War in response to (http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-do-we-keep-celebrating-disobedience.html)

I've never been a fan of your blogs on war.I think that you've demonstrated your position and interpretation of the scriptures on the matter. You've done so eloquently. I take a slightly different view on the matter however.

There is no black and white on this issue. War is a byproduct of our existence. There was a war in heaven, which means, war has existed before we existed in a mortal state and it will continue to exist after our mortal state ends, it will exist in heaven and it will exist on Earth. It will continue to exist as long as there are those who would enslave others. What was the core of Satan's plan? That man would be enslaved and choice would not be present. What was the core of God's plan? That we would be free to choose. These 2 concepts are in direct conflict. And this is the core of the reason why any war is fought. Either slavers fighting over slaves or slaves fighting for their freedom. 

Whether the conflict is with physical violence or not is irrelevant. The war of thought is as destructive and results in more loss of life then we can possible imagine. 

Example: Indoctrinate generations to believe that abortion isn't murder and what have we done? We've allowed the murder of 332,278 in 2009, 333,964 in 2010 and the number keeps going up. In fact, Obama was BRAGGING about it during a speech at a planned parenthood convention. 

Arguing that the physical locations of the wars make them unjust is a limited and literal interpretation of the scriptures. Which can and should be expanded upon and applied to the war of thought. Again, this is not a black and white issue, this is not something, that we in our limited understanding of both the motivations, commands and purpose behind which these wars were perpetrated could we possible claim to know God's will on the matter, nor the will, purpose and motivations of those who authorized the wars themselves. Do I agree with the wars? I would not answer yes or no to that. I don't have enough information to pass judgement. I would argue that NO ONE except God himself has sufficient knowledge to pass judgment on the justness of the wars that the US has been involved in the last 50 years. This, is why I am not a fan of this topic, to me, its generalized judgement of a highly complicated issue. It would require in depth understanding of not only all the wars themselves,but all the people involved on both sides. 

I however, I do believe, that not fighting for the freedom of others when you yourself would fight for your own freedom is hypocritical and wicked. I also think not fighting for and defending your own freedom is a great wickedness. I think that there is good advice concerning when and how, but these things are logical supportable, not miraculously supported by God under specific conditions. Of course its better to defend then attack in almost every case. Of course its better to be agreeable, quiet and docile when you are surrounded by the enemy. Choosing to roll over and just die at another Man's hands because you abhor violence and pretending you are being Christ like is nonsense. You are being selfish, you refuse to lift a finger because you've taken a myopic view of violence instead of a discerning one.

Finally, if a man sues you for you coat give him your cloak? why does that mean that if a wicked man comes to me demanding my coat I should give him more then he demands? Instead...If I am free and another man is not how can I give him anything but freedom as well and not fulfill that request by Christ? What greater charity can I give a man but his freedom? What more God like and Christ like action can I do? Christ's resurrection and his sacrifice, how were those not Christ giving us our freedom? Freedom from death, freedom from sin? What then, more can we give all the children of God on this earth but freedom?

LDSPER responds:

you're making several assumptions here--

you don't believe it is right to judge the wars America has been involved in for 50 years, in which untold numbers of 'innocents' have died (including babies and the unborn), but you do believe abortion is wrong.

Hmmm.

I don't see a difference. I believe abortion is very wrong and very horrific, and I don't think it should be allowed, but I realize, too, that the laws have made it allowable--and I can't change that--

it's a daily battle for some of us to try to save unborn lives, without using laws to do it--

but not judge America's wars? Why not? You must believe that America is fighting for the freedom of people in other lands--

and if you believe that, you are haven't yet learned the truth.

Just as I can't convince others who think that a woman has a 'right to choose' that the unborn life inside her is not her possession--

I can't convince someone who believes the American military and American leaders have been giving freedom to people in the middle east--

that there has been no fighting for freedom, not for 50 years, not for 100--

But you aren't ready to see that--

and I know quite a few people who are not ready to see the wrongness, the violence in the act of abortion--

nothing I can do to change their minds either--

No abortion; no war. Defending oneself; well, I think that is a personal choice--

I respond:

I didn't say you couldn't judge America's wars, I said I don't have enough information to correctly judge whether its just or not in the eyes of God and frankly, neither do you, really the only person who does is God. Does that mean you can't express your opinion on the matter. Of course not, you are welcome to. But to pretend you are correct, and have correctly assessed the situation in the middle east is a tad arrogant of you. Which is further supported by your condescending use of phrases like " and if you believe that you haven't yet learned the truth", suggesting you have a complete truth, which you don't and "But you aren't ready to see that", again suggesting that your opinion is the correct one, and my lack of intelligence/understanding/willingness/wisdom/experience are preventing me from agreeing with you.

I went on to state, that in my opinion fighting for freedom is a righteous choice and abstaining from such a fight or allowing the slavery of others is a wicked one. You assumed that this meant I supported all of America's wars as fights for freedom. Which was an incorrect assumption. 

And of course it is a personal choice, in fact everything is. But calling something a personal choice doesn't mean it isn't right or wrong. As I said, all decisions require discernment. I can't say its ALWAYS wrong to not defend yourself, because I can enumerate many scenarios in which choosing to not defend yourself is the correct choice. Similarly I can enumerate many scenarios in which defending yourself is the correct choice. It seems to me however, and again this is why I don't like this topic, that rather then taking a discerning approach to each conflict understanding the historical evidences, the historical triggers, the people involved their reasons, their justifications etc etc, passing judgement on the justice of the war as if you opinion is the truth is wrong. And suggesting that God sees the wars as unjust because you do is also wrong.

