This post is intended as an introduction to people who really don't know what is meant by the term Mormon, and for those who have heard the term, and may have even known a Mormon, but still have little or no idea of what a Mormon is.
First of all, the term Mormon is most often applied to people who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As the name of the church implies, we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and recognize Him as our Lord and Savior and we accept the writings in the Bible as scripture. In addition to the Bible we use the Book of Mormon as another book of scripture to confirm or demonstrate our faith in Jesus Christ. It is because of this book we have the nickname "Mormon", which is perfectly acceptable to us, though formally the members of the church are known as Latter-day Saints, or LDS for short.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith, who we consider to be a prophet, much like the prophets in the Bible. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was officially founded in 1830, we claim that the church is a re-establishment of the original church founded by Jesus Christ almost 2000 year ago. We do not claim to be a break-away sect of any church, or a Protestant denomination, but literally the re-establishment of the ancient church. Thus we believe that we teach those things that were originally taught in the ancient Church of Jesus Christ.
As a members of the church, Mormons meet in their respective congregations every week where everything is done by the local church members. In the church we have what is called a lay ministry, meaning there is no professional, paid clergy. All talks, sermons, lessons and organization is done by members who volunteer their time and effort. The local congregations are lead by someone who we refer to as a bishop, and like all other leaders in the church they are not compensated monetarily for their work. The local bishops have normal jobs just like everyone else. My current bishop works for Microsoft, and I have had other bishops that were plumbers, college professors, architects, anesthesiologists and a used car salesman.
Perhaps some of the things that we are most well known for is the fact that we do not drink alcohol, tea or coffee. We also do not smoke or use tobacco. This general code of health is referred to by Mormons as "The Word of Wisdom", which includes general advice on living a healthy lifestyle. As a side note, while coffee and tea are expressly forbidden by the Word of Wisdom, most members have extended this to include all caffeinated beverages though this is not required by the church. Still, most Mormons refrain from drinking anything caffeinated, though it is not unusual to meet some Mormons who do. Mormons do not have any prohibitions against eating meat of any kind, and other than having the general rule to live and eat healthy, it is largely up to the individual members to decide for themselves what that means.
As for holidays, Mormons celebrate them. We do not have any prohibitions against celebrating any holidays. We celebrate Christmas as the anniversary of Christ's birth and Easter as the anniversary of his resurrection. All other holidays Mormons celebrate depend on the country in which they live. For example in the United States Mormons celebrate the Fourth of July while in Argentina they celebrate the 25 of May (and July 9th and October 26th, I mean who has three independence days??? That is, other than Mexico and France.). In the US we even celebrate Halloween by going trick-or-treating (I mention this because someone once asked me about this). With all of these holidays while the individual members celebrate them, there is no official church doctrine mandating the celebration of particular holidays (i.e. unlike for example, the Catholic Church, or Eastern Orthodox Church which observe holy-days, or saints' days as a matter of religious observance). In short, we celebrate holidays like most other people around us.
As individuals, Mormons get involved in politics like anybody else, but as a church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes it a very strong policy to not get involved in political matters, and will only speak out on topics that we consider to be of extreme moral importance, or in matters that will damage our freedom to worship. Other than that the church does not endorse any politician, political party or platform. While individual Mormons tend to be conservative politically, this is not a rule. Some famous Mormons include well known conservatives like Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and well known liberals like Harry Reid (D-Nevada) (Currently Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader).
One of the things Mormons focus on a lot is family. We place great importance in taking care of and teaching our families. For us there is nothing more important than taking care of our families. We encourage fathers to love and respect their wives and their children, and we teach wives to love and respect their husbands and their children, and we teach children to love and respect their parents. We believe that families and family ties will survive beyond death, which means that when Mormons are married they are not married "'Till death do you part." as is common in other churches, but for "Time and all eternity". It is because of this we place so much importance on our families.
