How fantastic it is to hear from Fire and Light. I am excited in part because the White Table is so encouraging for me to better study the scriptures and gospel teachings. As I read Fire's entry, I realized that my "mind has been on the things of the earth more than on the things of [Him]" (DC 30:2) as of late and I my referencing and reading is embarrisingly rusty. I hope the White Table will forgive me and rekindle my Fire and show me the Light. Quickly, I'd like to suggest a few "housekeeping" ideas for the White Table blog. I suggest that we comment on a single subject until we are ready to move to a different subject. This means that we do not click "new post" as both Light and I have done to discuss Fire's post, instead we click "comment" at the bottom of Fire's post. We will post back and forth until we are ready for another post, or until someone has another question/idea and wants to get a second or third chain going on. That leads me to another idea. We should only have 2-3 active posts, I think. This way we go to the deaper ends of each subject instead of always creating new posts which probabaly leads to overstretch and disinterest. This being said, lets give it a shot. Future comments regarding Fire's post, or Light's response or my response should be made as "comments" underneath my post (since it is the most recent and therefore at the top of the blog). Once we've discussed this for a week or two, or however long we want, we will creat a brand new post and begin commenting there. Does that make sense? Hopefully.
Fire had a very intriguing post, and Light's response was likewise enlightening. The concept of individual VS absolute truth is fascinating. If truth is individual, it threathens the veracity of everything we adhere to. If truth is absolute, there must be clear disctinctions and no ifs ands or buts. Here are my thoughts on the matter:
Fire's post is well supported by scripture and the temple. One that comes to mind is D&C 46:7 which states, "But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils." Also, I know from very personal and real feelings that I most definitely have felt a consistent "ebb and flow" of my spirituality as I make decisions in life. I would say that my life, I assume like most) resembles that of a sound wave. The crest of the said wave could represent the times of great spiritual growth and the trough is times of relative darkness. I hope, that the wave is sloping in a gradual upward direction so that the crests get higher and the troughs do too. This cycle seems normal, and is discussed throughout the scriptures i.e. pride cycles. So, to be clear, I definitely think that Fire's comments are on target and I agree with him in general. But....what would the White Table be without some decenting voicing. Decenting may not be the right word, and neither would "devil's advocate", but how about some critical thinking and "opposition in all things?" Here is my beef:
There are some weeknesses with the argument that "with every choice we make we are either moving forward or backward." First, if we assume that each decision does indeed add or subtract from our spirituality, and we agree that there is an infinite number of decisions possible to make (or at least lots and lots) then we are implying that there is an infinite (or lots and lots) of levels of spirituality and that none are on the same level unless they have made the EXACT same decisions throughout life. Apply this logic to the Prophets. We know that Joseph was a "choice" seer, and that Adam is the Patriarch, and many other's have special callings in Heaven. Which one is higher? Are some latter-day prophets worse than others? Imagine heavenly father lining them up in order of righteousness. The image doesn't sit well with me. What I'm trying to illustrate, is that the idea that "with EVERY choice we are either moving forward or backward" leaves no room for triviality. If I like raspberries, but not strawberries, and I choose to eat the former, but not the latter, in which direction does this decision send me? If President Monson likes chocolate ice cream, but President Hinckley liked vanilla, who will have the upper hand at the last day with respect to ice cream? Christ probably had a beard, longer hair, and simple clothes. Are we all to be judged critically for our decisions to wear jeans and t-shirts? These examples are clearly simple, trivial, and obviously facetious, but the logic is the same as that presented by Fire. My point: some decisions in life must be trivial. It is easy to see that decisions concerning fruit, ice cream, etc. seem silly and not of eternal consequence, but this logic becomes more troublesome when we apply it to more controversial decisions i.e. The Dark Knight.