LDSPER responds:
@TeeKong, you are assuming a lot about what I am saying.

Yes, you are right; as you read it, I do sound arrogant. But, you see, I don't believe I know all the truth either.

I just know what feels very wrong. I am surrounded by ward and family members (not my husband or children and a few other relatives) who believe that Muslims are bad, Islam is dangerous and who have supported Bush and Obama in the wars in the middle east--

and I HAVE spent a lot of time researching; I have found a few things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYnDw1ReVhw

If you honestly believe there is not enough information to make even a slight judgement on the horror of this, then--

I find your inconsistency appalling. You believe in defending; are you ready to defend these babies and their mothers from white phosphorus, depleted uranium (other chemicals) and overly zealous American military planners, etc.--

Wherever you live, if this were happening in your hometown, a lot, what would you think? That you had no right to judge?

You are correct; as you read my words, I sounded as though I was 'righter' than you--

and I apologize for that. I don't know everything at all--

but I am deeply concerned about all the things being kept from me--

by the American military/government/MSM

I am the parent of a child who suffered shocking things in a 'foreign' orphanage--

I've seen things that, perhaps, you have not. But maybe not. If you've held a child (and loved a child and fed a child and been responsible for a child) whose early years were influenced by things that don't make sense (and that most Americans blame on anyone but American 'planners')--

then perhaps you would understand why I sound as though I know things you do not know. I apologize for that, if you have been to such places and done such things--

but I do know a few things--

even if I don't know it all--

and I do feel that I need to sound a warning--

Mormon did, when he related what the Nephites did to the Lamanite women--

perhaps you feel he was being too judgemental--

Well, that is your right--

If you must be offended by what seems to be my 'high' tone--

then there isn't much I can do. I won't stop sounding the alarm.

and I say, if you have the courage to watch that youtube (and others like it)--

and can still say that I say you are naive, if you believe the government's spiel on how *we* are helping people become free--

that you don't know the truth--

if you can't make that connection, then I am not sure what you are connecting.

You sound very wary of criticizing your 'own' government/culture--

except, of course, for abortion--

the wars might be right after all, in spite of those children, the chemicals, etc.--

People are more free over there--

yes, of course; keep saying that--

we know that's true; our leaders have told us that--

*sarcasm alert*

If you are 'protecting' someone who has gone over there and come home and told you all the 'good' things the American military has done--

then you are no less biased than I!

And you might need to be aware than plenty (even a few LDS, though they are rare) of veterans despise what has been done over there--

and are spending their energy trying to get the truth out.

People who have been there. Done things. Seen things--

felt things--

and do know a few things--

good heavens, I ranted and didn't make sense.

Sorry--

I can't edit--

I say your belief in what the 'government' says is naive; perhaps that is unChristlike of me--and, if so (I am not sure) I apologize--

and it is wrong of me to say that you don't know the truth--

though I am not sure what you are saying, quite--

you never come out and say it--

you keep saying how cautious *we* should be; how we can't judge, etc.--

Why not?

I do not pretend to know everything, and if I have implied that, I am sorry--

but I do know how I feel in my heart; I do know what I have prayed to know; I do know what I have been studying--

I hate it, all of it--

I come from a family of people who have had their share of war--

so I am not completely unqualified, but I find your caution in not calling a spade a spade a bit . . .

odd.

But then what I see as a spade, you may see as something else--

so there we are; can't agree--

if we don't, it's not rare. I have 'friends' (LDS) who rant about what a threat Muslims are--

so I've been outnumbered a bit myself--

but cautious as to calling evil what I see as evil, no I won't be.

And I am content to have God be my Judge.

I respond:
It's clearly an emotional issue for you. 

However, let me clarify some things you got wrong.

I never suggested anyone else be cautious in their judgment, or if it was interpreted that way, then my poor writing skills are to blame. I did say that only God has enough information to judge whether the war was just or unjust and that the article and subsequent comments were judgmental generalization of a highly complicated issue. 
So, as I originally stated, and provided the abortion example in order to help clarify. Rock’s position is an opinion based on assumptions around what makes for a just war (some of those assumption backed by his interpretation of scripture). I was demonstrating that the application of war could be expanded to include the war of thought that began in heaven and is ongoing here on earth. Thus, when he argues that the physical location and the offensive nature of the wars of the last 50 years are proof/truth/fact that the wars are unjust, I counter argued that the physical location is irrelevant and there are many more factors that account for the justness of a war that are not being addressed in his arguments. 

Similarly, you asses because war causes horrible suffering it is proof/truth/fact that the war is unjust. Just wars cause as much horrible suffering as unjust wars do.