And this brings us to the last thing I wanted to mention and that is Mormon church buildings. Our standard church buildings are called chapels, and this is where we meet every week for our church meetings. We also have church socials there and other activities, such as Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts. The local Cub Scout district holds the annual pinewood derby in the chapel that I go to. Thus the local church buildings are general, all-purpose buildings for anything church related. In addition to our local church buildings we have buildings known as Temples. These are different from our local church buildings in that only members of the church who actively try to live the principles of taught by the church are allowed to enter. There are no typical church meetings that happen in Mormon temples, but they are intended to be places of where we learn and pray and commit ourselves to God. Temples are also where Mormons go to be married. This shows the importance we place on marriage in that we only perform it in our temples, which we consider to be among our most sacred spaces. While there are literally thousands of our local chapels in the world, there are only about 130 temples in the world. The closest one to where I live in located in Raleigh (actually Apex), North Carolina.
I hope that this post has be helpful in answering some of the most basic questions about who Mormons are. I have most definitely not covered everything about Mormons, but if you have any questions feel free to contact me or to leave a comment.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The Keys of the Priesthood
[Author's Note June 23, 2014: Since I wrote this post I have written a more extensive post dealing with priesthood keys. You can read it by following this link.]
The doctrine of the keys of the priesthood is perhaps one of the most important, but least understood of all the doctrines of the Church. It is also one of the most difficult to explain to people who are not members of the Church, but it is a very important doctrine and has had and will have a great impact on not only the Church but everyone else as well.
Before writing this post I looked up a few reference articles about the keys of the priesthood and found a few excellent resources about priesthood keys. Here is a link to the chapter on priesthood keys in the Melchizedek Priesthood manual. There is also a good talk about priesthood keys by Elder Nelson that appeared in the October Ensign in 2005. For those who want to learn more about the priesthood keys that is a good place to start. The rest of this post assumes that the reader has some understanding of the priesthood and priesthood keys.
Usually in the Church when we talk about priesthood keys we are referring to the active aspects of priesthood keys, that is, what they are used for in creating the structure and organization of the Church. While this aspect of priesthood keys is very important, there is another aspect that is very commonly over looked and very poorly understood. This aspect is more passive in its effect, but is still just as necessary and central to the doctrine of priesthood keys. It also brings together many other seemingly disparate doctrines of the Church and acts as central tie that binds the doctrine together.
First I will explain the more commonly known active aspects of the keys and then I will use that to explain the less well understood passive aspects of the keys. The active aspects are those things that have to do with priesthood authority and the power to organize the various stakes of Zion, organize the work of preaching the gospel and the functioning of temples. In all these cases priesthood keys are needed in order to preside and to allow for proper functioning of the organization. In each organization (i.e. stake, mission, temple) there is a president who has the keys, or the power, to order the formation of the organization. Typically when we talk about the keys in the Church, this is what we refer to. These aspects of priesthood keys involve the calling and setting apart for callings, the blessing of the sick, the performance of ordinances and the authority to interpret doctrine and give counsel and guidance. Without priesthood keys, none of these things could legitimately be done, with authority, and with efficacy. The keys are separate from the ordination to the priesthood, in that only certain men who hold the priesthood can hold and exercise keys, and they can only exercise the keys in a presidency, in order to preside, whereas all men can hold the priesthood.
The key here (no pun intended) is that in order for the priesthood keys to become operative there must be some action taken by those who hold the keys. Without the active participation of the person who holds the keys then the keys are dormant and of no effect. In order to use the keys the holder must exercise them within a presidency, which means they must have the proper authority and calling to exercise the keys first.
The second aspect of priesthood keys is what I will refer to as passive, although there must still be action taken on the part of someone in order to make the keys operative, but the actual holder of the priesthood keys need not do anything, or even be entirely worthy to allow this aspect of priesthood keys to work. The purpose of these particular priesthood keys is not dealing with the organization of the church but rather with the spiritual blessings of the priesthood as outlined in D&C 107:18-20.
