Not Lying About Lycanthropy

I just want to take a moment to recognise that I have strayed very far from my original vision for this blog. Instead of blogging about a General Conference talk some time before noon, I am now going to blog about two people technically not lying about whether or not a fictional character was a werewolf less than two hours before midnight.

Perhaps I ought to go back to blogging about Conference talks some time soon.

In the meantime, I have a quick character update about Hector, Paladin of Lathander: He is almost certainly a werewolf. The last time I blogged about Hector contracting lycanthropy (again, something I never would have thought I would blog about), it was uncertain whether or not he was one.

In D&D, when a potentially negative effect, like the curse of lycanthropy, potentially afflicts a character, that character is usually allowed to make a "saving throw," which basically means that they get to roll a die and add some numbers to it, and if the total is high enough, the negative effect is lessened, if not totally negated. After blogging about whether or not Hector should kill himself (again, weird blog), he got to roll his saving throw. I told the DM the total, and he told me that Hector did not feel particularly wolfy, which I took to mean that Hector had succeeded on a saving throw and that Hector was not a werewolf, which is what I told others.

However, in my last gaming session, Hector woke up in the middle of the woods naked and covered in some other creature's blood. He is almost certainly a werewolf. But what I think is truly fascinating here is that neither the DM nor I lied about Hector's condition. The DM said that Hector didn't feel like a werewolf, which was true. He implied that Hector wasn't a werewolf, so I might fault the DM for deliberate misdirection, but he technically didn't lie.

And, for the record, neither did I. When I told people that Hector wasn't a werewolf, even though it later turned out that he was, I wasn't lying; I was wrong. I was mistaken. I was confident enough in an incorrect belief that I was comfortable stating it as fact, even though it was later revealed that the opposite was true. And all of this leads me to wonder how many other people aren't lying.

There are some people who affirm that there is no God in this universe, and there are other people who testify with all their hearts that there is. Even though those two groups can't both be right, it's possible for neither group to be lying. They are both sharing their beliefs, beliefs about which they feel so sure that they are willing to state those beliefs as fact, just as I stated as fact my belief that Hector was not a werewolf. The atheists aren't lying and the theists aren't lying, even though one of those groups has to be wrong.

There are at least two lessons we can learn from that fact (or from that evaluation which I have stated as fact). The first is that it may be wise to place qualifying phrases on certain statements, even when we're certain of their validity. For example, instead of saying "It's going to rain tomorrow," we could say "It's probably going to rain tomorrow," or "It looks like it's going to rain tomorrow." I don't expect that many people will feel comfortable applying words like "probably" to their affirmations of religious (or irreligious) belief, so perhaps the second lesson is the more important one.

We should be patient and understanding of others' beliefs, even when their wrong. I never meant to lie to anyone about whether or not Hector was a werewolf. I wasn't trying to deceive people or mislead people, and I don't think that many of the people who are wrong in their religious (or irreligious) beliefs are either. Most of us are just saying what we think is true. I thought that Hector had succeeded on his saving throw and shaken off the curse of lycanthropy, and I said as much. Though I stated it without qualifiers, I wasn't lying; I was just wrong. There are many other people who believe things far more strongly than I believed that Hector wasn't a werewolf, and they share those beliefs emphatically, and without qualifiers. Those people are not liars or tricksters, even if it turns out that they were wrong.

So, let's be careful which statements we declare as facts, and let's be patient with the declared "facts" of others. Any of us could be wrong about something and not know it. Many people say things that aren't necessarily true, but that, in my opinion, does not make us all liars.

Legality and Morality

This afternoon, I tutored a student who was working on a paper that explored the relationship between civil laws and moral laws. Allow me to throw in my two cents: There isn't one.

There are some actions in some circumstances that are illegal, but morally right, and there are many actions that are legal, but morally wrong. However, I think that this may be as it should be. While I am loath to make it illegal for someone to follow their conscience, some people's moral compasses are badly demagnetized, and even if such people think it's morally justified to harm others, I don't mind forbidding them to do so. I also don't mind legalizing some actions that I believe are immoral. It's morally wrong to insult someone, but that should never be illegal.

While many civil and moral laws overlap, like the laws against murder, there still is, and perhaps should be, a strong distinction between civil and moral laws. Holding oneself to strict moral laws should be voluntary, never enforced, and while I would err on the side of freedom, there are some freedoms that should not be granted, even if they're considered by some to be morally just. Despite the overlap, civil and moral laws have nothing to do with each other, and since they exist for different reasons and are enforced in different ways, I think that that difference is probably a good thing.

We All Need Angels

In Institute, we recently watched a Bible video portraying the Savior's Atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane, and one moment in that video reminded me of what I consider one of the most touching parts of that whole experience.

Luke 22: 43 "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him."

Jesus was perfect and incredibly powerful, and He certainly had the heaviest burden of anyone who ever lived, but I have to think to myself: If even He needed angelic help at one point, maybe it's not so bad when I need it.

I am a weak individual. I often need angelic help to just handle my regular obligations. Sometimes, I find certain trials or temptations too difficult for me, and I feel like I'm about to cave in. But if Christ Himself needed an angel to get through His trials, what makes me think that I won't need one to help me get through mine?

Earth life is not a good time for prideful bravado. The challenges of this life are, in fact, challenging, and we could use all the help we can get, no matter how strong or capable we are on our own.

We all need help sometimes. Even Jesus did. Let's not be too timid to ask for it, and let's not be too proud to accept it. There will come times in each person's life when that person needs an angel. Jesus was no exception to this rule. None of us are. We all need angels sometimes. Not even Jesus could have made it through life without one.