I want to be clear that moral relativity is not my position. Some things are right, some things are wrong. And I believe that one of life’s great challenges is to discern them and live accordingly. But I am not able to agree, in full, that ALL decisions move us forward or backward. I never thought that I would be advocating in behalf of the “grey” team, but I do indeed think that some things are “grey areas”. Maybe grey isn’t the right word because grey is simply white with a bit of black. And we are challenged to cleans “every whit.” But I’m not convinced that one who watches Disney Pixar films and nothing else is worse than one who watches nothing at all. In fact, the notion that seeing NO film is better at all is suspect to me. I would agree, however, that he who watches anything is definitely going to see clearly “black” material that can be deemed wrong, or bad. That I am sure of. Many, maybe most, films are not innocent or trivial.
Another argument is that if each and every decision we make brings us closer or pushes us further from righteousness, would it not be rational to identify those activities that progress us further/faster than others and then devote our entire energy to that activity? For example, would it not be rational, therefore, to spend every free moment at the temple instead of service? Or reading our scriptures instead of anything else? Are we to believe that our Heavenly Father wants us to be non-social beings, but spiritual giants? Is that possible? President Monson chose to attend a Jazz game recently. He could have chosen to study the scriptures. Was his progressions slowed for this decision? Its tough for me to believe that each and every decision has affect on our progression/digression, and it is especially difficult for me to believe that every good decision is both better and worse than another good decision. Which decision is optimal?
We understand that there are 3 degrees of glory and multiple levels of glory in each kingdom. But if each decision brings us closer or further from righteousness, our places in heaven would only be justified if we each had our own, right? Are we to understand that some people will barely make it into a given degree of glory, while others make it with ease? An example of this is one who receives an A grade for his 94%, and one who receives a 98% but still gets only an A. Is one really better off?
What about the differences of opinions and choices amongst the brethren? I know they are not in opposition with each other, but they definitely are not clones either. They make, and have made, many different choices but all are worthy to be special witnesses of Christ. The same discrepancy exists between bishops, mission presidents, relief society leaders, stake presidents etc, as I talked about in my first DK post. I find it audacious to believe that one mission president who allows missionaries to listen to ONLY hymns is any more righteous or right than one who allows hymns AND classical music. This example is the same as that of no movies or Disney Pixar ones only.
Also, we know that the gift of discernment is given to some, but not all since “all have not every gift given unto them” (D&C 46:11, see 1 Cor. 12: 7-10) Some people may genuinely not be as sensitive to the spirit as others but are equally as righteous, since their gift may be a different gift i.e. gift of faith, gift of leadership, gift of tongues.
In conclusion, I want to state that I have beef with my own comments. I feel that they are 2 parts philosophy of men 1 part mingled scripture. I have not sited many sources, which is clearly the most effective way to defend one’s position. But, I don’t think that my thinking is therefore entirely bunk. One question/concern I have felt while writing this is that of the NEED for an opposition in all things. What exactly does that mean? Could understanding the deeper meaning of agency help us answer this debate of individual vs. absolute truth? This is a hot topic. I’m interested to hear back. Mind you that the position I have taken is felt by me, but not necessary to the full extent to which I have written. So…..let the Whiteness begin.