I summed it all up by stating that in my opinion for a war to be just, it must be fought for freedom. That extends to fighting for others freedom as well. Now, you interrupted that to mean that I support the government/military and believe it when it tells me the wars we fight are just because we are fighting for freedom, which wasn’t ever anything I said, just a projection of the person you assume I am based on how I’ve taken a perceived different view on an issue that is so apparently emotional for you, I then took offense(in your words “If you must be offended by what seems to be my 'high' tone—“) because you began projecting your personal understanding, belief and opinion as proof/fact/truth . In fact, I never took offense. I pointed it out so you would stop doing it because it wasn’t constructive to the discussion (though based on your subsequent rant even pointing it out failed to prevent it, though it did at least prompt an apology once your rage wore off).
I do not feel Rock was being too judgmental, nor do I think you are. I think you’ve based your opinions on personal experience/knowledge/understanding etc etc. That is good. I’m fine with that, what I don’t like about these types of discussions is that there is a projection of opinion as fact/truth/proof. Rarely do I feel that Rock projects opinion as fact. I think in most of his articles he does a good job of presenting ideas and information separately. Here is information x and this is how I interpret information x. In this case however, he has failed to accomplish that. He has spoken as if he were God. He has projected his personal opinion that War is evil/bad/of satan as if that is what God has said. He does so by discounting another’s interpretation of the scriptures as wrong, and his own interpretation as correct. The scriptures contradict themselves all over the place, so arguing your interpretation is right and another’s is wrong is all opinion, even if the scriptures didn’t contradict themselves arguing interpretations is arguing opinion. Which is why I started my comment with “Arguing that the physical locations of the wars make them unjust is a limited and literal interpretation of the scriptures”, because I recognized that it was Rock’s interpretation and I wanted to demonstrate that I didn’t think his interpretation was wrong, just that he could expand the lesson to fit more than just the physical location. 
There is nothing wrong with arguing opinion. We do it every day and we should do it every day, it helps us learn new information, exposes us to new ways of thinking, it helps enlighten us. What prompted my comment in the first place, and what I have repeated multiple times since, is that I do not like these discussions because it is common during discussions like this, for people to present opinions as facts/proof/truth. And in my opinion that is what Rock has done with his article and there are a number of commenters who have done the same.

Religions of Mankind

There are many "religions" and I am beginning to believe they are all wrong. They are not wrong in the sense that they are bad. They are wrong in the sense they do not communicate truth. I'm still young, so I expect my ideas will change. I expect that what I know now, will be eclipsed by what I learn tomorrow. I would hope, that all of us could approach life with such an attitude.

However, at this moment in time I'm trying to distill what little knoweledge I do have into a context that I may at some future date read again and recognize an improvement in my understanding. I think that only by taking stock of my knowledge and keeping a record of that knowledge may I gauge any personal progress that I may make in the pursuit of truth.

I would like to first clarify which definition of religion I'm using: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Taken in this context, religion is an umbrella that covers quite a bit more then what is conventionally called "religion". By this definition, the republican party, the democratic party, a job, or any organization that you participate in could be referred to as a religion if it defines a fundamental set of beliefs and practices that you generally agree upon and attempt to follow along with others of like mind. Now, one might say its a stretch to call a job a religion and perhaps, if you are part of a small organization , I would agree with you. But large corporations have a need to implement a form a religion within their organization because they cannot possible guarantee control over their employees without it. Which is a perfect segue into what the purpose of all religion really is: control.

Control is not bad, it simple exists. Desiring full control of any situation is not bad, in fact it makes perfect sense. Who would not want to fully control their destiny? But if you fully control your destiny, how can I fully control mine? I cannot because inevitable those things which I desire to control will conflict with the things which you desire to control. Thus, the best way for me to control another, in order to reduce my own lack of control of the situations around me, is to convince others to desire the same thing that I do so that our destinies no longer conflict. This is the central theme of all organizations, especially religious ones.

This idea of conflict in control does not mean one is forced, but just that naturally, as men we all seek to control all we can (much of which is an illusion), which more often then not includes other people.

I would like to specify that all forms of control depend on our personally derived understanding of existence and those experiences which have lead us to live under the umbrellas of control that we have accepted in our lives. I say this because control is a compromise, we knowingly or unknowingly compromise our personal control to others everyday. Happiness is found when the number of known and chosen compromises greatly outweigh those that we know about, but didn't necessarily knowingly agree to. Which ultimately leads us to the fundamental conflicting idea that exists for mankind. This fundamental idea, I am beginning to believe, is the only absolute truth of our existence. Free agency. Ultimately all external control is an illusion, for we can all make any choice we wish (within the set of choices we have available at that time). We cannot for example choose to become a professional basketball player when that choice is not actually available to us. But I can choose to not pay my taxes and thereby suffer the consequences. Consequences that they government imposes because they can, in an attempt to control me and encourage the choice of paying my taxes. Yet, the only reason they can enforce those consequences is because they have imposed other forms of control on other individuals that allow them to manipulate the choices of those individuals to the extent to enforcing consequences on others. This principle can be distilled into one simple concept of control. My gun is bigger then yours. In any struggle between 2 parties the struggle is ultimately about control and if you can be more forces of control to bear on the other party you will most likely win. When we knowingly compromise our control , we are much more amicable to the controlling power and thus happier.

Duty and Guilt. You believe that it is your duty to do something, thereby empowering the weapon of guilt. What really is duty? A belief of responsibility. Guilt is a belief that you have failed in that responsibility or that you will fail if you don't do something to succeed. Guilt can be an extremely powerful form of control. It is also easily defeated if you can recognize what duty is being guilted and remove your personal feeling of duty toward that task. Duty and guilt aren't bad, they simple are. Having a sense of duty and allowing guilt to encourage you to behave in accordance with your sense of duty can be highly satisfying. It is however, a form of control and if you didn't knowingly enter into the comprise that created the sense of duty, it is likely that you will chaff greatly under the weapon of guilt and quickly disconnect yourself from that sense of duty.