Should Hector Kill the Ruffians Now?

I little over two months ago, I blogged about an encounter my D&D character, Hector, had had with a band of ruffians. Remember that Hector is a Paladin, committed to the virtues of justice and goodness. Remember also that, while these ruffians didn't attack anyone in Hector's presence, it was abundantly clear that that was just the sort of thing they might have done if they thought they could get away with it. To protect the innocents that these ruffians would attack later, Hector probably should have killed the ruffians, but since they didn't attack anyone while Hector was around, and I didn't think it'd be just for Hector to deal the first blow, he and the ruffians never fought, and the ruffians lived.

But now, almost by random chance, Hector has found himself back in the same town where he met the ruffians previously, and he has half a mind to seek them out. After all, if he made a mistake by not killing the ruffians, he should probably correct that mistake now, while he has the chance. But this forces the question again: Should Hector have killed the ruffians? And it adds another layer of complexity: Should Hector kill them now?

Clearly, some time has passed -- at least a week or two, in game. The ruffians must have been doing something during that time. If Hector learns that the ruffians have been attacking people, the ruffians will die. However, if it turns out that the ruffians haven't attacked anyone, perhaps Hector ought to leave them alone. After all, perceptions can be misleading. Hector's first impression of them, that they are violent thugs who are a blight on society, may have been wrong. Maybe they're not actually ruffians. They could simply be assertive people who persuade through intimidation. If they don't actually hurt anyone, not even the people who don't do what they say, perhaps Hector should let them be.

However, I feel like I'm jumping through hoops trying to defend the ruffians. It was clear two months ago that the ruffians are trouble. And, as a Paladin, Hector should probably "deal with" that trouble. Now, Hector has a second (or, technically, third) chance to deal with these ruffians, and I intend for him to do so because I think it's the right thing for him to do.

Still, I'm not sure it's just. The ruffians may "have it coming," so to speak, but justice doesn't work like that. As far as Hector knows, these guys haven't broken any laws or done anything wrong, and even if they had, Hector doesn't have any legal right to enforce any laws, let alone convicting and executing suspects without any solid evidence. I don't know how important "law" is in a kingdom ruled by an evil vampire, but it's certainly not just for Hector to kill people who, as far as he knows, haven't done anything wrong and aren't planning on doing anything wrong besides being insistent and intimidating and lingering suspiciously on the road in the middle of the woods. Hector can't justifiably kill them just for that, and, legally, he probably can't justifiably kill them at all.

So, I'm back in the same tough situation I was in two months ago. Should Hector kill the ruffians or not? On the one hand, they were clearly acting in a dangerous manner, and that didn't seem to be unusual for them, so they're probably habitual thugs and highwaymen. On the other hand, "probably" isn't good enough. Hector would need some kind of evidence, or at least a self-defence excuse, to justify taking action against the ruffians, and even in that case, that action probably shouldn't be killing.

The plan, at the moment, is to see what the ruffians haven been up to these last few weeks. As stated before, if it's found that these ruffians have been acting exactly the way Hector expected them to act, they're done for, but if they haven't been causing any problems recently, Hector will probably, for the third time, let these ruffians live.

What I Know She Knows

At the beginning of his talk, Elder K. Brett Nattress asked "If all that your children knew of the gospel came from you—as their only source—how much would they know?" I don't have kids yet, but I have a mother who, at the very least, taught me one very important thing about God: He is real. My mother has a strong testimony of this. She has, on multiple occasions, shared an experience in which she had literally felt God's influence in her life. I know that she knows for certain that God is real.

I know a good deal more about God than merely that He exists, but it's hard to pin down what I've learned from my mother. I'm sure that it's a lot. Even just through this blog and the comments and conversations that have stemmed from it, I've learned a lot about the Gospel from my mother. But the one thing that I can pin down as having learned from her is also the most fundamental thing about it. I know that God lives and loves me, even if for no other reason than that I know that she knows that He lives and loves her.

(How) Can We Talk?

One problem I've encountered on this blog is that there's no good way to hold a conversation here. If you post a comment on one of my blog posts, I'll see it, and I'll likely appreciate the insight and perspective, but I'm not sure how I could respond.

I, too, could post a comment on the blog post, and you'd be able to see it, but I don't think you'd be notified in any way, so you probably wouldn't know that I responded (which is a large part of why I haven't responded to many comments). I could mention a comment and then respond to it directly in a blog post. If you follow my blog, you'd almost certainly see that kind of response, but so would everyone else.

Many people get to my blog through links from Facebook, which is a much better channel for electronic communication, but I can't assume that everyone who finds this blog also has a Facebook account. (By the way, I just now realized that many of the Facebook friend requests I've gotten from people I don't know may have been from people who've found my blog and want to follow it. If that's the case for you, send me a Facebook message and I'll probably accept your friend request.) If we could open up these topics for discussion on Facebook, that would be great, since we'd both get notifications when we say stuff to each other.

Of course, if you know me personally, you could contact me through text or email or just by talking to me face-to-face, but that wouldn't be convenient, or even possible, for some of you.

Other than that, I don't know how we could hold conversations. If you have any ideas, you could share them in a comment, as long as you don't mind the rest of the world potentially seeing it. I think that these interactive conversations would be good because then we'd be more free to discuss and explore ideas. We'd learn a lot more from each other if we could communicate more effectively. This blog has been great, but it has some limitations. If we could learn how to overcome some of these limitations by learning how to exchange comments with each other, we'd all get a lot more out of this blog than we get out of it now.