Fire had a very intriguing post, and Light's response was likewise enlightening. The concept of individual VS absolute truth is fascinating. If truth is individual, it threathens the veracity of everything we adhere to. If truth is absolute, there must be clear disctinctions and no ifs ands or buts. Here are my thoughts on the matter:
Fire's post is well supported by scripture and the temple. One that comes to mind is D&C 46:7 which states, "But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils." Also, I know from very personal and real feelings that I most definitely have felt a consistent "ebb and flow" of my spirituality as I make decisions in life. I would say that my life, I assume like most) resembles that of a sound wave. The crest of the said wave could represent the times of great spiritual growth and the trough is times of relative darkness. I hope, that the wave is sloping in a gradual upward direction so that the crests get higher and the troughs do too. This cycle seems normal, and is discussed throughout the scriptures i.e. pride cycles. So, to be clear, I definitely think that Fire's comments are on target and I agree with him in general. But....what would the White Table be without some decenting voicing. Decenting may not be the right word, and neither would "devil's advocate", but how about some critical thinking and "opposition in all things?" Here is my beef:
There are some weeknesses with the argument that "with every choice we make we are either moving forward or backward." First, if we assume that each decision does indeed add or subtract from our spirituality, and we agree that there is an infinite number of decisions possible to make (or at least lots and lots) then we are implying that there is an infinite (or lots and lots) of levels of spirituality and that none are on the same level unless they have made the EXACT same decisions throughout life. Apply this logic to the Prophets. We know that Joseph was a "choice" seer, and that Adam is the Patriarch, and many other's have special callings in Heaven. Which one is higher? Are some latter-day prophets worse than others? Imagine heavenly father lining them up in order of righteousness. The image doesn't sit well with me. What I'm trying to illustrate, is that the idea that "with EVERY choice we are either moving forward or backward" leaves no room for triviality. If I like raspberries, but not strawberries, and I choose to eat the former, but not the latter, in which direction does this decision send me? If President Monson likes chocolate ice cream, but President Hinckley liked vanilla, who will have the upper hand at the last day with respect to ice cream? Christ probably had a beard, longer hair, and simple clothes. Are we all to be judged critically for our decisions to wear jeans and t-shirts? These examples are clearly simple, trivial, and obviously facetious, but the logic is the same as that presented by Fire. My point: some decisions in life must be trivial. It is easy to see that decisions concerning fruit, ice cream, etc. seem silly and not of eternal consequence, but this logic becomes more troublesome when we apply it to more controversial decisions i.e. The Dark Knight.
I want to be clear that moral relativity is not my position. Some things are right, some things are wrong. And I believe that one of life’s great challenges is to discern them and live accordingly. But I am not able to agree, in full, that ALL decisions move us forward or backward. I never thought that I would be advocating in behalf of the “grey” team, but I do indeed think that some things are “grey areas”. Maybe grey isn’t the right word because grey is simply white with a bit of black. And we are challenged to cleans “every whit.” But I’m not convinced that one who watches Disney Pixar films and nothing else is worse than one who watches nothing at all. In fact, the notion that seeing NO film is better at all is suspect to me. I would agree, however, that he who watches anything is definitely going to see clearly “black” material that can be deemed wrong, or bad. That I am sure of. Many, maybe most, films are not innocent or trivial.
Another argument is that if each and every decision we make brings us closer or pushes us further from righteousness, would it not be rational to identify those activities that progress us further/faster than others and then devote our entire energy to that activity? For example, would it not be rational, therefore, to spend every free moment at the temple instead of service? Or reading our scriptures instead of anything else? Are we to believe that our Heavenly Father wants us to be non-social beings, but spiritual giants? Is that possible? President Monson chose to attend a Jazz game recently. He could have chosen to study the scriptures. Was his progressions slowed for this decision? Its tough for me to believe that each and every decision has affect on our progression/digression, and it is especially difficult for me to believe that every good decision is both better and worse than another good decision. Which decision is optimal?
We understand that there are 3 degrees of glory and multiple levels of glory in each kingdom. But if each decision brings us closer or further from righteousness, our places in heaven would only be justified if we each had our own, right? Are we to understand that some people will barely make it into a given degree of glory, while others make it with ease? An example of this is one who receives an A grade for his 94%, and one who receives a 98% but still gets only an A. Is one really better off?
What about the differences of opinions and choices amongst the brethren? I know they are not in opposition with each other, but they definitely are not clones either. They make, and have made, many different choices but all are worthy to be special witnesses of Christ. The same discrepancy exists between bishops, mission presidents, relief society leaders, stake presidents etc, as I talked about in my first DK post. I find it audacious to believe that one mission president who allows missionaries to listen to ONLY hymns is any more righteous or right than one who allows hymns AND classical music. This example is the same as that of no movies or Disney Pixar ones only.
Also, we know that the gift of discernment is given to some, but not all since “all have not every gift given unto them” (D&C 46:11, see 1 Cor. 12: 7-10) Some people may genuinely not be as sensitive to the spirit as others but are equally as righteous, since their gift may be a different gift i.e. gift of faith, gift of leadership, gift of tongues.
