Expecting Perfection

I found this little nugget of wisdom in a journal kept by Joseph Smith (written by others) from December 1841 to December 1842. This entry is found on October 29th, 1842.

"[Joseph] said he was but a man and they must not expect him to be perfect; if they expected perfection from him, he should expect it from them, but if they would bear with his infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, he would likewise bear with their infirmities." [Source]

How often do we demand perfection from our leaders, but we complain and protest when the same is done to us?

Stories from My Mission: "La paciencia es la ciencia de la paz."

When I was in the city of Eldorado in Misiones I met a wise old farmer who once shared with me a tidbit of wisdom that has stuck with me ever since.

"La paciencia es la ciencia de la paz."

Literally this means, "Patience is the science of peace." But it has a much better ring to it when you say it in Spanish.

Too hard, even for God?

I recently started reading The Social Conquest of Earth by Edward O. Wilson. Close to the beginning of the book I came across this quote:

"By what force of evolutionary dynamics, then, did our lineage thread its way through the evolutionary maze? What in the environment and ancestral circumstance led the species through exactly the right sequence of genetic changes? 

The very religious will of course say, the hand of God. That would have been a highly improbable accomplishment even for a supernatural power. In order to bring the human condition into being, a divine Creator would have had to sprinkle an astronomical number of genetic mutations into the genome while engineering the physical and living environments over millions of years to keep the archaic prehumans on track. He might as well have done the same job with a row of random number generators. Natural selection, not design, was the force that threaded this needle." (pp. 50-51)

I read that and thought, "Wait, so his argument against the existence of God, or at least the creation is: Because it is too hard and involves an incredibly complex number of interactions across several billion years, and because I would consider that too hard for any being that I can conceive of, it is therefore too hard for God. Thus he could not have done it. It must have been random because otherwise it would have been too hard for any being that I can conceive of."

So in other words, whether or not God could have created humans through a long and involved process, is limited by whether or not a single man can conceive of it being possible? That seems rather, um... limiting to me. I glad that the universe, and God doesn't limit themselves to only do what a single scientist, philosopher or even group of scientists and philosophers think possible. If that were the case, then the universe would be an awfully boring place.

This quote was also rather interesting because I had just read an article about how one philosopher's questioning of materialism and of randomness being the determining force behind our existence got him branded a heretic by the scientific and philosophical community. I put that philosopher's book on my "to read" list. I'll get to it after I finish The Social Conquest of Earth.

The rest of the book so far has been pretty interesting. I like it, even if the author occasionally takes unwarranted swipes at religion every so often. I also really get the sense that he is arguing against a conception of God that I also find untenable, and if that is how it really is then I too would agree with him, but it's not so I don't.

PS: Also when he mentioned "an astronomical number of genetic mutations" I was reminded of this quote from Richard Feynman:

"There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers."

Was Joseph Smith Descended from Lehi? The problem of no quotation marks in 2 Nephi Chapter 3, and a misleading footnote in the D&C.

When I was growing up I remember having a few discussions in Sunday School and in Seminary about 2 Nephi chapter 3 and there was always some confusion about what that chapter was saying, with the most confusing parts being from verse 18 to the end. A quick and not careful reading of the text seems to imply that Joseph Smith was descended from Lehi, which would be problematic since that would require Joseph Smith to have some Native American ancestry, which he definitely did not have. This idea was discussed occasionally in my classes and the teachers of some of the students always concluded with "Well it seems that somehow somewhere Joseph Smith had at least one Native American ancestor." or "We really don't know what that is talking about, but I'm sure that the scriptures are still true."

As it was only a minor thing I never gave it much thought. There were plenty of other apparent discrepancies in the scriptures that seemed much more pressing so it was something that I just filed away in my mind as an oddity. Many years later I was in a Book of Mormon class at BYU taught by Stanley Johnson and he did something interesting. He took the text of 2 Nephi chapter 3 and put it on a transparency and projected it onto a screen with an overhead projector. He then proceeded to mark the text with quotation marks and began to explain the text in a different light now that the text had been broken up in a different way because of the inclusion of quotation marks.