He Will Help Us Bear Them

As he spoke about afflictions, Elder Evan A. Schmutz said the following:

Many of us have pleaded with God to remove the cause of our suffering, and when the relief we seek has not come, we have been tempted to think He is not listening. I testify that, even in those moments, He hears our prayers, has a reason for allowing our afflictions to continue, and will help us bear them.

God does not always remove our afflictions. There are essential reasons for many of them. If there weren't, He would probably have already removed them out of His intense desire to help us. But when the trials we face are unavoidable, God offers us a different form of comfort; He helps us bear them. When God, for some wise reason, can't take our burdens from us, He can still often lighten them and strengthen us. In fact, strengthening us is one of the main reasons we have trials in the first place. God won't always just take our problems away from us, but as Elder Schmutz said, He "will help us bear them."

Both Harmless and Deadly

Last night, as Hector (whom you'll be happy to hear did not contract lycanthropy) was keeping watch, he saw a set of faint lights, like those of torches or lanterns, off in the woods. He roused his companions, and the sneakiest among them went off into the dark woods to investigate the mysterious lights. Even after several minutes, he didn't return. It turned out that the mysterious lights were Will-O'-Wisps, and they had tricked him into falling into a potentially-deadly pit of noxious fumes. On their own, the Wisps were harmless; they were just lights. But with a deadly trap to lure adventurers into, the Wisps had become a serious threat.

Similarly, temptations are also harmless, yet deadly. They are harmless in that they are just thoughts, but they are spiritually-deadly in that they can lead us into vicious traps. However, they share the same weakness that Will-O'-Wisps have: we can ignore them. The only way the Wisps were able to threaten Hector's companion was by convincing him to follow them, and the same is true for temptations; the only way temptations can harm us is by convincing us to follow them. We can choose not to. If we resist the temptations, they will be unable to harm us. It is only when we follow temptations that they gain the power to destroy us.

Last night, Hector and his companions learned better than to follow strange lights into the dark woods again. May we also learn not to follow such dangerous temptations. We may think temptations are harmless (and as long as we resist them, they are), but as soon as we begin to follow them, we will be at risk of finding out just how deadly they can be.

Comparing Problems

As Elder Evan A. Schmutz spoke of afflictions and trials, he reminded us that though the afflictions people suffer are (or at least seem to be) distributed unevenly, it doesn't do much good to compare our afflictions against others'. Rather, he encouraged us to learn from our afflictions, so we can gain the insights and learn the wisdom that God wants us to learn from them. It's not helpful to know whether our trials are more or less severe than another person's. Let it suffice that everyone has their own trials and afflictions and that God tailors the afflictions He gives us to best suit our strengths and needs, which vary greatly from one person to another. Your trials may be different from mine, and they may be stronger or weaker, or just as strong, but in different ways, but each of our trials are made specifically for us, and it's pointless to wish you had someone else's problems instead of your own. God's not going to let you trade, and even if He did, it would be counterproductive. Your afflictions were designed for you, to help you learn and grow. It doesn't matter if your problems are bigger or smaller than someone else's; they are just the right size and shape for you. So, let's try not to worry about who has it harder or easier than others. That's not going to help us become the people we need to be, but thankfully, our tailor-made trials will.

Should Hector Kill . . . ?

Hector didn't kill the ruffians, even though they were totally asking for it, and he didn't kill the coffin-maker because it turned out that the coffin-maker had been coerced by a coven of vampires (whom he and his companions destroyed). He also didn't kill the "mad wizard" (whom I probably haven't told you about) because the wizard's madness was easily cured and he is no longer a threat to anyone. However, Hector now has to confront yet another potential threat to the realm, one that should be eliminated as soon as possible, before anyone else gets hurt: himself.

It is entirely possible, though not yet confirmed, that Hector has contracted lycanthropy. That is, he may now be a werewolf.

In D&D, as in most mythologies with werewolves, werewolves are not entirely in control of them. When they transform, which happens non-voluntarily, they fly into a wild killing spree, attacking every human they see, and probably some other animals, too.

Hector knows that he has been bitten by a werewolf, so he knows that there's a chance that he will soon transform against his will and begin attacking innocent people. There are several ways to prevent this, but only one way is sure to work.

He could, and will, try to have his lycanthropy cured, but that will take some time. In D&D, lycanthropy can be cured as easily as casting the "Remove Curse" spell on the lycanthrope, but Remove Curse is a 3rd level spell, meaning that it would take a reasonably powerful spell caster to cast it. It's possible that one of his companions could cast this spell, if she has it in her spellbook, but there's no guarantee of that. I'm sure the no-longer-mad wizard could cast Remove Curse on Hector, but he's several days' journey away. There will be many moonlit nights before Hector can get to the wizard to remover the curse.

In the meantime, Hector must contain the beast in more conventional ways. He will soon reach a town at which he could almost certainly buy a chain and some padlocks, no questions asked, but, troublingly, the chain might not be strong enough. According to the equipment description in the Player's Handbook, a chain has a break DC of 20, which means that if you want to break a chain, you roll a 20-sided die, add your Strength bonus to it, and if the total is 20 or higher, you succeed. Hector could, on a lucky (or unlucky) roll, break the chain with his bare hands, even without whatever Strength bonus he might get for being a werewolf, and the werewolf will certainly try to break the chain. Keeping the werewolf chained up is not a reliable long-term solution.

