bring about the bowels of mercy;”[xxx] both His and ours.
...

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

Understanding the Essential Connection Between Faith, Hope, and Charity

Meridian Magazine 3 Dec 2018 Craig Frogley

...In matters of the Spirit, the focus is on letting go of control and trusting Christ to bring the ancient repeatable promises of the Fathers.

...

In matters of the Spirit one must also act in faith, but the focus is Christ rather than protocol. Trusting He is there, that He has the ability and capacity, that He can work through and with your skepticism, that He understands your specific needs and circumstances, that He knows your future, that His wisdom exceeds your own, that His timing is ultimate, that He can consecrate your life’s events to your ultimate good, etc., so that you are willing to act incrementally on that trust, is the essence of your faith.

...

We cannot trust or have faith in Christ if we don’t value what He says. This makes our behavior towards Christ the variable. Therefore, if we are doing our best through study, obedience, and repentance, as His disciple, we will feel His love. Understanding the nature, depth and limitations[xiv] of His mercy/love will increase our hope.

...

Friday, November 30, 2018

Doctrines of Justice, Mercy, and Law as taught to Corianton

Craig R. Frogley

Here:

Alma helps Corianton understand that God isn’t imposing consequences upon us by inventing laws that get in the way of our happiness.[iii] In fact, Alma had already taught that Father “has turned away judgement”[iv] as we go through the mortal process of learning to live in accordance with the divine nature. He makes it clear that though law is used by justice, it is also used by mercy, but is not the same as either one.
“And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?” Alma 42:21
Law gives justice and mercy claim on an individual. Law may be just, but is not justice.[v] So then, what is justice? Again, Alma says that justice executes law which then inflicts the punishment[vi] without which there is no law.[vii] So, Justice uses law but is not law. But, is the only function of justice to execute law and inflict punishment. If so, then we are just splitting hairs?
Alma teaches that God would cease to be God without “the work of justice.”[viii] Unfortunately, this has been interpreted by some to mean that God would lose his “right to be god” if He made an exception to some transcendent law that He had to obey. It is easy to see, again, the problem with equating justice and some eternal code of law, for Alma makes it clear that justice is “God’s justice,” not someone or something else’s.[ix] Alma evidently knows something about justice that we need.
The language of Alma was a form of Hebrew. The word for justice in Hebrew is “tsdaqah,” or “tsedeq” which is also the word for righteousness, meaning, when speaking of Him, “God’s righteousness.” In Moses 4:30, God is clear that He is capable to do, and must do whatever He says. We could not have faith in Him if there were any inkling that He would make exceptions for us or anyone else. He is “an unchangeable God.”[x] Abinadi equates justice with God, himself.[xi] So Justice is part of the divine nature, not some administrator to which He is subject. Do we have anything in scripture that helps us understand this part of the divine nature and the relationship to law and or justice?
...

But, herein lies the challenge and need for a plan of redemption. Were we to enter the glorious (light) presence of our loving father or His son in this mortal state, we would be destroyed.[xvii] This is what is sometimes called “the wrath of God”[xviii] “that it might work upon the heart”[xix] thereby, motivating change. The fulness of the divine nature that sources the light, which could perfect us were we able to live the ensuing law, necessitates our current separation from His presence. Since we can’t seem to be governed by this descriptive law/light, due to our fallen natures, it won’t perfect us.[xx] Though it could perfect us as it did Christ since He was completely obedient.
Justice
So, justice stems from God’s nature and hence is unchangeable. Therefore, there are some things God can’t change or do.[xxi]Hence His warnings to us sometimes sound harsh and unloving. Mortality’s crises and injustices cause some to conclude that either He is not all powerful or not loving. But, in light of the realities of eternity and His nature, there is no leeway to this part of justice even though He is the epitome of love and kindness. Given the need for us to be capable of living in His presence and our independent agency and fallen natures, we need help.
Mercy
We need time and some kind of system, without this fatal consequence, that would allow us to learn from our mistakes and mortal nature, then change and become capable to live at that celestial level of law/light; a system of prescriptive law. The system must also allow the reception and aggregation of light unto a fulness[xxii] so that we could eventually live in His presence. This is His work and glory motivated by His love for us, His children.
Alma calls this system, “a probationary time” or “preparatory state” or “plan of redemption” or “the plan of mercy.”[xxiii] The vast majority of times the word mercy as found in the Old Testament, is translated from one of two Hebrew words: checed = spousal love, or raham = parental love. Both of these two most profound kinds of love are tough-love resulting in growth through prescriptive law. Alma notes that without law, we cannot progress since neither justice nor mercy could have an effect.[xxiv] These prescriptive laws within this plan and as part of this state, are enacted by two things, according to Alma:
  1. Man’s repentance while in the probationary state[xxv]
  2. And an atonement by God[xxvi]
So, in order for God to not become a sponsor of sin, as He would if He just allowed it, man must change or repent in order to receive forgiveness. And, there had to be a plan for this system that allowed sinning without immediate and fatal consequence like those from the descriptive laws outside the system. God had to “take upon himself” or “kaphar”[xxvii] (cover) our sins ...