In conclusion, I want to state that I have beef with my own comments. I feel that they are 2 parts philosophy of men 1 part mingled scripture. I have not sited many sources, which is clearly the most effective way to defend one’s position. But, I don’t think that my thinking is therefore entirely bunk. One question/concern I have felt while writing this is that of the NEED for an opposition in all things. What exactly does that mean? Could understanding the deeper meaning of agency help us answer this debate of individual vs. absolute truth? This is a hot topic. I’m interested to hear back. Mind you that the position I have taken is felt by me, but not necessary to the full extent to which I have written. So…..let the Whiteness begin.
9 comments:
Finally, a chance to sit down and respond to the white goodness. It kinda does feel like old times.
Great comments. I enjoyed both. I’ll share my thoughts on one, and then the next, hopefully prompting more of your own thoughts in the process.
Light: I thought that Reverence was revving up to hit me with the “Dark Knight” pitch, and didn’t expect to be blinded by your high beams of sweet whiteness. I really appreciated your comments overall, including those regarding “The Dark Knight.” As you can see here: http://andrewandariel.blogspot.com/2008/07/dark-night-indeed.html the subject has been on my mind considerably, and you in fact, got right to the source of my first post without knowing it.
First off, thank you for being honest about the DK. I have heard so much justification for the film lately, and it was refreshing to hear you say that there were “haunting scenes of horrible acts of evil” therein. You also contrasted your experience with Bishop Dunford (where you said you would never drink) with the fact that you have seen DK 3 times, implying that you succumbed to some level of temptation in doing so. The fact that you can admit that, and find the good to be found in the film, are both commendable.
Please understand that the following comment is not meant to be self-righteous. I know that “The Dark Knight” would suck me in and I would be enthralled with the rest of America. But I have some questions that have kept me from seeing it. Is something like DK going to give some light and take away from others? I know for certain that White Mermaid (Ariel, in case you needed a reminder) would hate the film. I doubt she could sit through it. In fact, I’ve been with her when she’s walked out of “Batman Begins” and “The Prestige” (both Christopher Nolan films). Is that personal preference? Is it sensitivity, developed through little exposure to movies? Is it connected to spirituality? Is it a matter of discernment? That’s what I’m wondering. Is seeing DK from an LDS perspective looking for mingled scriptures amid the philosophies of man? Is it created by God, man or the devil? Jesus tells the Nephites that the works of men and the works of the devil will be “hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return” (3 Ne. 27:11). The Doctrine and Covenants teach that “that which doth not edify is not of God and is darkness” (D&C 50:23). Those two scriptures leave room for very little. Of course if I were forced to see or do or hear or say something, I would try to find the good in it. But should we seek things that are overall not virtuous and mine out the virtue from them? The troughs Screwtape describes in “The Screwtape Letters” are when God “withdraws (and) leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs . . .He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand” (Screwtape Letters, Chapter 8). So troughs (according to Lewis’ definition) are not sought out by man, but required by God for growth. Hopefully we could find evidence of God in everything we do, but does that mean we should look everywhere, even in dark corners? So I feel that yes, we can find the positive and good in all things, even dark things, but at the same time I believe that “a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water…” (Moroni 7:11).
Reverence, I want to respond to your comment soon, I’ll hopefully have time later today. This blog is so white hot right now.
Light, I hope I didn't take your post out of context when I said that there was temptation involved in seeing DK. I only meant to summarize what you'd said, but may have overdone it (bad journalism practice).
Reverence: Great comments. You’ve made me rethink my “everything takes us up or down” notion. You make a good point that it doesn’t seem rational to assume that EVERYTHING will take you one way or another. I still believe that most things will further your progression or digression, but I think it has to do more with our moral agency. The scriptures say “That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be baccountable for his own sins in the day of cjudgment” (D&C 101:78). So when we make a choice that affects our morals, that’s when we’ll move up or down. Strawberries or raspberries? Probably not a moral choice. Fast food or fresh-from-the-garden salad? Maybe so.
