An Inheritance Fit

People like to set up a false dichotomy of whether we are saved by grace or by works. There's plenty enough scriptures on grace that if you can just convince people that Mormons believe something differently, then we look unbiblical and unchristian. As many Apostles have explained far more eloquently than I can here, "Mormons" are not "working our way into heaven."

We do not get to the Celestial kingdom off of merit, we get there on faith (faith can be construed as a form of merit, but it is very different than a "pay tithing, receive heaven" mentality. We didn't come to earth because we payed some form of pre-existent tithing enough times; we were granted the privilege to come here because we wanted it, and wanted to support our Father and Savior, and wanted the opportunity, and, I imagine, we were willing to "pay the price," whatever that may have been in the pre-existence.

The whole point of the plan of salvation is to unravel your desires, your essence, what you really want from the universe. And then to give it to you, whether that's celestial or below, we get what we want.

There is much truth to the phrase "heaven won't be heaven unless we ourselves are heavenly." The celestial kingdom is a place of law, such that if we are not prepared to live there, living there would be worse torture than living in Hell (Mormon 9:4). You have to do home teaching. You have to forgive. You have to set your ego aside a bit. We underestimate just how overwhelming and uncomfortable life with God could be. You have to practice for this. God doesn't demand you have 20 talents to enter his kingdom. He asks that you work to multiply yourself.

Even on Earth, Laman and Lemuel inherited a different and lesser kingdom than their righteous counterparts. It is true, they both obtained the promised land, and they accomplished this because of their obedience. Laman and Lemuel were obedient. They didn't die in Jerusalem because of that. But, the promised land never yielded its abundance unto them. They did not become, as the Nephites did, tillers and workers of the earth, but instead became wild, living upon only meat. The Book of Mormon explains that their civilization was savage in comparison to the Nephites, and is it not a strong motif in many movies that though men may try to civilize the savage, this is a difficult task? The "wild life" is what they are comfortable with. Leaving behind the jungle is hard for all of us, and worse, we often do not understand the purposes of many things done by "higher civilization."

God gave us this Earth knowing we would sin, because the opportunity to grow was worth it. I believe in similar fashion, we will not be perfect in the Celestial kingdom, but if we are willing to sacrifice all, that is the end of the price. The rest is paid in blood.

- Compass -

“I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it. Where this people are, there is good society.” -Joseph Smith

"God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire," but a resurrected being, "flesh and bones quickened by the Spirit of God," can. (Tpjs, pp. 326, 367)

For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things. (D&C 88:40)

"Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?  Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" (Isa 33: 14).

Why King James

The King James Version of the Bible has plenty of flaws.  I recently had someone criticize the D&C because it was written in King James English.  Its true enough that God's language wasn't originally Old English, but that was the common in Joseph Smith's day.

It is sometimes held to be a flaw that our scriptures are in King James English, and often seen as weird that we pray in old English.

God, at times, has spoken to me in frank, modern English, but other times, in a mix of that and, you guessed it, King James English, oftentimes subtly misquoting scriptures.  He turns them and reconstructs them to give them the meaning I need at the time. 

In fact, we have a King James Version of the Book of Mormon.  There aren't other translations, of course, but if there were, they might very well be more linguistically accurate to the plates, but here's the clutch: it is more valuable to God that the scriptures harmonize than to be accurate in a literal way.

There are certain key phrases with developed meanings in Mormonism found in our Old English scriptures, things about priesthood and eternity and progression, which are utterly lost in other translations, even though such translations may be more technically accurate.  The temple ceremony as well, matches this structure.  Using another translation risks missing those precious harmonies. 

Studying from another translation may prove profitable to historical and technical details, and often supports LDS theology better than the KJV, but God has given the KJV special purpose in our day.  There is a special power in the language because of this.  A special power in our scriptures.  I testify.

You Are What You Eat

Intelligence, often, manifests in pickiness.  A conscientiousness of what one takes into the body signals an awareness of, and a caring of, what happens to it, and that one has a conscious destination one wants that body to reach.  Similarly, what one consumes emotionally will have an effect on your emotional body.  If a diet of, for example, frustration is prolonged, then your emotional body will start to take on certain qualities because of that.

There will always be things to get frustrated about.  It is unintelligent to get frustrated about all of them indiscriminately.

There will always be fast food entertainment.  It is unintelligent to indulge in it daily and indiscriminately.

There will always be interesting facts.  It is intelligent to spend time digesting only important ones.

You are what you eat.

The gospel is simply an answer to the question of how to diet properly.

Ayn Rand and Mormonism

I triggered recently a firestorm by innocently asking my coworkers over lunch, "why's everyone hate Ayn Rand?" And the common thoughts were that she was an amoral moneygrubber without any kindness in her. One coworker remarked that "with her everything has a price".