My current plan for Hector is to try and keep the werewolf chained up until we can find someone to cast Remove Curse on him, but this plan carries serious risk. If the werewolf breaks the chain, it will be up to Hector's companions to bring the him down, and if any of them get injured and infected in the process, their problem gets exponentially worse.

One simple solution to this lycanthropy problem, and one that is sure to work without any risk of injuring others, is for Hector to kill himself. This is certainly not an ideal solution, but it's the only way to truly guarantee the safety of others. Either Hector takes his own life, or he runs the risk of taking or at least ruining others'.

Hector isn't going to do that. The situation is literally dicey, but the odds of a mishap are low enough that to take such drastic action seems unwise. But still, in this situation, the option must be considered. If any lives are to be lost because of Hector's lycanthropy, it should be his, and it seems irresponsible to risk an unknown number of lives just to hopefully spare one. However, self-harm, even in the name of sacrificing oneself for the good of others, is never a good option, and it is very rarely the best.

I don't even have to finish the question. No, Hector should not kill himself. Probably no one should. It is, at this point, risky for Hector to let himself live, but it's a risk that he is just going to have to take.

But a Small Moment

You may have noticed that I didn't blog yesterday. That was because, at the time, I was terribly sick. I won't disgust you with the details; let it suffice to say that I wasn't really up for anything, let alone blogging. But fortunately, after a half-decent night's sleep and a full day of recuperating, I'm doing much better now. In fact, I feel perfectly fine, whereas less than 24 hours ago, I felt perfectly terrible. I am greatly blessed that my illness, though miserable, didn't last long.

Of course, in the eternal scheme of things, none of our afflictions will. In mortality, we have many struggles and afflictions, including illnesses, but none of them are going to last longer than we do. When we die, we will lose our bodies which are subject to such sicknesses, disabilities, and limitations, and when we're resurrected, we'll get bodies that are immune to those sorts of things.

When we consider that we lived for an eternity before gaining mortal bodies, and that we'll continue living forever after our bodies become immortal, we realize that the struggles we have with our mortal bodies won't last very long, relatively speaking. Yes, it can be painful and difficult, especially when we don't know exactly how long our afflictions will last, but we can take comfort in knowing that, if we're righteous, no affliction will plague us eternally. And after our afflictions end and we go on living forever, that time in which we were subject to diseases will feel like our afflictions had been "but a small moment" (D&C 121:7). We can endure that long.

I know that's easy for me to say, having only been sick for about 24 hours. I know that there are many people who have suffered much worse for much longer. For them, I hope they turn to Jesus Christ for comfort. He, too, suffered greatly, but endured it well. He can certainly comfort you and give you patience and perspective, no matter how hard your afflictions are or how long they last. I can't pretend to understand what you're going through, but I can testify that, after all this was over, it will eventually feel like our times if trial were a relatively short period of time.

Martin Harris and the Book of Mormon

I don't know a lot about Martin Harris, but I've been learning much more about him through this Primary class than I had ever known about him before. For example, I knew that he had been responsible for the loss of the 116 pages, and that it had cost him his role as Joseph Smith's scribe, and I knew that he was one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, but I wasn't sure exactly how that all worked out until last week.

Last week, I learned that when Joseph Smith and the soon-to-be Three Witnesses gathered for the prophesied revelation to take place, it didn't happen at first. They prayed, but Angel Moroni didn't come. They tried again and still got no answer. Martin Harris felt that he was the reason the revelation wasn't happening, so he went off on his own to pray. Sure enough, after Martin Harris left the group, the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and the other two of the Three Witnesses and showed them the plates. After that, Joseph Smith joined Martin Harris and they both prayed earnestly, and Moroni ultimately appeared to Martin Harris as well, so he, too, could witness the Gold Plates.

Martin Harris repented, and now I'm learning that that's not all he did. Though he was no longer involved in the translation of the Gold Plates, he sold 151 acres of land to raise the $3000 needed to pay for the initial printing of the Book of Mormon. $3000 is a lot of money nowadays, and it would have been worth even more back then. Selling his land to pay for the publication was a huge sacrifice for Martin Harris, and his willingness to make that sacrifice says a lot about his character and his dedication to the cause.

Now, I've heard that Martin Harris left the church eventually, and I look forward to learning more about that. Specifically, I'm eager to learn whether or not it's true, and, if it is true, I'm interested in learning how and why it happened. However, regardless of what happened later in his life, Martin Harris was deeply involved in the production of the Book of Mormon during this part of the story. He was the first scribe to help Joseph Smith translate the plates, he was one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, and he paid at least most of the cost for printing the first 5000 copies of the Book of Mormon. Whatever faults he may have had or later gained, Martin Harris was instrumental to the  publication of the Book of Mormon and he never denied its truthfulness.

It's easy to judge Martin Harris by the mistakes he has made, but he has done a lot of good, too. Similarly, it's easy to judge others by their mistakes while failing to see their good sides. So, let's not be so quick to judge others and think badly about them. There is good in everyone, and too much of it gets taken for granted or forgotten.

Printing-Mimicking Activities

I'm having fun planning the activities that go along with the lesson I'm teaching this Sunday. The printing of the Book of Mormon isn't very exciting or interesting as a topic, but the activities described in the lesson plan should be engaging enough to grasp even our rambunctious boys' attention. One of the activities is to arrange letter tiles into the phrase "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ" (without the colon), and another is to fold a sheet of paper with seemingly randomly arranged letters on it in such a way that, after you've folded and trimmed the paper, you're left with a booklet with the pages accurately numbered.