And yes, there are millions of choices to be made every day. And no, not everyone needs to make the same choices to get to the Celestial Kingdom. However, I hope that one day I make it to the Celestial Kingdom, and I’m sure that Gordon B. Hinckley will be there. But I would never expect to be close to him in progress. He’ll be closer to Godhood, even though we’ll (hopefully) be in the same place. And of course we shouldn’t compare ourselves with others, that’s certainly not productive. But I still think that there will be varying individual degrees within degrees of kingdoms. I imagine the variance may subside when a person reaches Godhood, but then again, if Gods continue to learn, there still may be some higher than others (though I’d never claim that a God can go down at all, just different levels of up, but this is probably material for a different post on a different day).
And on the matter of being a “non-social being” vs. being a “spiritual giant,” I think God does want us to be “spiritual giants.” The great examples for us to follow, namely the Savior, wore out their lives in service and sacrifice. As did prophets and regular saints throughout the ages. Alma the younger, for example just wouldn’t and couldn’t quite serving until his translation. God also wants us to enjoy life, which is why Joseph Smith had a dance in the temple after a long day of endowment work and why President Monson can go to a Jazz game without impeding his progress (the Jazz game and dancing would also be choices made outside the sphere of “moral agency” I believe). But if we’re questioning the worth of something, and wondering if it will take us up or down, we’re probably safer to steer clear.
I hope the random splattering of my thoughts has some coherency.
Fire, like usually, you are a refiner. That seems to be your wonderful purpose at the Table, to purify the other Whitnesses of our impurities. Well done. I must say that without such Fire, I don’t think the table would be as White.
Your post was great. And I am going to agree with you much more fully now. Using the scriptures, as usual, you advanced the thought of moral absolutism while also allowing some things to remain trivial and not of consequence to our salvation. This is most definitely accurate in my opinion. Some decisions could not possibly have any bering or our progression/digression. I must apologize for so many silly examples trivial decision-making i.e. ice cream flavors, favorite fruits etc. However, it is wrong to think or presume that there is any relativity to morality. I agree with this conclusion, even though I don’t think I fully have in the past.
However, in many ways we now have the same debate with more concrete and accurate terms: What constitutes a MORAL decision? This debate will have more brilliant whites and deep dark black, but I still believe that we need discussion about the grey areas that range from dark/shady to shades of white. Fire provides us with a perfect example: home-garden salads vs. fast food. I discussed this with Jodie (who needs a white name) and she unknowingly responded with a perfectly grey answer. It went something like this, “Well, that depends on a few things. Are the fast food go-ers going because they are lazy/slothful, are they unwise with their money, or are they going out for an occasional treat that is fun and convenient?” So, it seems we have need of further clarification. Have our White Table chicken bowls been damning our conversation’s progression? I would disagree. Fast food can most definitely be a moral decision, but is it always for everyone? No. Jodie also went on to say that God judges by peoples’ intentions just as much as he does their choices, therefore the same choice for 2 different people could be judged differently. Moral relativism? Individual worth/judgement? Lets get White about this! Let me offer 2-3 more simple examples to back this up, and then I’ll release it to the Fire for purification and Light for guidance. Example 1: Think of 2 strong alcoholics that drink exactly the same amounts. They both are breaking the word of wisdom. Lets say one of them is a wayward member, even a former faithful member who served a great mission, but fell away step by step. Lets say the other is totally ignorant about the restored gospel. It seems logical that these two have been exposed to different amounts of light and knowledge and will therefore be judged differently about their moral decisions. The same example could be applied to most any decisions that is clearly moral. Neither are justified, and both will need to repent, but i think they are different. To further illustrate, imagine that one of them is intensely sorrowful for their alcoholic dependency while the other has no intention of stopping and enjoys it fully. It seems that the moral weight of these 2 individuals’ decision to drink is different, despite behaving similarly. Example 2: The Dark Knight. I know that Fire has thought thoroughly and passionately about this movie, and makes a great argument. But, I still think the morality of this movie is up for debate. I do not feel that seeing this movie damned my progression, even temporarily. I do not think that is is an immoral or an amoral movie. I left the movie with great questions and answers to ponder about the nature of humanity and of good and evil. I knew/know full well that the film is a secular understanding of good/evil and that it is not scripture or truth in any way. But I still got much good, more good than bad, out of the film. I would own it, and have it in my house, and I’m sure that amazing spiritual giants in the church will too. But, this is not to say that Fire has made a bad argument. Not at all. It could be perfectly true for him, at his well-purified state of knowledge and truth, and also his own personal relationship with film/media. I just don’t know yet if his argument is applicable to everyone. But, maybe it is. Also, if the the Dark Knight is immoral, we would need an explanation of why Spider Man, X-Men, Zoolander, Wizard of Oz, Sound of Music, are not immoral. This only furthers the discussion of “the grey area” and moral relativity. Sorry. I had a 3rd example, but my writing is getting long.