Loyalty and Trust. Loyalty is A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection. There is rarely loyalty without trust and used together it is easy to gain a controlling hand in the lives of others. I think this type of control is the easiest to understand because it can be describe with a common phrase used among friends. "Trust me". Appealing to the loyalty that you feel towards a friend and the trust that is associated with the existence of said loyalty. Even in a situation where trust is weak, loyalty often creates a misplaced trust. Take a sense of family loyalty. Believing  that loyalty to a family member is the correct or right thing, despite indicators , that your family will ultimately let you down. Loyalty and Trust could be equated to Faith.

Misinformation. We all suffer from this form of control, for no one knows everything. When we do something , anything based on the information we have been provided, we have effectively compromised our control. Our control becomes dependent on the veracity of the provided information, thus effective propaganda and misinformation is an excellent tool for control. Again, this is not bad, it simple is. Misinformation can be paralyzing, because it can lead to a mind that refuses to accept any decision they make could be "right" since the access to information can never be 100% accurate. The control in misinformation is extremely powerful because it appeals to two sides of human nature that are common among men. Pride and Sloth. Once we've accepted something as true, we have a tendency not to want to accept anything else because we want to believe we made the right decision concerning the idea in the first place and finding the truth for oneself always requires more effort then accepting a "truth" provided you. Combating misinformation is a constant battle. It requires a willingness to accept that you or those experts you trust are wrong. It requires a willingness to explore many avenues of information. It, is truly a never ending battle and one we are constantly losing. I believe that misinformation is the most potent and common form of control. It can be as benign as embellishing a story to lead others to believe you are more then you really are or as obvious as outright lying. Often times all other forms of control are even only possible because of misinformation. A misinformed sense of duty empowers guilt when there should be none. A misinformed sense of loyalty prompts trust when there should be none. Misinformed faith prompts hope and action when there should be none. I think in its purest form, all control relies on access to information. Whether that information is true or false is irrelevant, but to be happy access to true information is essential.

Three

Sometimes while reading media I get these urges to express my opinion, I suppose this doesn't solely occur while reading media. It can occur at any time, but it doesn't seem to have a particular trigger. Sometimes I just get attracted to the issue and then start looking into it with more depth so I can make an educated decision. Over time I've become more skeptical since most of the time, regardless of the original stance presented I find that it lacks a completely objective presentation of information. Because of the lack of objective information I tend to begin to strongly disagree with the presenter because I feel like they are trying to hoodwink me into agreeing with them. Generally speaking, people don't like it when you don't agree with them and rather the resorting to factual evidences they resort to non-factual, fallacy ridden emotional arguments.

I try to do as thorough research as possible but so often people become so defensive its impossible to have a discussion with them and be honest with your opinions and the research you have done without them taking it personally. The only time I've felt that I have been able to fully express my opinion without the other party become completely unreasonable due to emotion is with my Father.

In these case this thought process was triggered by a facebook post by Ashely (Jeremy's girlfriend).
When you clicked on the link it took you to an email petition. Which contained no scientific information, studies , links about why bpa was bad and the adverse effects it has on you. So , I had to do some research. My first response comment was as follows.

considering that the fda is being forced to rule(or rather agreed to), due to a lawsuit by the NRDC, a organization whose stance on climate change is still lock step with Al Gore (despite evidences that the scientist involved with the climate change research doctored their data) and they believe wind and solar energy are viable alternative solutions to coal, oil and gas... I'm not sure I believe bpa is anything I need to worry about.

Actually, I'd be more worried about how creating more regulation on food packing companies simple increases the cost of food.

In fact based on the NRDC website, I'd say anything they want I'm mostly likely highly against.... so I say let it stay.

Which received these responses.

When u work in a genetics/DNA/oncology lab and in your break room it tells u not to microwave plastics containing BPA because it can leach out of the plastic and slightly damage your DNA in a fashion that makes you much more prone to cancer, you tend to acknowledge it's an issue.

Jeremy says something about a "straw man"

Which I respond to with this:

it isn't a straw man, I was pointing out that for me I don't put much stock in the organization that forced the fdas hand (not that I really like the fda either), because of how they stand on OTHER SCIENTIFIC issues. Which leads me to believe that they may not actually be founded in science, and this was after I did some research on my own into bpa, which wasn't highly convincing either. If it was a straw man, I would have said, because they teach global warming and wind and solar energy could replace coal, oil and gas they must also be 100% wrong about BPA. No, I said, I wasn't sure I believe them because they have tainted my view of themselves because of the science they do support, and despite what some of us what to believe, science can be just as much about faith as religion is, unfortunatley.

I wasn't trying to convince you. You said it was bad for us, I said I'm not sure I agree with you so I won't go running off to sign an FDA "shut this down now" letter. Now perhaps if you had provided the research studies (or the the link you provided linked to the research studies), I would have been more convinced of your position, though I likely would still have done my own research, as that is how I am. Instead the research I did showed a number of studies that "link" it to cancer, and possible neurological developmental issues, but that is pretty much true of everything thing these days, so that isn't very convincing. Especially since bpa has been in our food packaging since the 60's.