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Age of the "Earth."

Article Here

I have seen this number in another source.

"Considering that Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 refers to “…this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence,” what led Phelps to speak of Earth as 2,555 million years old? The answer appears to be straightforward. Though 7000 Earth years is in conflict with all physical, chemical, genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence, 7000 years of God is not ruled out. The arithmetic is easy. One day of God is 1000 years of man, and therefore in Joseph Smith’s reckoning, a day of God is 365 × 1000 days of man. The 2.555 billion years in question therefore corresponds to 2,555,000,000/365,000 years of God, which is 7000 years of God for each day of Earth’s existence. A more careful calculation, using the true average length of the year including leap years (365.257 days) gives 2,556,799,000 Earth years. Clearly Joseph Smith did not intend the “7000 years” of Earth’s age to refer to Earth years.
The same number surfaces again in Elder McConkie’s address, “The Seven Deadly Heresies,” delivered at BYU in 1980. He refers to God as “an infinite and eternal being who has presided in our universe for almost 2,555,000,000 years,”6 but without any indication of the source or significance of that number."

Friday, October 26, 2018

Jeffrey R. Holland on Sacrificing for Missionary Work

Anyone who does any kind of missionary work will have occasion to ask, Why is this so hard? Why doesn’t it go better? Why can’t our success be more rapid? Why aren’t there more people joining the Church? It is the truth. We believe in angels. We trust in miracles. Why don’t people just flock to the font? Why isn’t the only risk in missionary work that of pneumonia from being soaking wet all day and all night in the baptismal font?
You will have occasion to ask those questions. I have thought about this a great deal. I offer this as my personal feeling. I am convinced that missionary work is not easy because salvation is not a cheap experience. Salvation never was easy. We are The Church of Jesus Christ, this is the truth, and He is our Great Eternal Head. How could we believe it would be easy for us when it was never, ever easy for Him? It seems to me that missionaries and mission leaders have to spend at least a few moments in Gethsemane. Missionaries and mission leaders have to take at least a step or two toward the summit of Calvary.
...
The Atonement will carry the missionaries perhaps even more importantly than it will carry the investigators. When you struggle, when you are rejected, when you are spit upon and cast out and made a hiss and a byword, you are standing with the best life this world has ever known, the only pure and perfect life ever lived. You have reason to stand tall and be grateful that the Living Son of the Living God knows all about your sorrows and afflictions. The only way to salvation is through Gethsemane and on to Calvary. The only way to eternity is through Him—the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Marvin Payne - Pioneers

Meridian Magazine 10 Jul 2008

Some of us have the notion that the Mormon pioneers saw the world in bold strokes of black or white, while we moderns squint through myriad shades of gray. As we prepared ourselves to write, opening the books the pioneers wrote for no one but themselves or their children we found those blacks and whites bold and clear, but the surprise was what arched in between – not “shades of gray” at all, but a rainbow of passions and fears, dares and enormous presumptions. Their “trail of dreams” paralleled, often at a stone’s throw, two rivers that have taken on mythic proportions – the Platte and the Sweetwater – and along each of them the pioneers traveled upstream.  
Brothers Arrrington, Kappp PPerry, and I discovered that by the side of the Sweetwater today lie countless dull stones. Toss them into that bracing current and suddenly they are the deep blue of the night sky, the gold of sunset through clouds of dust, or the pink-white of snow, or stars. So it was with the lives of common souls who plunged into the river of pioneers and walked their thousand miles upstream into the valleys of the Wasatch to make us a home.
...
The whole idea of pioneering was (is) to leave Babylon behind. The trail along the south bank of the Platte was crowded with travelers pursuing richer soil and gold. The trail along the north bank, the rougher trail, was blazed by Latter-day Saints pursuing the dream of spiritual wealth and beauty. The south-bank trail ended in the rich Willamette Valley of Oregon and the gold fields of California . The north-bank trail ended in a desert waiting to blossom as a rose.

Friday, October 19, 2018

Cleon Skousen Fourth Thousand Years Repentance Consequences Agency

Page 481

This last phrase, "repentance shall be hid •from mine
eyes," has great significance. It refers to that far distant
time when the redemption and resurrection will have been•
completed and the probationary estate of man will be finished.
Then mankind will once more be subject to the immediate
consequences of their acts just as they were before they
came here. The principle of "repentance" only operates in
a cosmic environment where judgment is temporarily sus.-
pended and men are allowed a certain period of time to
turn back." In fact, this is what repentance means. Such
a time of tolerance for sin and evil is not possible in the
presence of God for there He "cannot look upon sin with
the least degree of allowance. "26 This may be the very reason
why the Lord had to remove us from His presence in order
to give us a chance to learn from personal experience why
sin and disobedience destroy happiness and how they cut
us off from the blessings of Heaven. If in this life we were
struck down for even the slightest deviation from righteous-
ness we would probably learn little but tread timidly down
the pathway of life in a state of terror, continually fearing
lest we accidentally slipped and brought down the wrath
of punitive judgment upon us.