D&C 137:9 states “I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.” I believe that the grey area is in the Lord’s hands and he will judge everyone according to their own light, knowledge, and INTENTIONS. So, judging what is and is not moral again seems to be subjective. Which is a nice way of saying “moral relativity” with which idea I am not comfortable. But it truly seems difficult sometimes to pinpoint the correct morality within certain decisions.
Dark Knight Conversation:
I bet it was really hard for C.S. Lewis to write the Screwtape Letters because he had to think as if he were the devil. Unfortunately I don’t have that capability like Lewis. I’ve been trying to find a way to counter Fire’s ideas but to my own dismay I could not. I found it very hard to argue for something that I don’t believe in. I concur with the notion that “neither a good fountain brings forth bitter water.” Even though we watch movies like the DK and find good in them the underlining factor is: whom are we supporting by going to these movies? Who is controlling that particular media thread? God or Devil? Certainly God is not in supporting accordance, thus the counter option has to be the Devil. By seeing the DK, what moral decision have I made? Is the morality of this movie or any movie of its nature appropriate? WE ARE IN THE GREY AREA! White Rev says that, “the grey area is in the Lord’s hands.” Is that true? Do I not have the gift of discernment or at least entitled to it? If I have that gift and exercise it properly, shouldn’t I be able to figure out what is “gray” and what is not? Therefor, if I have that gift and choose to use it then it can’t be in the Lord’s hands either and I once again choose my fate.
Yesterday in class White Hebrew (Meredith or does she have another name that I forgot?) said that if she were to rate all the spiritual gifts that we are entitled to. The gift of discernment would be on the top of her list. I agree with her. I think Satan’s greatest tactic is making the gray area as big as possible and if we don’t have the ability to discern between that which is good and bad then we are likely to make regrettable mistakes. If we were to make up a list of what makes a “spiritual giant” really a “spiritual giant,” the gift of discernment would have to top that list. The same examples that were previously mentioned like the Savior, Alma the younger (e.g. discerned that Korihor did in fact believe in Christ) Joseph Smith (way to many examples to list) and our beloved Prophet Thomas S. Monson all apply. All spiritual giants have the gift of discernment and all spiritual giants I would dare say have a much smaller gray area in their lives than most of us. But Rev brings up the “Alcohol” example. My theory or thoughts above only pertain to those who have the Holy Ghost and are seeking gifts of the spirit. What about our two people that drink? One does it because he sees no wrong in it and the other is deeply sorrowful of his dependency. Both are sinning but one is feeling the guilt. It would be easy to say that the guilty person is better off because he recognizes his problem. On the other hand if the other alcoholic does not see any wrong in his actions, how could he possibly be judged according to light he has not had revealed to him? We are going to have to define the state of each of these people in order to speculate on them. Then again maybe we shouldn’t, is it okay to make up imaginary people and then judge them as if we were Gods. EEK, I don’t know if we can or should do that. Until I get a consensus that we are in the wrong I will continue to use our alcoholics as an example. Both of these people were born with the Spirit of Christ and know good from bad. No matter how low someone is there are still specs of light in them that can flourish if nurtured correctly. Even the Joker in DK as satanic as he may be still has hope. Jesus Christ will not give up on us no matter who we are and what we do. Jesus is in the business of saving souls for his father and glorifying his fathers name so that he along with his wife(s) can have joy in their posterity. Assuming that neither of these two drinkers repent, who is worse? I think they are equal. The two of them has committed the sin. If Rev and Fire are more spiritual then me and we all choose to get hammered one night then I think that we all have the same sin to repent of regardless of where where we are at. Okay. . . this comment is getting really long I need to stop now. Sorry for going on and on. I hope this all makes sense.
