Saturday, November 24, 2018

...a part of them would not suffice

3 Nephi 7:17

17 And he did minister many things unto them; and all of them cannot be written, and a part of the would not suffice, therefore they are not written in this book. And Nephi did minister with power and with great authority.

Source

To be honest, I haven't had a charitable heart over the last few months. As current events are enough to rock anyone's boat of peace (well, mine at least), I could offer myself an excuse. But, when I read in the scriptures and see myself shouting back at me, it's a good sign my direction needs a bit of correcting. And by "shouting back", I don't mean telling me all the bad things I've done wrong recently. I mean, all my interpretations mirror my preconceived notions of what the scriptures ought to mean, to me, in my present existence. And so the scriptures are the worst kind of mirror, one that reinforces prejudice in its various forms, and reading them is no longer a spiritual exercise, but the earthly pursuit of being right at all costs.


I will sin a bit now and share one that's been popping up too frequently in my thoughts:


3 Nephi 9:9

9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.

Source

The whole point of this post was, originally, to _not_ post that verse. Because of my reaction to it, how it makes me feel about certain things happening in the world today, I knew that this was a bad reason to write about the scriptures. So, why am I being sneaky and looking for a backdoor way to post it here anyways? Well, I hope that by so doing I can point out the greater lesson, at least to me, of my recent thought patterns -- "a part of them would not suffice".


I can see a thousand ways to use this verse for self-serving ends. For instance, I could point out some political ideology, and then posit that said ideology is leading to the destruction of the peace of "the people", and then bam! I win the internet. Thanks, everyone, I hope you enjoyed my ego show. Or, maybe I could pick some gospel topic, and use this verse to demonstrate how any particular slippery slope leads right to the heart of pure evil! BAM! Won the internet again, thank you, and please don't mind my gloating in the comments. And, to go with the sneaky double-back guilt trip, I could use this in conjunction with the title of my blog post to demonstrate how anyone who doesn't think deeply enough about the scriptures is not being righteous! OH SNAP! Now you've gone and done it, won the internet again, and this time with the head fake straight to intellectual superiority. Man I'm awesome. And, for the opus magnus egoist, I could use this as a play on how humble I am, because I alone see that really, what this means is I'm the only one in the universe who understand the true nature of the scriptures, therefore I must write about them! BAM BAM BAM!!! Gunned everyone down with that one, now it's on to the me show and after party, featuring ME, of course.


Writing about spiritual things is, therefore, tightly intertwined with ego (here I go again!). No, I hope that if you ever see someone say something like that, you don't feel guilty, 'cause the worst thing in the world would be, IMO, for people to not share their experiences. And, too often, when I write it does seem a bit like a wrestling match of me vs the universe, and I only "win" if the universe heels to my personal understanding of what THINGS OUGHT TO MEAN! (I apologize for the all-caps, but I want to be open and honest about how these things feel to me sometimes).


The Book of Mormon consists, much of the time, of someone writing about things that other people did. Its namesake, Mormon, shows up as narrator voice in a few places, but really he is transcribing, abridging, and transmitting the shared experiences of a civilization. That's a tall order, and I personally think it's pretty cool that we don't have 600-odd pages just about Mormon (it's o.k., Nephi, we love you...). Mormon does editorialize to an extent, but frequently he gets out of the way so other's experiences shine through. The title for this post is one of those times, and herein is wisdom -- Mormon didn't write something, because he didn't feel like he could convey it correctly. He didn't try to fit what was said into the space he had, nor did he abridge it, nor did he minimize it. Rather, he came upon an experience that he wanted to share, but couldn't, and rather than trying to transmit that experience in anything other than its full truth, he simply said "I can't do this justice, so I'm going to leave it out".


I will now not "call out" anyone for doing the opposite of this. I cringe because I've tried to convey things that were inappropriate to convey for exactly this reason -- I wasn't the person involved, I didn't have time to tell the whole story in all the necessary detail, and most of all it wasn't my experience to share. I think the better path is to meditate upon the experiences of others and cherish them for what they are; the truth of their existence that they chose to share with me. Hopefully I can actually follow that path. And, if you don't, at least understand that I'm right there too. And thank you, everyone, for sharing your time with me. I look forward to much more of it in the future.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Through Languages

I want something like this, I don't know if it exists yet, but I think it'd be neat: 

 1 Nephi: Nephi -> Joseph Smith (translator) 

 2 Nephi: Nephi -> Joseph Smith (translator)

 ... 