These two activities partially depict the early printing process of arranging letter stamps in a printing press, then stamping multiple pages at once onto large pages which are then folded and cut into booklets which are then all sewn together into a book. It's an amazing process, and it should be fun to partially duplicate.

These activities are mainly designed to give the kids something fun to do that can be related to the lesson, but as I explain how these activities relate to the lesson, it should help teach the kids how much thought and work went into printing the Book of Mormon, which may help increase our gratitude for it. It wasn't easy for the early saints to translate and print the Book of Mormon, but I'm sure glad they did, and I think the kids will have fun learning how they did it.

Keystone

There's something funny about the idea of the Book of Mormon being the "keystone" of our religion. The keystone is the top/middle stone of an arch, and the idea is that, without the keystone, the whole arch would fall apart. But the same could be said of any other stone in the arch! Take any stone out, and the arch crumbles. In that sense, every stone is a "key"stone. The Book of Mormon isn't the only essential element of our church. We also need faith, hope, charity, love, repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, inspiration, revelation, prophets and apostles, and the list goes on. Without any one of those things, this church would just be a fraction of what it is.

In fact, of all the essential elements of the church, I think that the Book of Mormon may be one of the least essential. Yes, it's a nice book, and the stories are fun, but the doctrine in it could have been taught solely through modern revelation. The Book of Mormon is great at building testimonies, but so is inspiration. And yes, it's great to have a new book of scripture to serve as a companion to the Bible, but we get enough new scripture to fill a magazine twice per year. As Mormons, we are buried under new scripture. Then, what's so important about the Book of Mormon?

I don't think the Book of Mormon belongs at the top of the arch as much as it belongs at the base, or foundation, of the arch. The Book of Mormon was and is important partly because, in Joseph Smith's time, it was practically all the early saints had. Having the Book of Mormon set them apart from the other churches, and while we were still waiting for modern revelation to come in and fully establish church doctrine, the Book of Mormon was enough to teach the core elements of our doctrine that differ from that of most other Christian churches. The Book of Mormon succinctly sums up and accurately represents almost everything that is unique about our church. The true foundation of this church is Jesus Christ, but the most basic thing about this church, besides that, is the Book of Mormon.

And since the Book of Mormon contains several powerful testimonies of Jesus Christ, it could be said that every essential element of Mormonism is found in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon isn't just the keystone; it incorporates every stone in the arch! So, there's little wonder that the book itself should have a prominent spot in that arch, perhaps in the middle, at the top.

Sacrifice for Scripture

This Sunday, I'm teaching a lesson on the publication of the Book of Mormon, and though the details in the lesson manual seem boring to me, I think I know how I want to approach the lesson.

As we've covered the translation, and now the publication, of the Book of Mormon, one thing that has stood out to me is how much of a sacrifice this process had been. Translating the plates took months of effort spanning multiple years, and just holding onto the plates for that period of time was a sacrifice, as the Smith family suffered multiple burglaries and theft attempts because of it. Almost all of the reactions to the idea of the "gold bible" were negative, and they ranged from mockery to life-threatening physical attacks. Also, there was a financial cost to publishing the Book of Mormon as well, which was paid by a sacrifice.

And that was just the beginning. Joseph Smith continued to pay for the publication of the Book of Mormon for the rest of his cut-short life, and most of those around him suffered for it as well. The Book of Mormon is a great blessing in our lives, but it came at a terrible cost.

After quickly establishing that there was a cost involved in the publication of the Book of Mormon, the main message that I want to share is that much of that sacrifice will be wasted if we don't study the Book of Mormon. Just like the Atonement is useless to us if we don't repent, the Book of Mormon, which cost the Smiths and their few friends so much to produce, will also be useless to us if we don't read it.

I'm aware that worrying about the "sunk cost" is a fallacy, and that the Book of Mormon would have been worth publishing, even if only a few people benefited from it, just as the Atonement would have been worthwhile even if there had only ever been one person who needed it. But still, we shouldn't take the Atonement or the Book of Mormon for granted. Yes, they are both wonderfully-accessible now, but only because others paid a terrible price to give them to us. If we wish to respect their sacrifices and make full use of them, we need to frequently repent and read the Book of Mormon.

Service Takes Faith

I'd like to think that, generally speaking, I'm fairly good at giving service. I serve my loved ones regularly and willingly enough. I serve even strangers fairly frequently. But I'm not sure how well those small, occasional-to-frequent acts of service compare with some of the greater acts of service, including the one I turned down.

Elder Carl B. Cook spoke about such service. He said that blessings come through service in the church and that church callings come from God. He literally said that: "All Church callings come from God—through His appointed servants." He also said that "Even if we think that our Church calling was simply our priesthood leader’s idea . . . we will be blessed as we serve."

But in this case, I'm not sure how much "blessing" it would take to be worth accepting the calling I have been extended. It would take an enormous amount of blessing just to sustain me in the calling so that I can do it without completely hating it. Beyond that, who knows? I know that God is generous to those who serve Him, but I've serve Him in this capacity before, and I didn't feel richly blessed, except in a few moments.

I suppose it all comes back to faith. I have no faith in the value or necessity of the calling I've been extended. Do I have enough faith in God to take His word for it that this is something that needs to be done? Do I have enough faith in Him to trust that the blessings I'd receive would mitigate and/or be worth the struggles I'd need to overcome? Do I have enough faith to accept the calling that I really, REALLY don't want to accept?