Then some quick checking into cancer case growth and population growth, from 2008 to 2009 our us population increased by 1.0065 % and the # of cancer cases increased by 1.00407%, suggesting that the number of new cancer cases from 2008 to 2009 when treated in terms of the portion of the population who get cancer, shrunk. What would be really interesting would be to see the number of cancer cases from the early 40 til now as a percent of the population (since obviously we have to account for population growth).

Or better still, statistics from the early 1800s till now. Which is data , that as far as I know we don't even have.

In the end, though, we've been doing it for 60 years and the number of packaged goods produced has only increased , so if the link was substantially dangerous we should see a more significant increase in the cancer cases. Obviously I only took a few data points, but anecdotal evidence (I believe its calld the "person who" fallacy, which you could turn into actual scientific evidence maybe, if you did a survey of every genetics lab in the US to see if they had similiar warning signs posted. Though I think providing the actual scientific case studies would be easier and ultimatley more convincing) and calling my argument a straw man... aren't really convincing either.

You'll have to excuse me if I'm skeptical... I usually am, especially when they government is involved... and more so when it someone(or more specifically, and organization) claiming to "care" about public health and well-being.

I didn't expect that to be the end of it though. Since Ashley had clearly already signed the petition there would be no hope of a resolution that left her in the wrong (not that she necessarily is, she simply couldn't let others perceive that she had perhaps acquiesced the issue). So I was expecting a response, and not a kindly one. And it follows:

If you are calling "searching the internet" research then you already have a problem. One cannot get at the true bottom of the issue without combing through PubMed and reading several published studies from across the globe and crunching numbers (and even then it's still second-hand knowledge). Have I done that-nope. But with all the possible carcinigens out there it's not a difficult decision for me to back up the removal of one. Just allow the post to be what it was meant to be-not a commentary but a release for those who do think that BPA is bad over time and would like to try and make a small difference by signing the petition.

Certainly not very tactful. First she attacks me (ad hominem). Claiming that searching the internet and calling it research means I have a problem. Though I'm not sure what else you would call it, intellectuals like to bash the internet because its free information that isn't vetted by "experts" so in there minds it can't be legitimate because they can't control it. She then claims that only information that IS vetted by the intellectual medical society is valid but admits to not having done any "research" into those sources either, and as far as I can tell, also did not do my limited internet searching. Then falls back on justification for her decision (as if she needed justify it to me in the first place) and justification being based on a ignorant misinformed initial assumption that it is a dangerous carcinogen in the first place (whether it is or isn't is irrelevant, she simple accepts the same sources as fact that I call questionable ).

I thought about responding, but decided no good would come of it, since she asked me to leave it alone. So I turned to posting my thoughts here so I could express them without causing further rifts in my personal relationships, though why this would cause a rift is silly. I only hope that Jeremy doesn't become "more" liberally minded, but rather she becomes more conservative minded the longer they are together. Unfortunately due to Jeremy's nature, I find it more likely that he will assume her positions rather then she assuming his.

Finally, I would like to include here, what I would have said if I didn't think keeping my mouth shut was a good idea.

First, there are 2 definitions to the word "research". Definition 1:Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. By this definition what I did isn't research, and neither would be reading articles from PubMed. I would expect by this definition the only thing that qualifies as research is applying the scientific method to a hypothesis or the process of coming up with a hypothesis to which you should apply the scientific method. Definition 2:Close, careful study. By this definition "Spending time searching the internet" is research. Reading the articles from PubMed would get me closer to the results of research as defined by definition 1, which would allow me to analyze the data for myself as opposed to the opinions of other analysts, which I could do, but based on the fact that the spearhead organization for forcing the FDAs hand on the issue doesn't seem to really understand good science, I figured it would be a waste of my time to spend any more time "closely studying the issue" and applying the scientific method to the issue myself is simple not feasible. Its actualy rather silly of you to call me out as not doing real research when you admit to not having done any yourself, yet still standing on the ground that you are right to seize the opportunity to encourage the regulation of its use based on the same "not real research" summaries that I found so un-convincing. You clearly linked the petition so that people would sign it, but you didn't link any science to back it up, and then you complain when I don't believe you? Then, while doing my own self-education on the issue, I decide that it isn't something we should be concerned about , and I share that with you as an opinion based on my limited deduction and reasoning skills and the information that I do have available and your rebuttal is that I have a problem because I called it "research"? Despite the fact that by definition it was. You simply could have said that you think the research summaries are compelling and that you do have faith in the science (which clearly you do), and that those who agree should sign the petition and those who don't should not, and that you'd rather not have a discussion about those who disagree.

Two

This morning in the shower I was thinking about forgiveness. I'm baffled by recent current events. A young women went before congress and made a case for the government paying for her contraceptives so that she can enjoy sex when she feels like it. Our president may have forged his birth certificate, yet if discovered to be a true forgery I'm sure he will suffer no real consequences. With this in mind, I thought about the concept of hell, and in my mind those deserving of a reception in hell or those who knowingly and willfully seek to limit the agency of another for their own personal gain. In the case of this young women, she seeks to take away the wealth of others to provide for herself a contraceptive whether they wish to provide her with the funds or not.