 Zenos (Jacob 5): Zenos -> Jacob (transcriber)? -> Joseph Smith 

 ... 

 Mosiah: Mosiah -> Mormon (abridged) -> Joseph Smith (translator) 

 Zeniff (Mosiah 9-22): Zeniff -> Mosiah (scribe)? -> Mormon (scribe)? -> Joseph Smith (translator) 

Alma (Mosiah 22-23): Alma -> Mosiah (abridged)? -> Mormon (abridged)? -> Joseph Smith (translator) 

 Ether: Ether -> Moroni (abridged) -> Joseph Smith (translator) 

Basically, the "lineage" of all the different authors' works in the Book of Mormon (as such is manifest in the book itself), from the time they were originally written to the time that Joseph Smith translated them into English. The idea here is to document all the hands involved and their role. So, for instance, Zeniff's account in the book of Mosiah reads like it was essentially added directly into the plates, so the "lineage" could go Zeniff -> Joseph Smith (translator). However, it appears in the middle of the book of Mosiah, and it's entirely possible that it was copied onto the plates by Mormon, in which case we'd have Zeniff -> Mormon (scribe) -> Joseph Smith (translator). Further, it's possible that Mormon simply transcribed what Mosiah had written at that point in his record, so really the lineage would look like: Zeniff -> Mosiah (scribe) -> Mormon (scribe) -> Joseph Smith (translator). Thus I have it listed above with question marks as, so far anyways, I haven't found a clear indication of exactly how Zeniff's record was physically added to the Book of Mormon. I guess I've kind of started this above, so perhaps I'll finish it (someday) if I can't find a preexisting version someplace.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

100%

Moses 4:1-2

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
[emphasis mine]

Source

I have often wondered, what's so wrong with Satan's plan as laid out in these verses? I like the idea of everyone being "redeem[ed]", and I think that's a worthy goal (even if it's just a goal). Certainly I believe God loves all of His children, so it seems natural to want everyone to make it safely home.

It's hard to be "against" that point of view on pretty much any level. And, really, I'm all for it. But I think there is a strongly implied undercurrent to this situation that, for a long time, I've missed. Satan never had any plans to love all of God's children. Nor did he want them to be "like" him; redemption is different from exaltation, and while I'm not sure if that technical difference is meant to be part of these verses, I tend to think Satan's version of Heaven meant a.) we were all "redeemed", but b.) he was to be the all-powerful God over us forever and we'd never share in the same experiences that he was having as God. So, while his plan sounds nice, it did not include love, mercy, or any sense of having a "Heavenly Father" that I believe in, theologically speaking.

I think this also implies that mercy vs. justice could have been, under Satan's plan at least, a zero-sum game. For instance, I feel that these verses take on a different meaning when we contemplate the idea of having either mercy, or justice, but not both:


Alma 42:25-27

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

26 And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery.

27 Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day it shall be restored unto him according to his deeds.

Source

I think I'd go a bit further than Alma does in vs 25, namely that Justice and Mercy are, because of the Atonement, married in a way that prevents this zero-sum-game outcome. I feel that vs 26 can be read to support the idea that all "destruction and misery" in life comes from disobeying God's commandments, which IMO is not true. In my experience bad things happen and good things happen to me oftentimes no matter what, and that's one of the features of life that makes this world "telestial". There is not always a logical a -> b when it comes to suffering or success.

Why is it that way? This is one of the features of Satan's plan that gives a bit of comfort, namely that everyone will be redeemed. I've often wondered how he might go about accomplishing this. My current view of Satan, as a person, is that he wants all the trappings of God's power but fundamentally does not understand the "love" part of it. Thus his "plan" was to essentially spell it all out for us, give us thousands and thousands of pages of dos and don'ts so that we would have a perfect guide for how to live life. There was no room for error in his plan, and there is some presumption that there was also no room for growth. Regardless, there definitely was and is no room for love (in the forms of grace and mercy), and that is the main feature that sets his plan apart from God's. This, I believe, is why charity is listed along with faith and hope as one of the cardinal virtues, and perhaps _the_ cardinal virtue:


1 Corinthians 13:4-10

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Source

Thus the choice between God's plan and Satan's plan is about far more than choosing to have agency, I believe it's about choosing love in the face of imperfection. Thus "charity never faileth" -- love can be the one constant that overarches all other failings and imperfections in life.