Of Honesty:
But that wasn't what she was fighting for. Her whole thing was honesty in relationships. If a relationship was contractor-client, she refused to call it anything else. The thing that she was staunchly against in Atlas Shrugged was the concept of political "favors" and political "friends". A gift between her protagonists was a gift, never an agenda. She set everything up as contracts because she considered doing otherwise to be evil, because darkness and hiding was not her way. Even her "evils", or at least conventionally distasteful personality traits (arrogance, apathy about others, greed, etc) she forced starkly into the light. Her characters didn't deal in imaginary, ethereal quantities of "favor". They never, ever did something to get someone to like them to further an agenda, and they expected nothing from others. Consider Hank Reardan, giving often to his family and expecting nothing in return, and his family, constantly trying to tie his arms using social pressure and norms. As arrogant and as antisocial as she tried to portray her protagonists, when they practiced charity, they practiced pure charity, because they had pure honesty. Their communications were strictly "yea, yea, and nay nay".

Of Pride:
A common complaint of Ayn Rand is her "pride", an image which she does nothing to dispell. And she is prideful. Just not in the gospel sense. Lets look at some specifics.

Ezra Taft Benson, the thirteenth Mormon prophet, explained that pride "is competitive in nature.", always making comparisons between us and others. Consider the society of Galt's Gulch; "I hope when he gets here he starts his own business and puts me out of business. He'll do it so much better." This desire to see others succeed is a righteous one. But Rand, like us, should not want that success to be unearned. Remember that a major part of Lucifer's fall was his desire to take shortcuts to success, without having to pay the price of personal worthiness. This is how the antagonists in Atlas Shrugged work; by making political "friends" they are able to achieve success without having to develop a functioning product, without having to take responsibility for themselves or their conduct. Its practically a direct parallel to the Gadianton Robbers in the Book of Mormon.

A major part of pride is "unrighteous dominion" (D&C 121: 34-42). This unrighteous dominion is demonstrated by her antagonists, seeking control and power over her protagonists. It almost becomes an obsession for them, to have the glory of those who have earned it for themselves. By contrast, none of her protagonists seek one iota of power over another. They believe in freedom, as do Mormons, it being a key element of the Plan of Salvation.

Of Diligence:
It should be immediately apparent that the Mormon ideals of self-reliance and hard work are similarly cherished among Objectivists.  To Hank Rearden his factories, to Dagny Taggart her railways, to Howard Roark his architecture, each according to his ability.  They got to where they were because they worked for it, and multiplied their talents.  Ignoring all other factors, Ayn Rand would have had great respect for Brigham Young.

Of Humility:
Of course, Rand gets many things wrong. She dismisses God out of hand because he requires humility of us, which dismissal, like Korihor’s, comes from a misunderstanding of what form of humility, exactly, is being demanded of us. “That they durst not rise to their privileges,” I think is actually a correct thing to revolt against, and is not in fact what God asks of us. In actuality, he is asking us to rise to our full privileges through proper discipline and channels, just as, for example Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. He is the character of discipline/self denial in his striving for his goals. He even is a strong keeper of the laws of the land, until the laws themselves become unjust.

Her protagonists often demonstrate a form of what I may term “ruthless self honesty”, being fully aware, of their potential, their weaknesses, and things that they just don’t care about, and they won’t play around or deny any of these. It is contrary to humility to inflate ones self importance, but her characters don’t do that. They are seeking to fulfill their potential and dreams, not gain acclaim. They seek no worldly wealth.

A core of her protagonist's characters is “This is exactly what I am”, which is essential to any form of progression. You can’t progress if you don’t admit your weakness, which includes your apathy toward specific righteous principles. Mark that, Elder Rigdon.

A lesser discussed aspect of humility is that it is equally sinful to diminish ones importance. If I have a God-given talent that will benefit another, it is equally sinful to pretend like I don’t actually have it because I don’t want to look superior to others. “Hiding under a bushel” principle. Humility, as I see it, is primarily about accuracy and honesty, and nothing about self deprecation.  Consider repentance; is it humility to pretend to be remorseful as you continue to abuse your neighbor, or is it the humility of Howard Roark, shoulders square, ready to accept whatever befalls him, unwilling to excuse himself because it is a lie to say he is not capable of more.  This is the attitude that has led me close to God.