2 Nephi chapter 3 contains the words that Lehi spoke/wrote to his son who he had named Joseph, after Joseph in Egypt. The bulk of the chapter contains a series of quotes that Lehi apparently took from the Brass Plates, and a few other sources, none of which appear in our current Bible. The problem is that the only cues regarding whether or not a portion of the text is a direct quote come from a series of short introductory statements such as, "For Joseph truly testified saying:" and "Yea, Joseph truly said:". In each case the direct quote begins with a statement like that ending in a colon (:). There is no indication that a quote has ended except for a statement indicating the beginning of another quote. This is further complicated by the fact that there are even quotes within quotes.

For example one direct quote from Joseph begins, "Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me:" What follows is a rather lengthy quote of the Lord by Joseph. It is precisely these quotes within quotes that cause all the confusion and lead people to think that the Book of Mormon implies that Joseph Smith was a descendant of Lehi, which would necessitate Joseph Smith having at least some Native American blood. This point has become a minor point of criticism by some anti-Mormon writers who use it as just one more point to criticize the Church. But if we look closely at the text and include a few quotation marks the text can be interpreted differently and it can be shown that the text does not necessarily imply that Joseph Smith was descended from Lehi as was supposed by so many Seminary teachers and students.

Let us look at the text of 2 Nephi 3 now with the inclusion of a few quotation marks and see if this makes a difference. I will not include all of the text but I will include the parts where major quotes begin and end, and mark them with quotation marks (which I will highlight. If there are quotes within quotes I will highlight the quotes with a different color.). Starting in verse 6 and ending on verse 21:

6 For Joseph truly testified, saying: "A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins." 

7 Yea, Joseph truly said: "Thus saith the Lord unto me: "A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins....

8 .... 

9 .... 

10 .... 

11 .... and not to the bringing forth my word only," saith the Lord, "but to the convincing them of my word .... 

12 .... 

13 .... O house of Israel, saith the Lord."" 

14 And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: "Behold, that seer will the Lord bless ....

15 .... by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation."

16 Yea, thus prophesied Joseph: "I am sure of this thing, even as I am sure of the promise of Moses; for the Lord hath said unto me, "I will preserve thy seed forever.""

17 And the Lord hath said: "I will raise up a Moses; ....and I will make a spokesman for him."

18 And the Lord said unto me also: "I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; ....

19 ....

20 ....

21 .... unto the remembering of my covenant which I made unto thy fathers."

Thus there are six major quotes with two subquotes (quotes within a quote). The break down of the quotes is as follows:

1. Verse 6: A quote from Joseph in Egypt.
2. Verses 7-13: This quote is actually a quote from the Lord, as recorded by Joseph in Egypt. Lehi introduces the quote by saying, "Yea, Joseph truly said:" and the quote begins with Joseph introducing the quote from the Lord by saying, "Thus saith the Lord unto me:". The following verses are all part of the same quote and it is only interrupted in verse 11 with Joseph saying "saith the Lord". The quote ends in verse 13.
3. Verses 14-15: Another direct quote of Joseph in Egypt. Joseph does not quote anyone in this passage.
4. Verse 16: This contains a brief statement from Joseph which he ends with an even briefer quote from the Lord.
5. Verse 17: This appears to be the beginning of all the misunderstanding. There are two ways to view verse 17. We can view it as a continuation of the quote started in verse 16, thus making verse 17 a subquote, or we can view it as the beginning of a new quote. There is no reason to think that verse 17 is a continuation of the quote from verse 16 and thus we can consider it as a separate quote given by Lehi. Thus there is no indication that verse 17 was written by Joseph in Egypt, and because we do not know the source we do not know who wrote it.
6. Verses 18-21: If verse 17 was the beginning of the misunderstanding then this section is the culmination of it. If we first assume that verse 17 is a continuation of the quote started in verse 16 and we then assume that the next quote is also a continuation of the same quote then this is where all the trouble arises. But if we do not make that assumption then the quote takes on a different meaning. Verse 18 begins with "And the Lord said unto me also:". If we assume that it is a continuation of the quote in verse 16 then the "me" refers to Joseph in Egypt. But if we do not then the "me" in verse 18 refers to Lehi.

It is easy to see why one might assume that verses 17-21 are simply a continuation of the quote started in verse 16 (quote #4). Up to this point there were two subquotes where Joseph in Egypt said, "the Lord said unto me:" followed by a direct quote. So in verse 18 when the text states, "And the Lord said unto me also:" it is easy to assume that this is Joseph in Egypt giving a direct quote again. But if we read carefully we will see that all the quotes from and directly attributed to Joseph in Egypt end in verse 16. The last two quotes are two direct quotes from unknown origin where the Lord Himself is speaking, with the last quote being one that was directed at Lehi specifically.