The Lord therefore set up a cosmic laboratory for the
Second Estate in which men could actually exist in a state
of suspended judgment, a place they could look evil full in the
face, even taste of it if they wished, and then have time to turn
away from it and escape the penalty through the efficacy of the
Atonement. This is what the prophet was  talking about when
he said "... there was a space granted unto man in which he
might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state;
a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that
endless state which . . . is after the resurrection of the
dead. "27

And that "endless state" after the resurrection is when
the Lord says "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes." No
longer will men enjoy the luxury of tasting sin (being dis-
obedient) and still have time to turn back without suffering
any penalty. They will be able to turn back, of course, but
the penalty will be decisive and immediate. Perhaps at that
time mankind will appreciate far more than they do now
the genius of the plan which provided a space of time in
the Second Estate for repentance. It has allowed us time
to recognize our errors, repent, reform, bring our sins under
the Atonement and HAVE THEM BLOTTED OUT
Hosea wanted us to realize that this is only a temporary
luxury. The Lord has warned that there will sometime come
a day when "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes!

Peggy Noonan on Manliness

Aftermath of 911

From the ashes of Sept. 1 1 arise the manly virtues.

Friday, October 12, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

A few weeks ago I wrote a column called "God Is Back, " about how,
within a day of the events of Sept. 1 1, my city was awash in religious
imagery—prayer cards, statues of saints. It all culminated, in a way, in
the discovery of the steel-girder cross that emerged last week from
the wreckage--unbent, unbroken, unmelted, perfectly proportioned
and duly blessed by a Catholic friar on the request of the rescue
workers, who seemed to see meaning in the cross's existence. So do I.
My son, a teenager, finds this hilarious, as does one of my best friends.
They have teased me, to my delight, but I have told them, "Boys, this
whole story is about good and evil, about the clash of good and evil."
If you are of a certain cast of mind, it is of course meaningful that the
face of the Evil One seemed to emerge with a roar from the furnace
that was Tower One. You have seen the Associated Press photo, and
the photos that followed: the evil face roared out of the building with
an ugly howl--and then in a snap of the fingers it lost form and force
and disappeared. If you are of a certain cast of mind it is of course
meaningful that the cross, which to those of its faith is imperishable,
did not disappear. It was not crushed by the millions of tons of
concrete that crashed down upon it, did not melt in the furnace. It
rose from the rubble, still there, intact.
For the ignorant, the superstitious and me (and maybe you), the face
of the Evil One was revealed, and died; for the ignorant, the
superstitious and me (and maybe you), the cross survived. This is how
God speaks to us. He is saying, "I am." He is saying, "I am here. " He is
saying, "And the force of all the evil of all the world will not bury
me."
I believe this quite literally. But then I am experiencing Sept. I I not as
a political event but as a spiritual event.
And, of course, a cultural one, which gets me to my topic.
It is not only that God is back, but that men are back. A certain style
of manliness is once again being honored and celebrated in our
country since Sept. 11. You might say it suddenly emerged from the
rubble of the past quarter century, and emerged when a certain kind
of man came forth to get our great country out of the fix it was in.
I am speaking of masculine men, men who push things and pull things

and haul things and build things, men who charge up the stairs in a
hundred pounds of gear and tell everyone else where to go to be
safe. Men who are welders, who do construction, men who are cops
and firemen. They are all of them, one way or another, the men who
put the fire out, the men who are digging the rubble out, and the men
who will build whatever takes its place.
And their style is back in style. We are experiencing a new respect for
their old-fashioned masculinity, a new respect for physical courage,
for strength and for the willingness to use both for the good of
others.
You didn't have to be a fireman to be one of the manly men of Sept.
11. Those businessmen on flight 93, which was supposed to hit
Washington, the businessmen who didn't live by their hands or their
backs but who found out what was happening to their country, said
goodbye to the people they loved, snapped the cell phone shut and
said, "Let's roll." Those were tough men, the ones who forced that
plane down in Pennsylvania. They were tough, brave guys.
Let me tell you when I first realized what rm saying. On Friday, Sept.
14, I went with friends down to the staging area on the West Side
Highway where all the trucks filled with guys coming off a 12-hour
shift at ground zero would pass by. They were tough, rough men, the
grunts of the city—construction workers and electrical workers and
cops and emergency medical worker and firemen.
I joined a group that was just standing there as the truck convoys
went by. And all we did was cheer. We all wanted to do some kind of
volunteer work but there was nothing left to do, so we stood and
cheered those who were doing. The trucks would go by and we'd
cheer and wave and shout "God bless you!" and "We love you!" We
waved flags and signs, clapped and threw kisses, and we meant it: We
loved these men. And as the workers would go by--they would wave to us
from their trucks and buses, and smile and nod--I realized that a lot
of them were men who hadn 't been applauded since the day they
danced to their song with their bride at the wedding.
And suddenly I looked around me at all of us who were cheering. And
saw who we were. Investment bankers! Orthodontists! Magazine
editors! In my group, a lawyer, a columnist and a writer. We had been
the kings and queens of the city, respected professional in a city that
respects its professional class. And this night we were nobody. We
were so useless, all we could do was applaud the somebodies, the