No.

Apparently, I need more faith.

Timeless Truths

As I reviewed Elder Brian K. Ashton's talk, "The Doctrine of Christ," it occurred to me that the basic doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Faith, Repentance, Baptism, The Gift of the Holy Ghost, and Enduring to the End) are the same basic truths I taught while I was on my mission. There's nothing new about the gospel; it's the same now as it has been for all time. If you come to General Conference to here a fresh perspective on familiar Gospel doctrines and stories, you won't be disappointed, but you will also hear timeless truths taught basically the same way as they always have been, through the words of Christ and through sincere testimony. Such messages may not be new or exciting, but they are essential, and well worth reviewing.

He Knows Us, Do We Know Him?

On my mission, I taught a young couple who doubted the idea of the pre-mortal existence. As evidence, they cited Matthew 7: 21-23:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

They argued, how could Jesus say He "never knew" people if He had lived with them in the pre-mortal world?

The answer, as Elder David A. Bednar explained in his talk, "'If Ye Had Known Me,'"is in the footnotes. A footnote in Matthew 7: 23 shows us a Joseph Smith Translation, which changes "I never knew you" to "Ye never knew me."

Still, how could this be possible? We spent at least some time, possibly an eternity, with Him before we were born. How is it possible for anyone to not know Jesus Christ?

Unfortunately, though meeting Jesus Christ and knowing of Him are both virtually inevitable, actually knowing Him isn't.  There's a big difference between knowing about Jesus and getting to know Him. It's easy to know of and about Jesus. It takes much more effort to get to know Him.

All Christians know of Jesus Christ, and Christian or not, we all met Him in the pre-mortal world. But not everyone has developed a personal relationship with Him. Not everyone has learned enough about Him to know his attributes and learn why He does what He does.

Yet, He has taken the time to get to know each of us. He knows who we are, and not just in the sense that He knows our names and faces. He knows what we're like. He knows our attributes. He knows why we do what we do. He has a deep, personal relationship with each of us. The only question is if we have that sort of relationship with Him.

Over the course of his talk, Elder Bednar teaches us how we can improve our relationship with Jesus Christ, and if you feel like your relationship with Him could be strengthened, I recommend checking it out. Getting to know Jesus Christ is one of the most important purposes of life, so it makes sense to take the effort to do so. We met Him before we were born, and even if reading this blog post was the first time you've heard His name, we have all now at least heard of Jesus Christ, but that's not enough. We all know of Jesus, but it's important to get to know Him as well as He has gotten to know us.

Returning and Retrieving the Heart

I watched Moana today. This blog post will contain spoilers for that movie, in case you haven't seen it yet. So, if you don't want Moana spoilers, don't read this post.

After a disastrous encounter with the antagonist of the film, Moana decides that saving the world isn't for her. She tries to give "the Heart of Te Fiti," which symbolizes her world-saving task, back to the ocean, who gave it to her in the first place.

And the ocean took it back.

The ocean had given her the Heart and chosen her to be the one to return it to Te Fiti, but she tearfully asked the ocean to choose someone else, and the ocean listened.

I think God does, too.

God often gives us callings, and He has very good reasons for choosing us for those callings, but if we don't want to accept those callings, He won't make us. If we turn down those callings and ask God to choose someone else, He probably will.

I appreciate that God respects our agency on this matter, as on all others. His plan for us may be perfect, but we can still decide not to follow it. Our destiny isn't decided by God; we decide it ourselves. God gives us opportunities, but we always have the option of returning them.

Not that that's a good idea. Shortly after Moana returned the Heart of Te Fiti to the ocean, she changed her mind and retrieved it, intending to return the Heart to Te Fiti, as planned.

I recently rejected a calling, and I've felt slightly torn about it. I don't think anyone else has been offered that calling, though I may hear otherwise over the pulpit tomorrow. It may not be too late for me to change my mind and accept the calling, like Moana did. At this point, as far as I know, the choice really is up to me.

I'm not sure what I should do. Should I accept a calling I don't want, to serve in a position I don't want to be in, where I'll be stressed and bitter and miserable (mostly because I'm not great in high-stress environments), or should I deliberately reject this potentially-vital aspect of God's plan for me? Of course, I know what I should do. I just really don't want to do it. I've already given the Heart back to the ocean. The only question know is whether I'll muster up the courage to retrieve it while I still have the chance.

Choosing Not to Serve

Not too long ago, I turned down a calling, and I'm still not sure how I should feel about that. I feel relieved that I don't have the weight of that calling on my shoulders, but I also feel guilty. I feel like I should be a better person - more obedient, more willing to serve. But part of being a good person is being wise and prudent. I think that I was being wise and prudent when I turned down the calling, but I have nagging doubts that I was just being weak and lazy instead. Can it ever be the right choice to turn down a calling? I know that it can sometimes be wise and good to turn down an opportunity to serve, but what if that opportunity comes, indirectly, from the Lord? To serve the Lord is one of our main purposes. Have I made the wrong decision in choosing not to?

Winning, Losing, and Learning

Or perhaps I ought to title this blog post "Losing, Learning, and Winning."

I just finished playing a few rounds of Magic: the Gathering with my brother. He has been a fan of the game for a while now, but this is his first time actually playing the game with his own deck. Until now, his knowledge of the game has been merely theoretical. He has enjoyed learning about the cards and the story of Magic, and now he is finally getting some practical experience with building and playing his own deck. And it has been a learning experience. He won some games and lost a game, he made some good moves and some bad moves, and through it all, my brother has learned more about how to play Magic and how to play his deck, specifically. And that's what we were really hoping to accomplish. Those games we played tonight weren't so much about playing the game as they were about learning how to play it. In that sense, my brother "won" with every move he made (even the bad ones), and since that was my goal as well, so did I. We both won tonight, and we had fun doing it.