I think most of the advice given in scripture can be distilled into this idea. Dishonesty, the willful deceit of another to alter their will based on the information they have to make their decision from. Murder, the taking of another's life ends their capacity to have a will. Theft deprives the original owner of the use of that good for which they bought it for preventing them from acting in that capacity when they see fit. Adultery, you are either allowing someone to break a contract they made with another or breaking your own, which is a form of lieing. Thou shall not covet, coveting limits your vision of possibility. It also leads to decision making that may not weigh fully all the available facts. Idol worship. Putting anything on a pedestal may influence you to make decisions you otherwise wouldn't have.

The question then becomes , how is that one can claim that we should be free to act as we see fit, but then limit those actions based on some arbitrary set of what rules and who defines those rules? There are cases where killing someone is the right choice, there are cases where theft is the right choice, so, how is it then that we are to know what is right and wrong when right and wrong are so dependent on the situations in which we find ourselves.

And how does any of this relate to forgiveness, which was the thought that sparked this line of thinking. Forgiveness is not for the sinner, but for he who was sinned against. Forgiveness allows the one who was sinned against to move on and not dwell on the sin or wrong done them. This allows them to avoid being mired in the psychologically damaging state that prevents them from acting as a free agent. However, were there a time, when the sinner came to the sinned against with intent to restore as best they could the damage done, the sinned against having already forgiven will simple have more restored unto them. Which then takes us to what must be a great lie perpetrated by all the christian churches of today. The idea of Christ forgiving all of us and thus allowing us to bypass justice. How is bypassing justice ever good? Lets assume I've done something wrong, lets use an example that allows for a consequence that I cannot avoid. Lets say, I steal a car. Eventually the police catch me and I'm thrown in jail, where I spend 5 years. From this experience I learn that stealing is wrong, or at least unacceptable in the society I live in. I vow to not do it again and I don't. Haven't I then, suffered justice and paid the price? How then am I going to be punished more by God at my day of judgement. He already knows I learned my lesson, since I didn't steal another car my whole life, even if I had a desire to I repressed it knowing that it was a bad decision. Lets say however, I didn't learn, and I continue to steal cars and I continue to go to jail and when I do eventually die, the only reason I didn't steal more cars was because I was too old. Now at judgement I say, sorry God and Jesus and Jesus says, "no problem, I know you didn't learn your lesson even though you went to jail 15 times in life for committing the mistake over and over, but since you said your sorry , I'm going to put a good word in and get you through the gate".

My point is, there has to be a bad punishment/consequence associated with our actions if we are going to learn it is wrong, there by achieving "forgiveness" and further perfecting ourselves. Your perfection cannot be given to you. Thus, its very possible that they only purpose for the concept of repentance, is that through it, you avoid the anticipation of the punishment. Its like telling a child that a shot isn't going to hurt, when it is, but you say it to keep them calm enough to get it over with since you know it really isn't going to hurt for very long.

One

My wife at one point informed me that there was a service that could take a blog and convert it into a book. She told me that one of her friends used this to create a family journal and at the end of each year had a book created. I liked this idea and agreed that we should make a better attempt to catalogue the events of our family in a blog so that we could have the same record.

Consequently I've also found myself deeply engrossed in a number of blogs that I enjoy reading. I've taken as well to commenting on occasion, but I find that I'm not always interested in commenting publicly as its not always my interest to actual discuss my ideas (many times it is of course). So I considered just adding my thoughts to my family blog and having those compiled in our family history, however, I felt that might distract from the purpose of the family blog.

So, I've decided to start this one. Its purpose is to catalogue my own thoughts and feelings. My experiences of a more spiritual nature, who knows how long my interest in this will be maintained. It may be that I become extremely sporadic. I'm not the most consistent of individuals when it comes to this type of thing , so I make no promises. Nor do I suggest that what I write will be valuable to anyone but myself. I even have mixed feelings about making this blog known to a larger populace, a public populace. There are parts of me that enjoy the praise of my fellow remnant. But at the same time, that praise my have an influence that is contrary to the self-honesty which I hope that this catalogue promotes. I also plan on copying the content of any references I make so that when I do convert this to a book at the end of the year I can include an appendix that contains the content of the links.

Anyways, on to the purpose of this first entry. I had recently read chapter 6 of J.J. Dewey's Infallible Authority and decided that I did in fact have something to say about it that I desired for others to read. So I wrote this:

acknowledging that among a group of people there are going to be people who are less righteous and people who are more righteous is not the same as judging individuals as if you were God himself.

Ultimately it comes down to spiritual progression. If person A through life's experience, study and personal revelation has come to a deep understanding, connection and spiritual attachment to the Sacrament and its importance to his covenants and Person B has not, then in a situation where A is attempting to commune with the spirit, B can certainly interfere. Hence B is called by Dewey the "weakest link". The idea that we can't be discerning intelligent individuals when faced with the faults and weaknesses of others and not be classified as judgmental is one of the reasons why we have ended up in this situation in the first place. I'm sure even making that statement is going to convince people that I'm an arrogant , self-righteous bastard who simple judges people and casts them aside, which is rather ironic if you think about it.

While its often stated that our salvation and our relationship with Christ and God are personal, I feel this cannot be completely accurate. We have a responsibility to others, so while our progression is inherently personal, it is very dependent on those around us. I'm not suggesting that the statements made by other commenters are wrong, I'm simple expanding on their opinions with my own.