workers who, unlike us, had not been applauded much in their lives.
And now they were saving our city.
I turned to my friend and said, "I have seen the grunts of New York
become kings and queens of the City." I was so moved and, oddly I
guess, grateful. Because they'd always been the people who ran the
place, who kept it going, they •d just never been given their due. But
now--"And the last shall be first"--we were making up for it.
It may seem that I am really talking about class--the professional
classes have a new appreciation for the working class men of Lodi,
N.J., or Astoria, Queens. But what I'm attempting to talk about is
actual manliness, which often seems tied up with class issues, as they
say, but isn 't always by any means the same thing.
Here's what I •m trying to say: Once about 10 years ago there was a
story—you have read it in your local tabloid, or a supermarket
tabloid like the National Enquirer--about an American man and woman
who were on their honeymoon in Australia or New Zealand. They
were swirnming in the ocean, the water chest-high. From nowhere
came a shark. The shark went straight for the woman, opened its
jaws. Do you know what the man did? He punched the shark in the
head. He punched it and punched it again. He did not do brilliant
commentary on the shark, he did not share his sensitive feelings about
the shark, he did not make wry observations about the shark, he
punched the shark in the head. So the shark let go of his wife and
went straight for him. And it killed him. The wife survived to tell the
story of what her husband had done. He had tried to deck the shark. I
told my friends: That's what a wonderful man is, a man who will try
to deck the shark.
I don't know what the guy did for a living, but he had a very
old-fashioned sense of what it is to be a man, and I think that sense is
coming back into style because of who saved us on Sept. I I, and that
is very good for our country.
Why? Well, manliness wins wars. Strength and guts plus brains and
spirit wins wars. But also, you know what follows manliness? The
gentleman. The return of manliness will bring a return of
gentlemanliness, for a simple reason: masculine men are almost by
definition gentlemen. Example: If you 're a woman and you go to a
faculty meeting at an Ivy League University you 'II have to fight with a
male intellectual for a chair, but I assure you that if you go to a

Knights of Columbus Hall, the men inside (cops, firemen, insurance
agents) will rise to offer you a seat. Because they are manly men, and
gentlemen.
It is hard to be a man. I am certain of it; to be a man in this world is
not easy. I know you are thinking, But it's not easy to be a woman, and you are so
right. But women get to complain and make others feel bad about
their plight. Men have to suck it up. Good men suck it up and remain
good-natured, constructive and helpful; less-good men become the
kind of men who are spoofed on "The Man Show"--babe-watching,
dope-smoking nihilists. (Nihilism is not manly, it is the last refuge of
sissies.)
I should discuss how manliness and its brother, gentlemanliness, went
out of style. I know, because I was there. In fact, I may have done it. I
remember exactly when: It was in the mid-'70s, and I was in my
mid-20s, and a big, nice, middle-aged man got up from his seat to help
me haul a big piece of luggage into the overhead luggage space on a
plane. I was a feminist, and knew our rules and rants. "I can do it
myself, " I snapped.
It was important that he know women are strong. It was even more
important, it turns out, that I know I was a jackass, but I didn •t. I
embarrassed a nice man who was attempting to help a lady. I wasn 't
lady enough to let him. I bet he never offered to help a lady again. I
bet he became an intellectual, or a writer, and not a good man like a
fireman or a businessman who says, "Let's roll."
But perhaps it wasn 't just me. I was there in America, as a child, when
John Wayne was a hero, and a symbol of American manliness. He was
strong, and silent. And I was there in America when they killed John
Wayne by a thousand cuts. A lot of people killed him—not only
feminists but peaceniks, leftists, intellectuals, others. You could even
say it was Woody Allen who did it, through laughter and an endearing
admission of his own nervousness and fear. He made nervousness and
fearfulness the admired style. He made not being able to deck the
shark, but doing the funniest commentary on not decking the shark,
seem. . cool.
But when we killed John Wayne, you know who we were left with.
We were left with John Wayne's friendly-antagonist sidekick in the
old John Ford movies, Ban-y Fitzgerald. The small, nervous, gossiping
neighborhood commentator Barry Fitzgerald, who wanted to talk
about everything and do nothing.

This was not progress. It was not improvement.
I missed John Wayne.
But now I think ... he's back. I think he returned on Sept. 11. I think
he ran up the stairs, threw the kid over his back like a sack of
potatoes, came back down and shoveled rubble. I think he's in
Afghanistan now, saying, with his slow swagger and simmering
silence, "Yer in a whole lotta trouble now, Osama-boy. "
I think he's back in style. And none too soon.
Welcome back, Duke.
And once again: Thank you, men of Sept. 11.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Her new book,
"When Character Was King: A
Story of Ronald Reagan," will be published by Viking Penguin this fall. Her col-
umn appears Fridays.

Orson Scott Card Homecoming Series Spirit Help in Relationships

The Ships of Earth page 85

Still, she was certain that what she had seen was, not her imagination, but the truth: The Oversoul had shown her what she needed to see, if she was to get past her own fears.