The Most Important Parts

This morning, I had a Sociology mid-term exam. Most of the questions were "short answer" questions, with the responses being only a few sentences each, but the last two questions were "long answer" questions, where the responses were expected to fill a whole page each. However, I managed my time poorly, and by the time I got to the last question, I had only five minutes left to answer it. Fortunately, it was an easy question, so I was able to quickly whip up a few sentences to answer it, but when my time was up, I left a lot of blank lines under my short "long" answer.

Still, I'm fairly confident that I'll get a decent grade on that question, despite my answer being terribly short. I spoke to the Professor about my answer, basically just apologizing for running out of time, and he told me that, as long as I actually answered the question (which I did), that was the most important part. The long and detailed explanations were just fluff, and they didn't matter anywhere near as much as the confirmation that I had actually learned the material. I'm sure I'll get docked at least a few points for my short answer, but I'm confident that I won't lose too many points on that question because I included the most important parts.

I wonder how strongly God feels the same way. When you get down to it, the Gospel of Jesus Christ only has a few really important parts, mostly love, faith, and repentance, with almost everything else being appendages of those core elements. When God asks us to pay tithing, for example, it's not the tithing itself that God is interested in - it's the confirmation that we love and trust God enough to pay it. As Latter-Day Saints, we tend to fret about the many commandments and suggestions we've received from God through the general authorities, but I wonder how many of those suggestions are just appendages and which ones are the really important parts. I frequently find that I need to simplify my life and focus on the basic elements of the Gospel. I wonder if that's God's way of telling me to cut out the fluff and instead focus on the most important parts.

Should Sin Be Illegal?

During my work as a writing tutor, I get to help work on some interesting papers, and every once in a while, one of them really makes me think, and not just about what part of speech "off" is in "I drank some water to cool off." Seriously, is it still a preposition if you do that, or does it become something else? It's not acting much like a preposition just hanging out there at the end of the sentence like that. But I digress.

Recently, one of my students came in with a paper about morality and the risk of the collapse of society. Specifically, the argument was that if everyone gave in to their carnal impulses, then society would fall apart. Given that, wouldn't it make sense to pass laws restricting such vices, and thus bolster society against a sinful collapse?

The paper must have been well-written because, at first, I was swayed by its argument, but now that I've had some time to think about it, I'm not so sure. While it certainly makes sense to have laws against killing and stealing, it doesn't sound ethical to pass or enforce laws against most other sins. No one should try to dictate morality for the rest of society, and even if we could all agree on what standards we should keep, it doesn't seem right to enforce those standards with the threat of violence. People can't be forced to live righteously, and no government should even try it. With the threat of punishment looming over everyone's heads, the test of character which life is supposed to be would be weighted.

Still, part of me thinks that the test is already weighted, since we have many unflattering descriptions of hell in the scriptures, and even more favorable descriptions of heaven. If God can use a system of punishments and rewards to encourage good behaviour, then why shouldn't we also do so through our laws?

The answer to that rhetorical question is partly because we're not God, and we shouldn't "play God" by passing laws defining what is moral and what isn't. It's not our place to do that. God had an opportunity to design and build a perfect world, and He built a world in which everyone is free to believe and act as they choose.

But then, does that mean that there shouldn't be any laws at all? Of course not. Any society has to that rules. And there should be punishments for breaking those rules, but the rules should be agreed upon by society, and not dictated by some religious folks trying to push their moral standards on others. If society as a whole decides to introduce or increase the penalties for committing sin, then they are free to do so, but I would still be wary about it. I think that God should be the one to set the rules and ascribe the punishments, not us.

Judging Like Jesus

According to Facebook, I blogged about a year ago about how we have no right to judge others and about how judgement belongs to the Lord. However, Elder Lynn G. Robbins' talk from the October 2016 General Conference was all about how we are supposed to be righteous judges. He said:

This counsel to the Nephite Twelve will help us judge as the Lord does: “Ye shall be judges of this people, according to the judgment which I shall give unto you, which shall be just. Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am” (3 Nephi 27:27; emphasis added). We sometimes forget that when He gave the counsel to be as He is, it was in the context of how to judge righteously.

While I hold to the belief that we should not be judgemental, it is frequently necessary for us to judge others, and in those cases, as in all cases, we should follow the example of the Savior. He frequently, accurately judged the hearts and intentions of others, and He used that judgement to help Him teach.

We can do something similar. Whenever we have the opportunity to teach others, we should use our judgement to know how we can best help those we're teaching, and when we have an obligation to judge others, we can use those opportunities to teach. Jesus seldom did one without also doing the other.

There are many times when it isn't our place to judge, but there are also times when we have an obligation to judge. In any case, we should always follow the example of the Savior, Who, Elder Robbins reminds us, was "the Righteous Judge."

Meaning, Peace, and Joy

Bishop Dean M. Davies concluded his talk on the subject of worship by teaching us that:

Through sincere and heartfelt worship, we blossom and mature in hope, faith, and charity. And through that process, we gather heavenly light into our souls that infuses our lives with divine meaning, abiding peace, and everlasting joy.

That is the blessing of worship in our lives.