A response was made that I felt was a misunderstanding of my comment.

"We have a responsibility to others, so while our progression is inherently personal, it is very dependent on those around us."

I respectfully disagree. Example: someone I trust told me that I can not dye my hair purple if I want to because that would be distracting to others in the temple, and it is my responsibility to not be distracting so that they can learn what they need to learn while there. I believed him for a long time, but it really grated on me. I finally did what I should have done in the first place, and prayed about what he said. My answer was that what he believes is not true. I have no responsibility to others and their temple experience. If my hair is distracting to them, that is their own issue to work out. My friend did not hinder my progression by telling me this, but I did because I did not pray about it as soon as I had the chance; I took it at face value. Our progression is only hindered or moved forward by what we do with what we are told, not by what other people do with what they learn.

I responded.

Each of our actions do effect others and their actions DO effect me and while it is my responsibility and decision to act and react to what they do in a way of my own choosing, a recognition of that is essential if we are to make eternal progress. Even if, in its most simple form. Recognition that my worthiness is not subject to the judgement of others, which is exactly what God was telling you when you asked about your hair. Ultimately though you have proven my point. Had that man never accosted you with is asinine statement of total foolishness (imo), you never would have been "grated" and never would have turned to the Lord to find out for yourself. Hence the statement. Our progress is personal, but it is VERY dependent on those around us. I doubt very much that if we live in an austere world all by ourselves we would make much eternal progress.

I don't think it is possible to disconnect our personal journey of salvation from the nature of our social existence.

However, after completing this I wanted to say more.

This brought my mind a thinking about why I have such an issue with the way that the current LDS Church has become so stringent on the discussion of doctrine in a church setting. Specifically it brought to mind (again) the occurrence of my own censorship. I told the story in an email once already so for simplicity sake I'm simple going to copy that here.

A few years ago when we moved, here to Houston, in my "welcome to the ward" interview I told that Bishop that I would best be able to serve the ward in a teaching role. That its what I enjoyed, and I would likely simple refuse to take any other calling. 6 months later they called me to teach the 12-14 year old Sunday school.

I graciously accepted. So my first lesson went wonderfully, they called me to teach with little notice, actually it was just after sacrament, they said, hey guess what we need a teacher... today. So I didn't prepare anything, and they didn't provide me a manual. I decided, since I didn't have a manual, that I wouldn't ask for one and instead I would ask the class for a list of "questions, concerns, ideas, anything under the sun they wanted to discuss". I was blown away. The class come up with some amazing things, things that just got my mind whirring. The one I remember most distinctly was a young lady who asked the question: "They tell us to reach out to the underprivileged , the lost, the misguided. They tell us to reach out to them, to love them and to help them find the light of Christ, but at the same time they tell us that we need to "have the right friends". How am I supposed to reach out to these people , if I can't be their friends?".

I went home that Sunday determined to do the research that I know these kids wouldn't likely do to come up with some type of coherent thought around how best to address the issues they provided. The next week my lesson was stellar, the class was interactive. The discussion thrilling. However, after class the 2nd counselor in the Bishopric ask me if I had a moment. When went to the kitchen for a private discussion and he asked me how things were. I told him great. He asked how the manual looked for the year (like he didn't know, very much the same as last years :P). I told him I didn't have one. He said , oh so you are using the online version. I should have just lied and said yes. Instead, I did what my wife calls "pot stirring". I told him no, that I didn't intend to use the manual at all. That I would formulate my lessons from the scriptures, my own research , prayer and the spirit. I told him that how the church generally currently teaches is akin to brainwashing and that the manual is a crutch for the lazy and those who lack the confidence to research and teach using the spirit and the resources that God has provided to all men.

He told me that the manuals were inspired, they themselves were akin to scriptures and that it was the advice of the "Brethren" that they be used and that you limited use of outside resources.

I asked him if he was commanding me to use the manual. Specifically I told him, if you command me to use the manual I will. Otherwise I won't. He refused to command me.

However, instead he ran to the Bishop, made it sound like I was teaching apostasy (consequently his daughter was only a few months away from being in my class). That he thought me unfit to teach. I was released the next week. I was disgusted but ultimately indifferent. The Bishop came to my house to personally discuss the issue with me and let me know that he realized they had made a mistake. I was however, not reinstated. approximately 9 months later I was called again to teach 14-16 year olds. This time the handed me the manual. I used it and found class to be frustratingly boring, I still reached to outside resources, but this class was larger, 20ish students and thus much more difficult to have a decent discussion in, I expect you've had experience with teenagers after all :P.

Eventually I was released as well, though I lasted longer. When I was released I was "promoted" I guess. They called me to the Sunday school presidency, which of course doesn't really mean anything. Which was fine, church is beyond boring to me for the most part. So , I now had a do nothing calling and I embraced it! Eventually however the regular Sunday school teacher went on vacation so I taught Sunday school. My brother was going through a divorce at the time, specifically his wife had cheated on him. The lesson that I was up to teach was actually surprisingly relevant. Hosea. My brother was struggle with his angry with his soon to be ex-wife and the admonition of forgiveness. I tied Hosea in with D&C 98 advising that there are situation where not forgiving doesn't lead to damnation, while forgiving is always the higher path not forgiving doesn't necessarily lead to ones condemnation. During the course of the lesson we touched on a number of controversial issues. I had a head on head run in with the wife of the 1st counselor who argued that Hosea's wife had quit her whoring ways after marrying Hosea, though I personally disagreed that the scriptures provided no evidence in the matter, I told her for the purposes of the direction of the lesson, I was interested in exploring the condition under which she continued being a whore. She didn't like that. The 1st counselor in the stake presidency also happened to be present for my lesson.