Thank you, she thought, as clearly as she could, though she had no way of knowing if the Oversoul heard her thoughts, or was even listening at the moment. I needed to see through his eyes, at least for a moment.

Another thought came to her: Is he also seeing through my eyes at this moment? It disturbed her, to think that Issib might be seeing her body as she saw it, complete with her fears and dissatisfactions.

No, fair is fair. If he is to have confidence in himself, and if he is to be a kind husband to me, he must know that I am as fearful and uncertain as he is. So do, if you haven't already, do show him who I am, help him to see that even though I am no beauty, I'm still a woman, I still long to love, to be loved, to make a family with a man who is bound into my heart and I into his as tightly as Rasa and Volemak are woven through each other's souls. Show him who I am, so he will pity me instead of fearing me. And then we can turn pity into com-passion, and compassion into understanding, and understand-ing into affection, and affection into love, and love into life, the life of our children, the life of the new self that we will become together.

To Hushidh's surprise, she was sleepy now—she had feared that she'd get no sleep at all tonight. And from Shedemei's slow and heavy breathing, she must already be asleep.

I hope you showed her what she needed to see, too, Oversoul. I only wonder how other men and women manage to love each other when they don't have your help to show them what is in the other's heart.

Orson Scott Card Homecoming Series Tree of Life Vision

The Ships of Earth page 125

So Volemak envied the people in the building, and remem-bered having been one of them, or having tried at least to be one of them—was anyone every really a true part of this tran-sient community of pleasure, which evaporated and re-formed itself over and over again in a single night, and a thousand times in a week? It never quite existed, this family of frolickers, it only seemed about to exist, always on the verge of becoming real, and then it retreated always just out of reach.

 But here at this tree, Volemak realized, here is the real thing. Here with the taste of this fruit in our mouths, we are part of something that isn't just illusion. We're part of life, wives and husbands, parents and children, the vast onward passage of genes and dreams, bodies and memories, generation after gen-eration, time without end. We are making something that will outlast us, that's what this fruit is, that's what life is, and what they have across the river, their mad pursuit of every sensation their bodies can experience, their frantic avoidance of anything painful or difficult, it all misses the point of being alive in the first place. Nothing that is new is ever new twice. While things that are true are still true the next time; truer, in fact, because they have been tested, they have been tasted, and they are always ripe, always ready...

Yet Volemak could explain none of this to the people gath-ered around him, because he knew that these feelings were his own. Not really part of the dream itself, but rather his own responses to the dream, and perhaps not even what the dream was supposed to mean.

Friday, September 28, 2018

Religion VS Culture

Does our faith make a difference in how we live? A new book says no.


...Sociologist Alan Wolfe has discovered the source of the contemporary church's power failure. In a book titled "The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith" (Free Press), Wolfe, a self-described nonbeliever, reaches some sobering conclusions. After traveling the country observing various denominations and religious services, Wolfe writes, "Far from living in a world elsewhere, the faithful in the United States are remarkably like everyone else." C.S. Lewis called this "contented worldliness," which he said is the great enemy of the church.

Wolfe says that religion in the United States "has never existed in practice the way it is supposed to exist in theory" and that in the battle between faith and culture, "American culture has triumphed." It was supposed to happen the other way, but too many people got comfortable with culture because it's easier to give in to the current and be carried along than to swim upstream.

The Myth of Neutrality

From Exiled by Helen Holt, Story of John Lathrop

...“Neutrality is a myth, a glorified myth. Neutrality is a Trojan Horse, professing some advantage, but being inherently full of danger. Neutrality is not neutrality at all. It always favors the despot — adds to his power. Neutrality favors nothing and no one. That is the great myth!”

John Lathrop went on to say: “If a man steals from his neighbor, his act is evil. If that man happens to be your employer, his act is still evil. If no one questions the stealing employer, on the ideas it would be better to remain neutral, then the employer continues to steal. Neutrality refuses to keep evil in check. Evil unchecked will destroy good. That’s why neutrality is so dangerous. Moreover, real neutrality refuses even to identify evil as evil, in which case there is no activity to promote good as well as no activity to prevent evil. By default, neutrality is the great sympathizer and nurturer of evil. The most deadly enemy of righteousness is not evil, it’s neutrality.” (Edited from, Exiled, (1987), pp. 7-9.)

Mrs. Holt pointed out that there can be a difference and a conflict between liberty and loyalty — the conflict of liberty of conscience that inspires one to positive action, in contrast to loyalty to some personality which inspires neutrality, which in turn breeds ignorance and apathy.

Being neutral in a cause shows the most blatant form of permissiveness and cowardliness. Neutrality does no good for the apathetic except allowing the tyrant more freedom to continue his totalitarian rule and wickedness. It allows the oppressor the freedom to take away everyone else’s freedom and the exercise of conscious.

Religious Freedom - Religion in the Public Square

A NEW ORDER OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOMby Richard John Neuhaus 12 Sep 2008

...The question of religion’s place in the public square is not, first of all, a question of First Amendment law. It is first of all a question of understanding the theory and practice of democratic governance. Citizens are the bearers of opinion, including opinion shaped by or espousing religious belief, and citizens have equal access to the public square. In this representative democracy, the state is forbidden to determine which convictions and moral judgments may be proposed for public deliberation. Through a constitutionally ordered and representative process, the people will deliberate and the people will decide.