Here is a scripture block that I was reminded of out of the Book of Moroni.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the alight by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.
I loved hearing from White Light. I sat down to read the blog posts again and his comment came up, so I’m responding really quickly.
First, I think I misrepresented my ideas when I said that the grey area is “in the Lord’s hands.” I did not mean this to be interpreted as that it is totally OUT of our reach or understanding. It may be in the Lord’s hands, but we can tap into that information ourselves. What I meant to say by that is that the Lord, and the Lord only, can account for all factors necessary to produce a fair and just judgement on “grey” decisions (i.e. he accounts for one’s exposure to truth, knowledge, light, intentions, heart, etc.) I firmly believe that the “grey decisions” are to be made personally, and in accordance with the Spirit. One should seek out personal revelation on these decisions. But, that being said, I don’t know if I, myself, can even agree with this idea because that suggest that the Lord may allow one person to feel a certain way about a “grey decision” and another person receive a different answer. Moral relativity bugs me, so I don’t know about that. Then again, maybe people really do have different abilities, strengths, weaknesses about different things and the Lord’s answers are catered to them.
Anyway, I want to agree with a great statement Light wrote. That is, that “all spiritual giants...have a much smaller grey area in their lives than most of us.” I like that and agree in full. I know that I have been Captain “grey” beard in this conversations, but I definitely do not think that grey is good. I believe that we all should strive for that greater contrast and ability to discern the Lord’s will for us, even when it comes to tough “grey” areas.
As for the 2 drinkers and judging them? I’m totally fine with it. The reasons why are because 1) They aren’t real people, 2) They aren’t real judgments of them, and 3) The entire scenario is not to “judge them as if we were Gods” but to understand their situation. We aren’t judging the people either, we’re judging the situation. Its merely an exercise that will help us empathize and show charity to people. If anyone else is uncomfortable with fictional characters I will stop. I think, however that it is merely a hypothetical situation that can help.
As for a response to White Lights comments, I believe that the 2 drinkers with different intentions and knowledge would not be judged the same. If the three original White Knights all got hammered together, I don’t think we’d all be judged the same either. Fire would get a real good whoopin’ since he is the most pure. White Light would get a good whoopin’ too cause he would have fallen from such an enLIGHTened position, and Reverence would get into trouble too, but he wouldn’t fall as far because he doesn’t have nearly as high of a starting point to begin with. :)
I think it is time for a true White Table meeting. What do ye White Knights say? It would do us all some good. Especially before White Fire becomes White Provo.
Good to be with you today Rev and Light. Always good. It feels good to be back in the white.
I’m about to take my role as an extremist . . . to an extreme. This comment is partly for fun, partly to further the discussion. It seems like in these discussions we all find our place and defend it, even if we don’t feel as strongly as we let on. I think that’s a healthy way to feel things out and find truth, which is the essence of the White Table.
My hope with this comment is to illustrate that we are part of a religion, and more importantly, a gospel, of extremes. Jesus told us in both the Bible and in the Book of Mormon to “be perfect” (Matt. 5:48; 3 Ne. 12:48). Is there any other way to read that? Isn’t it saying to be perfect? How about when Nephi tells us to “pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul” (2 Ne. 32:9), or when Jesus says, “ye must watch and pray always, lest ye be tempted by the devil, and ye be led away captive by him” (3 Ne. 18:15). He really wants us to pray always, and over everything. Alma suggests to “let all thy thoughts be directed unto the Lord” (Alma 37:36). That leaves little room for thoughts on anything else, especially dark things. The first great commandment Jesus gave was to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt 22:37). Does that leave any room in the heart, soul and mind to love anything else? We’re saved after “all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23), not most of what we can do. It’s very difficult to find a place in the scriptures that ask us to do our best, or work real hard. He wants all our thoughts, words, and actions for him. He wants us to consecrate our souls in a sense (or as Omni put it, “come unto him and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him.” Joseph Smith taught that “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things” (Lectures on Faith, p. 58). I could find many more scriptures and words of prophets that emphasize the extreme that the Lord requires of us, and can't find any that play it down. If you find some, I'd love to see them, (I'm not being sarcastic when I write that). Can He afford to ask any less in a world with such temptation and wickedness? Satan, on the other hand does not work in extremes. He’s happy if we “lie a little” (2 Ne. 28:8). There may be decisions that take us laterally, like calliflower or broccoli, but I’m back to thinking that there is no grey area if morals are involved. Unless it's totally inconsequential, it will take us up or down.