Of Selfishness and Charity:
I should not call Ayn Rand selfish.  Selfishness in our modern jargon implies a taking-advantage of thy neighbor attitude, which Ayn Rand never had.  Oh, complete disregard for her neighbor maybe, but apathy is very different from harmful manipulation.  Its about justice for her; you do work, you get paid.  If her characters could take advantage of one (be it blackmail, or legal twistings, or any other dark and dishonest means) they would reject it as a matter of course.  "I agreed to it, I shall stick to it."  Its contracts.  I'll admit she would, of course, work someone for the lowest pay she could get out of them, but I don't see her characters as adverse to generosity, merely to sloth.   We see Hank Rearden allowing many to leech off of him, simply because he can afford it.  She doesn't condemn this, exactly.  She condemns that he does this in spite of them bringing not only zero, but negative value to his life.  As the friends at Jr Ganymede point out, one angle on the Good Samaritan parable is that the neighbor was the one who did good to him, and that by implication the Levite and priest were not neighbors.  Which would mean you are not obligated to love those who are not your neighbor.  Again, she is not against generosity.  She is against things devoid of merit.  Nor does God give Satan a body just because God is "selfless".  Satan didn't get a body because he didn't earn it.

The issue with reading Rand is that she deliberately chooses inverted language; she is not concerned with being palatable, and much of the way she phrases things is backward from the politically correct.  She insults incessantly many "virtues".  A deliberate mind, of course, will find that many virtues she is attacking are not the true form of the virtue, but the devilish imitation by which many religions perform evil in the name of good.  It is easy to get lost at "giving to the poor is wrong" and stop before acknowledging the context of "when you do it at the expense of others".  It is this way with nearly everything she writes.

Of Chastity:

Her characters aren't chaste, no. She rejects that out of hand as a religious thing, I suppose. Her antagonists would be more likely to "repent" after a breaking of chastity, but they could never do it sincerely, or honestly. It would be a ritual for them, and not a sincere desire for change. Almost, Pharisee like, to assuage their conscience and to show off their piety (to themselves or others.), whereas her protagonists.. When they understand that they are wrong, their ruthless self honesty demands immediate acknowledgement and change.

There is a fascinating discourse by Francisco D'Anconia, wherein he discusses "men cut in two" which division leads them to sexual sin. She doesn't call it sin, of course, but that's what she's discussing. She talks of men who value the mind and despise the body, after which the body's reality manifests; it insists on being acknowledged. The man finds himself pursuing sensual pleasures in prostitution and carnality. Or a man may cut himself in half through excessive obsession in the body, and despising the mind. This man will live carnally, but seek for spiritual satisfaction by "imagining he is seducing very virtuous girls, who make great exception for his sake". The mind/spirit insists on being acknowledged. The spirit and body are inseparably connected, as she and Joseph Smith teach.  She insightfully points out that the health of the connection between body and spirit manifests in our sexuality.

"All spirit is matter, and in the resurrection our eyes will be opened and we will see that it is all matter." said Joseph Smith.  Her characters love the Earth. They love matter and solidity and notably differ from those constantly looking to "a different world" in the afterlife. They don't seek to rid themselves of the body, as modern Christians do. Though unchaste, the extra perspective of the gospel could easily have made a chaste woman of her, if she had it.  With the understanding of  LDS eternal marriage, her characters would have had even higher standards of virtue. They wouldn't settle for anything less. Its the same attitude her characters have towards everything else. A ruthless devotion to purity in every other sense would extend into chastity quite naturally if she accepted the gospel.

I remember reading an interesting BYU speech where the professor stated that Korihor was not wrong; from the information he believed in and was given, he was acting correctly as far as he knew. He had a 2×2 map, whereas Alma had a 3×3 map: He accepted faith and revelation as means of knowing, etc. Not that Korihor was wrong, but he couldn't see far enough to do fully right.

I feel like Mormonism is the only religion Ayn could have been okay with. She would have to get over her emotional antipathy towards anything religious, but then, so does like, everyone. The philosophies fit. She just needed to be able to see a little further.

She would have to give up smoking though. That'd be rough.

- Compass -

Wo shall come unto you because of that pride which ye have suffered to enter your hearts, which has lifted you up beyond that which is good because of your exceedingly great riches! (Helaman 7:26)

http://www.jrganymede.com/2016/09/08/righteous-pride/

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. (Romans 12:17)

Marked Scriptures Are Beautiful

A friend asked me why I'm using paper scriptures.  Well, that's what we used on my mission, and because of that they're pretty marked up.  I've infused more of myself into them, so they are more nourishing.  

The Love Of Truth Is Not In Them

People become defensive when their beliefs are questioned, because they refuse (for laziness, for fear, for pride) to question the beliefs themselves.

This schism functions to show whether you are a lover of truth, or would prefer your own unreality.

If one has earned his beliefs by the trial of fire, he will be secure in his views.

The plan of salvation separates us by how much we want to follow God. The Terrestrial law is that we will follow God, as long as he does not compromise us in X Y Z cherished area. That we will follow God so far, but no further.