In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being religious than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is, or at least there ought to be, no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified thing that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who appeal to religion in public.
As with individual citizens, so also with the associations that citizens form to advance their opinions. Religious institutions may understand themselves to be brought into being by God, as the Catholic Church certainly does understand herself, but for the purposes of this democratic polity they are free associations of citizens. As such, they are guaranteed the same access to the public square as are the citizens who comprise them. It matters not at all that their purpose is to advance religion, any more than it matters that other associations would advance the interests of business or labor or radical feminism or animal rights or whatever.

Being Mean

HEALTH NEWS DEC. 23, 2008 Being mean bigger deal than being nice

Democracy Requires Righteousness

The Importance of the Right Question J. Reuben Clark Law Society Conference Clayton M. Christensen February 12, 2009 ...Democracy works because most people most of the time voluntarily obey most of the laws.... ... he made clear that democracy-enabling religions are those that support the sanctity of life, the equality of people, the importance of respecting others’ property, and the importance of personal honesty. Those religions also had to be strong enough that they held power over the behavior of a large majority of the population.... ...“You just think that because democracy works for you, and has worked in western Europe, that it will work everywhere. It only works where there is a strong foundation of religion.”

Religious Freedom VS Freedom from Religion

Meeting the Challenges of Today NEAL A. MAXWELL Oct. 10, 1978

...M. J. Sobran wrote recently:
The Framers of the Constitution . . . forbade the Congress to make any law “respecting” the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge “the free exercise” of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling [she continues] to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it....

...Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church. Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?...

...may I point out what a vastly different view of life the doctrine of foreordination gives to us. Shorn of this perspective, others are puzzled or bitter about life. Without gospel perspective life would be a punishment, not a joy—like trying to play a game of billiards on a table with a rumpled cloth, with a crooked cue and an elliptical billiard ball (from Sir William S. Gilbert’s libretto of The Mikado). (Perhaps the moral of that analogy is that we should stay out of pool halls.) In any event, pessimism does not really reckon with life and the universe as these things “really are.” The disciple will be puzzled at times, too. But he persists. Later he rejoices over how wonderfully things fit together, realizing only then that, with God, things never were apart....

Dumbing Down Jesus

Questioning the alternative Jesus Michael De Groote 29 Nov 2009https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705347805/Questioning-the-alternative-Jesus.html

"It's not a Jesus who is going to ask you to repent of your sins," he said.The alternative Jesus requires working for social justice — such as stopping human trafficking. But you can do what you want in your personal life."They feel like the Christ of faith has diluted the Jesus of history," Holzapfel said, "They want to rescue what they think is the powerful message of Jesus.

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Good Articles on Same Sex Marriage, Gender, and Gender Attraction

"Motherhood and The Moral Influence of Women" 
World Congress of Families II, Geneva, Plenary Session IV, November 16, 
1999 

...perhaps the most significant factor is the literacy of
women. Women have always impacted entire cultures. Their influence
begins in each society's very core--the home, where women have always
taught and modeled what Tocqueville called "the habits of the heart"--
the mores, or civilizing habits, that create a sense of personal and civic
virtue, without which free and open societies can't exist. ...

A child is an echo charnber. If he hears the sounds of love from his
mother, he will later speak those same sounds of love to others. But if
the mother's signals are confusing and hateful, the child will later feel
confused and hateful.9 Whether a mother feels support from her
husband, her family, and her society profoundly influences whether she
feels like a mother of hope—who values herself enough to nurture a child
of hope with the milk of human kindness. And children of hope create a
society of hope. ...

Consider now, in summary, a true story from Australian history
that illustrates the power of women's moral influence as mothers of
hope, women of fidelity, wives of commiünent, and nurturers of human
ties. In its early decades as a British colony, Australia was avast
wilderness designated as a jail for exiled convicts. Until 1850, six of
every seven people who went "down under" from Britain were men.
And the few women who went were often convicts or social outcasts
themselves. The men ruthlessly exploited them, sexually and in other
ways. With few exceptions, these women without hope were powerless
to change their conditions.
In about 1840, a reformer named Caroline Chisholm urged that
more women would stabilize the culture. She told the British
government the best way to establish a community of "great and good
people"in Australia: "For all the clergy you can despatch, all the
schoolmasters you can appoint, all the churches you can build, and all
the books you can export, will never do much good without ... 'God's
police'-- wives and little children--good and virtuous women."
Chisholm searched for women who would raise "the moral
standard of the people." She spent twenty years traveling to England,
recruiting young women and young couples who believed in the
common sense principles of family life. Over time, these women tamed
the men who were taming the wild land; and civil society in Australia
gradually emerged. Also, the colonial govemments enacted policies that
elevated women's status and reinforced family life.23 As one historian
said, "the initial reluctance of the wild colonial boys to marry was
eroded fairly quickly." Eventually, thousands of new immigrants who
shared the vision of these "good and virtuous women" established stable
families as the basic unit of Australian society more quickly than had
occurred "anywhere else in the Western world."...