The origin of this last quote may be found in verse 22 which says:

22 And now, behold, my son Joseph, after this manner did my father of old prophesy.

If we assume that verses 17-21 are a continuation of quote #4 then the "father of old" referred to here is obviously Joseph in Egypt. But if we take them as two separate quotes then the "father of old" may refer to Lehi's own father! Thus quote #6 is a revelation given to Lehi, by his father, long before Lehi took his family and left Jerusalem (perhaps we can think of it as part of Lehi's Patriarchal Blessing).

So now that we have unpacked that little matter we return to the part where people think that Joseph Smith was descended from Lehi. If we return to verse 18 we can see the origin of this little misunderstanding.

18 And the Lord said unto me [Lehi] also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.

 At first glance this may be the source of the misconception that Joseph Smith is (according to the Book of Mormon) a descendant of Lehi (a of necessity has some Native American blood in him). Because it says that "I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins" meaning a descendant of Lehi will be the one to "write the writing" of the descendants of Lehi. This would "require" that Joseph Smith be a descendant of Lehi! But wait! Who wrote the Book of Mormon? Why Mormon of course! Mormon is by his own admission (he should know since he kept his own genealogy) a direct descendant of Lehi, and he wrote the Book of Mormon. Over and over again Mormon says that he is writing the book to his "brethren the Lamanites". The title page itself declares that it was "Written to the Lamanites". Joseph Smith, and all those who helped translate, never claimed to have written the Book of Mormon. Thus we see that the person who is referred to in these verses is Mormon and not Joseph Smith.

If we dig a little deeper we can find additional sources for the confusion that Joseph Smith was a descendant of Lehi. In Doctrine and Covenants 100:9 we read:

9 And it is expedient in me that you, my servant Sidney, should be a spokesman unto this people; yea, verily, I will ordain you unto this calling, even to be a spokesman unto my servant Joseph.

At the word "spokesman" there is a footnote that gives the reference 2 Nephi 3:17-18! One might naively  look at the footnote in D&C follow it to 2 Nephi and assume that the one who was "risen up" from the fruit of the loins of Lehi is Joseph Smith and the "spokesman" mention in verse 18 is Sidney Rigdon. It all fits right? Except for the fact that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon (Note: It is not the Book of Joseph!). Here we have a case of footnotes, which are not part of the original text, nor are they considered scriptural, which are unintentionally misleading. But again, if we do not make this connection then we do not end up with the problem of Joseph Smith being descended from Lehi. Mormon is the one referred to as being descended from Lehi and having written the writings of the descendants of Lehi. And we can safely assume that the "spokesman" referred to in quote #6 is Joseph Smith, because it never implies that the spokesman is actually a descendant of Lehi.

Thus when we come to verse 24 we can know that it refers to Mormon and I think it is a fitting description of someone who has done so much to bring us the word of God.

24 And there shall rise up one mighty among them, who shall do much good, both in word and in deed, being an instrument in the hands of God, with exceeding faith, to work mighty wonders, and do that thing which is great in the sight of God, unto the bringing to pass much restoration unto the house of Israel, and unto the seed of thy brethren.

An Easter Message

Every Once in a While...

Every once in a while I run across a statement that is truly, well...um...unique. I came across the following comment on YouTube actually. It was in response to a video that you can find here.

"Why is liberalism evil and conservatism good? There is no good or evil. That gives your arguments a religous tone that has no place being there. It is about freedom.

That is what this nation, and all of its greatness, is about at it's core.

It is not about good vs evil. Right vs Wrong. It is about free or slave.

Anyone can say that their own view is right and someone elses view is wrong, but to date..no one has proved it."

As in cases like this I really can't think of a good response to this comment. I think the comment itself does an adequate job of disproving itself. Despite that I would like to take a moment to point out that this comment does a perfect job at demonstrating the prevalence and pervasiveness of moral (and ethical relativism) in our current society. If this quote makes no sense to you it may be because you recognize that there is good and evil and that there is right and wrong. It is already hard enough to teach people what is right and what is wrong, but when they begin to deny that there is even right and wrong, then things become truly difficult.