As I've grown, I've learned the value of that blessing. I can't tell you what I wouldn't give to have some meaning in my life, or rather, to know what the meaning is. Very recently, I was desperate for inner peace. And have come to believe that joy is the ultimate goal of our existence. If all of these blessings can come from worshipping God, then we should certainly give our worship more than a mere weekly consideration.

Now, I'm not saying that we should worship any being who offers us peace, happiness, and a sense of purpose, but since many of us are already committed to worshipping God anyway, we might as well make a good effort of it, if only because the blessings that come from doing so are among the most important blessings we could acquire. Worshipping God is worth it, if only for the blessings.  I could use more blessings, and I could use those blessings in particular, so, going forward, I'm going to put a little more thought into how I can worship God better.

Thanks to My Forgiving Family

I'm not sure why, but I've been unreasonably irritable for the last few days. Maybe it's because I've been tired, or maybe it's because I'm stressed or because I'm coming down with something, but I'm not really here to speculate on why I've been unusually irritable lately. Right now, I just want to express my thanks to my family for putting up with me, for forgiving me.

I know that my current attitude is entirely up to me, and I'm going to try to be as patient as my family has been, but I'm also going to try to find out why I've been feeling this way and what negative factors have been contributing to my mood. I'd like to get back to being myself so I don't snap at my loved ones again. They've been more patient with me than I deserve, and they deserve to be treated nicely.

Learning From Our Own Words

I received a profound insight today, and I'd like to share it, but the context is too personal. I'll wait for another opportunity to share what God taught me. In the meantime, you'll have to settle for my testimony that I know God watches over us, and that He's forgiving. He also seems to have a strong sense of irony and a willingness to use our own words to teach us. So, listen to your own thoughts and words. God may use them to teach you truths that you never would have thought of. And when you gain those insights, I hope the circumstances are such that you can share them.

Why Do We Need the Priesthood?

I've made some progress in my lesson plans. I'm currently planning to take the same approach to the restoration of the Priesthood as the missionaries take with the lesson on the Restoration. Basically, I'm going to teach my students that the Priesthood (being, basically, the authority to act in God's name on the Earth) is essential to perform essential, saving ordinances and organize and lead His church. Jesus had that authority, with which He organized the church nearly 2000 years ago, and He gave it to His Apostles, who used it to lead His church until their deaths. When the Apostles were martyred (I may not go into detail on that point), the Priesthood was lost from the Earth, and it needed to be restored.

But here's the tricky part: I'm not entirely sure why the Priesthood needed to be restored. I know we need modern revelation, but it turns out that we don't actually need to have the Priesthood to receive revelation. Joseph Smith proved that when he walked out of the Sacred Grove having seen God Himself, nearly a decade before he received even "the Preparatory Priesthood." He didn't need to hold the Priesthood to receive the vision that changed the world, so receiving revelation isn't the reason we need the Priesthood.

I know we need the Priesthood to perform essential ordinances, but I have no idea why those ordinances are essential. For example, Elder Oaks once said that he wasn't sure why baptism is essential, other than, basically, because God said so. Why do we need to be baptised? Why do we need temples? Yes, temples are needed to perform ordinances for the dead, and the gift of the Holy Ghost is a nice perk, but we don't know why the dead need to be baptised any more than we know why we do, and we can receive impressions from the Holy Ghost even without the gift of the Holy Ghost; it's just less consistent. Other ordinances, like blessing the sick, aren't essential at all. Healing is great, but death is inevitable anyway, and anyone can pray for, and receive, miracles, including healing miracles, whether they hold the Priesthood or not.

During my mission, the question of why we need the Priesthood hadn't occurred to me. I thought we needed the Priesthood because we needed prophets, because we need the modern-day revelation that only prophets can give, but revisiting the Joseph Smith story has reminded me that we don't need the Priesthood to receive revelation, so we must need it for some other reason, and I'm suddenly not entirely sure what that reason is.

It could be that we need the Priesthood (i.e. the authority to act in God's name on the Earth) in order to organise and lead His church. This make sense. After all, if someone wanted to make an organization in my name, I should hope that they would need my permission to do so, and if someone other than me is going to run my organization, they would certainly need my authority to do that. Perhaps that's the angle I'll take with the kids this Sunday. Joseph Smith needed the Priesthood because he couldn't perform ordinances or lead the church without it (never mind that we're not quite sure why we need those ordinances).

Boys, Girls, and the Priesthood

My next Primary lesson is on the restoration of the Priesthood, and I'm unsure on how to approach it. Naturally, the boys need this lesson more than the girls do because they're the ones who will one day have the opportunity to bear the restored Priesthood, so I could gear the lesson toward them, but there are several issues with that. They are usually too energetic to get much out of any given lesson, they aren't going to receive the Priesthood for a few more years anyway, and most importantly, gearing the lesson toward the boys would unfairly neglect the girls in my Primary class.

Unfortunately, teaching the girls about the Priesthood will also be fraught with problems. They won't have much opportunity to apply anything from the lesson, and I don't understand the Priesthood and eternal gender roles well enough to explain why girls and women can't hold the Priesthood.

I could stick mostly to the facts and stories from the lesson manual. That should help keep the tone neutral. But I'll still have the problem of not knowing how to explain to the girls why they can't receive the Priesthood and why they need to learn about it anyway, and I'm pretty sure that one of those questions might come up, as this class is pretty good at asking questions.

I'll have to pray for guidance, study out my anticipated questions, and follow the Spirit in preparing this lesson. More so than the others I've taught, this one is going to be fairly tricky.