Homosexual "Marriage" and  Civilization
Orson Scott Card
15 February 2004

Orson Scott Card: Communities succeed with monogamy Deseret News 2 Oct 2008

The Divine Institution of Marriage
LDS Newsroom, 13 August 2008

Current iteration:

...Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination....

...However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.”...

...When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring....


Many who shout 'intolerance' embrace tyrannyMatthew Sanders October 30, 2008

...Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that "unbounded relativism as a civic philosophy soon becomes passivity and indifference: No judgments can be made, for it is impossible to place one set of values over another. This is a far cry from toleration derived from a belief in universal rights. If, in the civic sphere, relativism swallows tolerance whole, belief in universal rights turns into no belief at all."...

...Elder Russell M. Nelson adds, "Gracious tolerance for an individual does not grant him or her license to do wrong, nor does your tolerance obligate you to tolerate his or her misdeed" (Ensign, May 1994). We make no pretention of perfection, nor do we withhold compassion and understanding, but we do maintain our privilege to act on principle....


No Case for Homosexuality in Bible
Joseph Bottum, John Mark Reynolds, Bruce D. Porter

...Reject the Bible, if you will–but don’t pretend it means just what you want it to mean. The plain fact is that when the Old Testament talks about homosexual behavior, it condemns it. And when, in the New Testament, the followers of Jesus encountered homosexual acts, they quickly and universally condemned them....

The Institution Formerly Known As Marriage by Jennifer Roback Morse
Public Discourse 24 Apr 2009

Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction 19 Sep 2009
The following address was given by Elder Bruce C. Hafen at the Evergreen International annual conference on 19 September 2009:

...Many other people also live heroically with uninvited daily struggles....

...Having same-gender attraction is NOT in your DNA, but being a child of God clearly IS in your spiritual DNA—only one generation removed from Him whom we call Father in Heaven....

...How much is “all we can do” for one who suffers same-gender attraction? I don’t know. But I do know that “all we can do” is less than many of you think it is,...

...
your faith in God must run so deep that, first, you know, first of all that He has the power to remove your unwanted same-gender attraction—“he is able to deliver us from the furnace.”  But, second, if He doesn’t deliver you right now (“but if not”), for whatever reason, you will not give up on Him or on yourself....

...as President Packer said, “The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot change and are compelled to live in sin.  The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven.”[xxii]  If you believe no change is possible, you have only two options, neither of which is acceptable to a believing Latter-day Saint — you must either give in or give up.  Thankfully, you have other options....

...To tolerate behavior is to move it, legally, from being prohibited to being permitted, which we did in deciding not to prosecute homosexual behavior as criminal.  However, we can tolerate or permit that behavior without also endorsing it — that is, promoting and encouraging that behavior, which we have historically done only when the behavior serves a significant public purpose....

...Both no-fault divorce and same-gender marriage allow personal adult rights to trump the best interests of society and children.  The radical personal freedom theory on which the Massachusetts same-gender marriage case is based is actually the logical extension of the same individualistic legal concept that created no-fault divorce. Think about it. When the law upholds an individual’s right to END a marriage, regardless of social consequences (as happened with no-fault divorce), that same legal principle can be used to justify the individual’s right to START a marriage, regardless of social consequences (as happens with same-gender marriage)....

ON THE DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFEAND CIVIC RESPONSIBILITYThe Most Reverend Raymond L. BurkeBishop of LaCrosse


Apologia for Evil: Also an award-winning motion pictureRod Dreher

...That's the philosophical heart of this film: Individual happiness is the highest good in anyone's life, and brave are those who have the courage to put personal fulfillment above any other entanglement. The Hours is a fairytale for contemporary narcissists. No wonder Hollywood loves it so....

...It's superficial to think that happiness comes easy; some people have everything, and yet are still estranged from themselves. It's even more superficial, though, to think the point of life is to find personal happiness. Most people outgrow that egotistical worldview after their teenage years, and come to understand that the task is to live a meaningful life, if not a happy one. A meaningful life is to be found in love, in living nobly and selflessly in the service of something or someone greater than oneself: God, family, friends, country, humanity, or some combination thereof. The secret to happiness is paradoxical: You find it most truly and deeply through loving others more than you love yourself. Only a father can know how joyful it feels to cradle his crying newborn at three in the morning. Only a saint or a hero knows the joy of dying so that others might live....

..."Hell is other people," said Sartre, because they keep us from becoming our true selves. So too says The Hours, because we fail if we become entangled by commitments that prevent us from fulfilling our desires. Selfishness is a virtue. It's no surprise that this heartless movie is a favorite of the American cultural elite, but for everybody else, The Hours isn't worth five minutes of one's time.


Jewish World Review Jan. 17, 2003 / 14 Shevats, 5763
Julia Gorin

"The Hours": I am woman. Hear me bore.