Even in attempting to deny there is right and wrong, good and evil, the person making the comment gives a standard for good and evil, right and wrong. Thus we see the underlying problem of moral relativism, even by rejecting clear morals or any moral foundation they must put in its place some other moral standard, in this case freedom. Thus by rejecting all moral and ethical axioms they create a new one, that there should be no axioms. This logical inconsistency leads, or can lead to many problems. Anything that is inconsistent with reality can only bring trouble and heartache.

The Scientific Thought

This comes from Ibn al-Haytham, a Persian scientist who is considered the father of modern optics. It expresses the motivation and thought process found in science.

"Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency." [Source]

Music and Cats

"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats." -- Albert Schweitzer

Good Quote (updated)

I came across this very good quote by Chief Justice John Roberts:

"We have a Statue of Liberty. Does that mean we have to have a statue of despotism?"

In response to a comment I got on this post, I should add that the obvious answer to this question should be, "No." That answer and the context from which it was taken should show what he meant by it. He was using it to make a statement that Government is allowed to promote some messages and ideas while not allowing other opposing ideas equal opportunity and expression.

Liberty of Will

Recently I was reading in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles and I came across a passage that I particularly enjoyed. It deals with liberty of the will and why God (divine providence) allows it.

"But the ultimate end of every creature is to attain the divine likeness.... Therefore, it would be incompatible with providence for that whereby a thing attains the divine likeness to be taken away from it. Now, the voluntary agent attains the divine likeness because it acts freely, for we showed...that there is free choice in God. Therefore, freedom of will is not taken away by divine providence.

Again, providence tends to multiply goods among the things that are governed. So, that whereby many goods are removed from things does not pertain to providence. But, if freedom of will were taken away, many goods would be removed. Taken away, indeed, would be the praise of human virtue which is nothing, if man does not act freely. Taken away, also, would be justice which rewards and punishes, if man could not freely do good or evil. Even the careful consideration of circumstances in processes of deliberation would cease, for it is useless to dwell upon things that are done of necessity. Therefore, it would be against the very character of providence if liberty of will were removed."

In other words, God is free to act. Also it is the object or end of our existence to gain the qualities and attributes found in God, thus we must be free to act and inasmuch as we are free to act that cannot be taken away from us by God. The reason why God would not take away our freedom to act is because if He did so then He would be taking away from us something that is good, which would be counter to His nature. Thus we must be free to act (have free will, be able to choose, etc.).

Our freedom to act makes our acts just or unjust, good or evil, virtuous or not. So we are free to be agents unto ourselves, meaning we are free to choose what we shall do, but just because we are free to act does not mean that all of our actions are correct, or good, but rather it allows us to make correct and good choices. This of course assumes that there are right and wrong, good and evil, correct and incorrect, but it is obvious that there must be because we are free to act. If there were no choices given to us then our freedom to act would be null and void, as we would not be able to act. Thus acknowledging the liberty of our will, shows that there must be good and evil, right and wrong, as well as the converse being true (if there is right and wrong, then we must have free will).

What is left is to discover what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil.

Introduction to The Summa Theologica

It was only a year ago that I first read the introduction to the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, but when I read it I saw expressed in it so many of my frustrations (and I assume so many other people's) with school and education in general. Because of it I have always had respect for Aquinas and his views because I think he genuinely understood learning. Even though I tend to disagree with him on many fundamental points of doctrine, I also tend to agree with his arguments on many others. I also think it is interesting that he never finished the Summa.

Below is the introduction to the Summa:

"Because the doctor of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat -- 1 Corinthians 3:1-2), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners. We have considered that students in this doctrine have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written by other authors, partly on account of the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments, partly also because those things that are needful for them to know are not taught according to the order of the subject matter, but according as the plan of the book might require, or the occasion of the argument offer, partly, too, because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the minds of readers.

Endeavouring to avoid these and other like faults, we shall try, by God's help, to set forth whatever is included in this sacred doctrine as briefly and clearly as the matter itself may allow."

As an after note, in the first sentence the word "Catholic" could also be translated as "Universal" and "doctor" as "teacher" though the translation of "doctor" is accurate and illuminating.

Mormonism is Truth

"Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft....The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same." -- Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith p. 264

The Most Amazing Quote

I just came across the most amazing quote. I was reading a news article and after the article there were several reader comments. I found one that was an absolute gem.

"Voting to eliminate Constitutional Rights is ILLEGAL."

I also noticed that the user name of the person that posted this comment was "stupidityshouldhurt". Another comment in response to that comment said it all "you have to be in a lot of pain".