I found the lesson to be extremely engaging and stimulating. I had several members tell me they enjoyed the lesson. I'm sure several didn't. 3 weeks later I was in the Bishops office being told contention was of the devil. That the counselor in the stake president had commented that my lesson was controversial. I'm sure the wife of the 1st counselor made comments as well. I haven't been asked to teach again since. That was what ultimately broke me. That's when I fully accepted that the "church" was no longer trying to actually teach the church, but was trying to control the masses of the church. I still attend some meetings, mostly so that my young children, 4 and 2 are exposed to primary, since even though I think the church brainwashes children... I actually agree with that approach to a degree while they are young. Its hard to determine though when to start sharing information with them more candidly.

This string of censorships wasn't brutal. It was done with love, yet it is censorship all the same. My way of teaching was "deemed" contentious and I was censored for it. Yet, this cannot be the way the Lord intended for us to learn , because without the differing opinions, the failures, the successes , the ideas of those around us, we ourselves can certainly never make progress in our personal journeys of salvation. It is only by personal experience or a sufficiently empathetic mind AND another's experience that we can truly progress. Generally speaking a sufficiently empathetic mind is only achieved when our personal experiences are similar to the experience of another. Though it may be that the outcome of the experience was different. The example that comes to mind is the case of losing a child or wife at birth. A man who has no wife or no children wouldn't be nearly as empathetic as one who did. Furthermore a man whose wife or child had a near death experience at birth would be even more empathetic. The closer our own experiences mirror the experiences of others the greater tendency we have to agree an empathize with their situation.

This becomes further compounded in the situation where not only do our experiences coincide but the lessons we learn from them also do. Returning to the example of child loss at birth. One man may become angry and curse God for his loss, another may become humbled and turn to God for comfort. Despite having experienced the same pain and the same situation, it would be difficult for an empathetic bond to exist between these two men simple because they decided to react differently to the outcome of the situation. However, because of the empathy exists from the pain of the experience it is possible that each of these men could influence each other to adjust their own perception of the situation. One could decide he had been wrong, perhaps anger wasn't the appropriate response, or perhaps humility wasn't. It is far less likely that these men would change their opinion or the feelings on the matter if they were never to interact with each other and allow the actions and thoughts of others at least influence them to consider their own actions and thoughts. Hence we see that the statement holds true.

Our journey of salvation is personal. Our relationship with Christ and God is our own to pursue. But it seems to me that salvation cannot be achieved alone. I do not mean that my salvation is dependent on the salvation of my neighbor, but that without my neighbor, regardless of the state of his salvation, my salvation would not be possible. Just like Christ is essential to our salvation so is my neighbor.

Hence , for me there comes greater understand of "Love thy neighbor". This may not be an admonishment that we literally love our neighbor as we... love our children or our spouse, but rather we recognize, no matter what he has done, no matter who he/she is that his existence, his evil or good all serve the purpose of allowing me to progress by exposure to experience. If anything, I have greater need for the sinner, the failure and the wicked simple because I have chosen a path that has prevented me from being exposed to that wickedness and I have an absolute need to associate with this individuals if I am ever to learn what have not been able to learn by my choices.

I'm loathe now to even use the word wickedness. My own choices have touched their share of wickedness. I'm in no way a perfect man, or even a righteous one. Yet there is still a need to discern between right and wrong. For without the concept of right and wrong is it possible for the concept of progression to exist? Progression suggests that there is a positive and negative, a way of moving forward and a way of moving backward. If all movement is considered forward, then there is no concept of moving at all. There could then only be stopped or moving and then one of those two states would have to be consider right or wrong, else the states would be equivalent and thus no distinction need be made between them.

If improperly interpreted one could easily begin to believe that there is nothing truly wrong or evil, there are simple choices and consequences, all of which lead to a growth of understanding and it is growth of understanding that should be our ultimate goal, which means that we should strive to experience ALL things possible. Yet this cannot be. Right and wrong must exist. Yet the concept of right wrong leads to numerous doctrinal and spiritual conundrum. The largest of which is exactly what I'm currently talking about. The concept that it is experience that allows one to progress and that without the existence of our fellow man such opposition would not exist in a way that promoted progress and growth. Furthermore, the idea that one man must act in wickedness so that the goodness of other men can be contrasted against it and we all may learn the difference between good and evil, is one that suggests it was the "fate" of the wicked, not necessarily the specific fate of any one man, but the collective fate that there would be wicked men and an absolute understanding that it was necessary. Then how is it fair, for me, the good man (if I am one), to suggest that a wicked man isn't deserving of the same ultimate happiness as I am? for ultimately was it not his wickedness that allowed me to see that his path was one that I should not follow? Thus I find it necessary to join my voice with Christ's in begging that all sinners be permitted forgiveness (including myself). Because ultimately the choices I made that were deemed good, were only deemed good due to the evil choices that they could be compared against? Can this be?