Here I've spent the past five years thinking I was happily married. Thank god my friend convinced me to see the critically-acclaimed, Paramount-Miramax release "The Hours," nominated for seven Golden Globes and starring Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore. Because it lifted the veil from my eyes to reveal that I'm actually a lesbian who must leave her husband and children immediately, before their love drives me to overdose on pills or drown myself in a river.

Based on author Michael Cunningham's Pulitzer prize-winning 1998 novel, "The Hours" moves back and forth among three different time periods and three different women. Its message is that anything, anything is better than living a societally-imposed heterosexual life, in a house, in the suburbs--even if it means living alone as a librarian the way Moore's Laura Brown, who is very pregnant with her second child, chooses to do after rethinking an overdose for herself and the baby, opting instead to abandon the family after giving birth.

Or else it is not life that one is living, but a lie. For the dream of idyllic suburban family life can belong only to man, jailer of unsuspecting woman. At least Moore gets to kiss her seemingly perfect but actually sterile and momentarily willing next-door neighbor Kitty on the mouth.

Like Mrs. Brown's pathetic husband, Virginia Woolf's (Nicole Kidman) pathetic husband has sequestered her to the peace of the countryside after London life exacerbated her madness. But, as Woolf convinces her husband, the "death" of living in the suburbs is more maddening than the jolt of city life that she so craves, for it is only in the latter setting that one can thrive. Before returning to the city, Kidman gets to kiss Miranda Richardson, who plays her sister, passionately on the mouth.

...

Janney plays the long-time companion of Clarissa Vaughan (Meryl Streep), who seems to be living the most honestly of the three heroines: in a 10-year relationship with her lesbian partner and, for a shorter time, with a sperm that, together with single then double motherhood, has produced the perfect child, played by Claire Danes--whom we can infer from manner and dress to be a budding lesbian herself. Danes portrays a remarkably well-adjusted daughter who goes to college, helps her mother, is kind to strangers and has no curiosity about the sperm that spawned her.

The once wrongly married Laura Brown envies the rightly never-married Clarissa Vaughan, because she conceived a child she actually wanted. Little does Mrs. Brown know that Vaughan has been pining away for that which every woman, lesbian or not, secretly desires--a gay man. In this case, the gay man is Mrs. Brown's estranged son, played by Ed Harris, who is dying of AIDS and tosses himself from the window. (His circumstances are all the more tragic, since his lifestyle was picture perfect: gay and living in the city.) As Kidman's closing narration tells us to look life in the face, Streep gets over her pining for the dead gay man she can't have, and grabs Janney's face, kissing it passionately on the mouth.

Yes, look life in the face, advises "The Hours," whether that means doing so as a lesbian, as a loner or as a suicide (and nothing in between). Yet the film, an elaborate setup to get us from one Saphic kiss to the next, is so transparent in its perverse propagandizing that it can't be accused of being insidious. Indeed, given the current literary and cinematic climate, it could easily be mistaken for parody.


One's hope for Mr. Cunningham's next literary triumph, as for director Stephen Daldry's and screenwriter David Hare's cinematic one, is that it might find even greater social resonance, perhaps by exploring more courageous themes such as pedophilia, necrophilia, incestuous pedophilia, and incestuous necrophilia.  

Missing LinkBy STANLEY KURTZJanuary 14, 2003 1:45 PMMarriage and cloning.


Souls, Symbols, and SacramentsJEFFREY R. HOLLANDPresident of Brigham Young UniversityJan. 12, 1988 • Devotional

PASTORING THE FAR SIDE:MAKING A PLACE FOR BELIEVINGHOMOSEXUALSA conversation with Stan Roberts.

The Genesis of Gender, or Why Mother in Heaven Can't Save You, Carrie A. Miles, Sunstone July 1997

Elder Russell M. Nelson: The Family: The Hope for the Future of Nations
By Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve 12 AUG 2009

Following is the complete text of a talk given by Elder Russell M. Nelson at the World Congress of Families V in Amsterdam, Netherlands, on Aug. 12, 2009.

...Marriage is not simply a contract between individuals; it affects all of society. For that reason, governments have long recognized the family as the fundamental unit of society and have endorsed and encouraged traditional marriage through legal recognitions, protections and benefits....

...Furthermore, those who seek to undermine traditional marriage and family would effectively limit the rights of those who do uphold the sanctity of these institutions. This consequence leads to another major concern— the eventual erosion of religious liberty, including the liberty to defend, promote, and practice traditional family values.7 Religious liberty is essential if we are to raise up righteous children. Morally responsible families will not marginalize religious liberty, they will nurture and protect it....

Interesting Article on Language Origin

First Tongue: An Ancient Global LanguageIntroducion by Gary Vey

Viewzone 2002

Omni Short Story Jan 1986 Tangents by Greg Bear

Tangents by Greg Bear

Omni Short Story from 1984 Adagio by Barry Longyear

Barry Longyear Adagio

Cannonball 2007

Super fun read.


CHARLES GRAEBER GEAR THE PEDAL-TO-THE-METAL, TOTALLY ILLEGAL, CROSS-COUNTRY SPRINT FOR GLORY

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Stars as a Representation of Leadership Structure (And Wandering Stars)

What did Abraham Learn about Leadership from the Stars?