I had some other thoughts on the media specifically, but I’ll save those for another time soon. There’s never enough time for all the white the table can offer, as we learned today at lunch. Hope to hear your thoughts soon.
-Firebeard
Rev/Fire –
Last week Fire took the role as “an extremist” partly for fun and to further discussion. I loved Fire’s response that states that it is our duty to be perfect, that we should pray always and let all our thoughts be directed unto the Lord etc. Fire is saying that we need to be extreme in our desire to be perfect. But by being an extremist you may be doing more harm than good. From a historical perspective, those with extreme behaviors have been the ones to cause more harm than good. I personally think that it is a trait that shouldn’t be developed. My reasoning is simple: Lenin, Hitler, Stallin, Alexander the Great, Mao, Marx, Freud, Nietzche and of course Warren Jeffs. All of these leaders were trying to do good for their people and they all had an extreme desire to be perfect. The personality of an extremist throughout our world existence has been the cause of many problems. You could argue that these people had differing agendas then that of “coming unto Christ,” but I feel that that is not true. Obviously all weren’t Christians but they were all seeking greater light knowledge for the betterment of their people. Isn’t that what we are asked to do? Serve others and forget ourselves. For the most part these men had stable familiar circumstances nonetheless they developed traits that led them to do horrible things.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we should be perfect and try to perfect ourselves but if we take it to far and develop a strong extremist traits we might get caught up in doing uninspired things.
I appreciated your thoughts Light. I agree that some forms of extremism could lead to "doing uninspired things." In politics, in business, and in pastimes extremism can be a dangerous thing. The one exception I still stand by is extremism in following God.
The more I think about it the more the extreme quest for perfection in Christ seems to make sense. One day, soon, there is going to be "a great division" between the wicked and the righteous (2 Ne. 30:10), an "entire separation of the righteous and the wicked" (D&C 63:54). There are only two sides, and I think that if we are not always remembering Him, we will not always have his Spirit to be with us, and if we don't always have His spirit to be with us, we will be separated from him when he comes. It brings me back to that word "always." God boldly calls us to "look unto (him) in every thought" (D&C 6:36), He wants us to hold to the iron rod, and not the flaxen cord (see 1 Ne. 8:24; 2 Ne. 26:22). You can refer back to my initial "extreme" argument to see other scriptures/quotes about "every" "all" and "always."
To conclude and return back to the original context of our argument, I think one of the objectives in this life (shown in scripture and the temple) is to get the devil behind us. Get him out of our sphere. The people of King Benjamin, and the high priests written of in Alma are two examples of people who "could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence" (Alma 13:12, and on that note, I have a question. Should we arrive at the point that we cannot "look" upon sin save it be with abhorrence, i.e. seeing murder/sexual sin in movies?) and "have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually" (Mosiah 5:2).
I feel that's our goal. To perfect ourselves. Submit completely to the will of the Lord. Sacrifice worldly things we love for spiritual things that we can take with us after this life. Concecrate ourselves and all we have to the kingdom.
Those are my thoughts. Putting it into practice is an entirely different story. I'm certainly not close. Not close at all. But I hope, as the White Table, we continue to perfect ourselves, and make it on the side of the righteous when the separation takes place.
With Firey Love,
Fire
Fire -
How come we are not taught to be extremist? This is especially apparent in the mission field. Why aren't we taught to "wipe the dust off our feet" and move on with power and conviction. Wouldn't an extremist do just that?
Light
Post a Comment