Furthermore, the blessings, because they are part of the Melchizedek Priesthood, are only available through a quorum. This means that in order for a priesthood holder to take advantage of these spiritual blessings then they must be a member of a priesthood quorum where the president holds the keys mentioned above. Without a quorum (and by definition a president who holds the keys of presidency in the quorum) a priesthood holder is without access to these blessings, because the keys are given to the president of the quorum, and the members of the quorum thereby have access through the passive use of the keys. It is interesting to note that this realization means that in order for a priesthood holder to have access to these blessings they must not only be a member of a quorum, but they must also be an active member of that quorum. This is to say that the more they are active and participate in their quorum, the more they have access to these blessings. But the only way they will have access is if the president of their quorum holds the keys to the blessings. The president does not need to do anything for the members of his quorum to access these blessings other than to have the keys conferred upon him.
Previously I stated that the person who holds the keys need not be entirely worthy to allow the passive keys to be operative. What I meant by that is that the ability of the individual members of the quorum to access the blessings is not entirely determined by the righteousness of the president but rather the individual members. This means that someone's ability to receive blessings is not determined by the level of spirituality of the holder of the keys. But having said this, by the very nature of priesthood keys these blessings cannot be accessed by an individual, no matter how righteous or faithful he is. These keys are only operative when the individual is an active member of his quorum. And the quorum is only active and conducive to the dispensing of the these blessings when the members, particularly the president are involved with each other, and living righteous lives. Thus while a faithful individual will not be denied the blessings as long as someone holds the keys, they will only be able to reap blessings in proportion to the activity of their quorum.
A good analogy would be the level of peace in a community. An individual may be at peace with himself and others, but unless those around him are also at peace then the individual, no matter how good, or how peace-like he is, will not have peace in his community and will not be able to enjoy the blessings or advantages of living in a peaceful community. But the more peace-like those around him are, the more peace the individual will be able to enjoy.
So in conclusion, the keys of the priesthood are manifest through the active aspect, namely the calling and setting apart of individuals for the organization and guidance of the Church, and the passive aspect, which requires no action on the part of the holder of the keys, but the level of blessings (as given in D&C 107:19) that are available are directly proportional to the righteousness of the individual members of the quorum and more particularly the president of the quorum. They key lesson here is that while these blessings are given to individuals, and thus depend of the righteousness of the individual in order to receive the blessing, it is not possible to access the blessings as an individual, but only through the community of saints. Individuals receive the blessings, but individuals cannot provide access to the blessings. No man can gain salvation or receive blessings or knowledge from God alone.
As a final note, there are other keys of the priesthood not mentioned in D&C 107 but are mentioned in D&C 110 that are not operative only in priesthood quorums, but are operative through out the world, both inside and outside the Church (some of them more particularly outside the Church). Again these things would not be possible if it were not for the fact that someone holds the keys to these special things. The holder of the keys need not do anything in particular to make these things operative other than hold the keys. These things include the gathering of Israel and the spirit of Elijah, both of which are fairly extensive topics, which I will not cover here. These keys are different from the other keys mentioned, because these keys are not typically delegated to the local quorum presidents, but reside with the presiding high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood, who is the president of the Church. While these keys are not "local" they are operative because someone holds them. The blessings, the work and the effects of these priesthood keys would not be seen if it were not for the presence of the keys on the earth.
The doctrine of the keys of the priesthood is perhaps one of the most important, but least understood of all the doctrines of the Church. It is also one of the most difficult to explain to people who are not members of the Church, but it is a very important doctrine and has had and will have a great impact on not only the Church but everyone else as well.
Before writing this post I looked up a few reference articles about the keys of the priesthood and found a few excellent resources about priesthood keys. Here is a link to the chapter on priesthood keys in the Melchizedek Priesthood manual. There is also a good talk about priesthood keys by Elder Nelson that appeared in the October Ensign in 2005. For those who want to learn more about the priesthood keys that is a good place to start. The rest of this post assumes that the reader has some understanding of the priesthood and priesthood keys.
Usually in the Church when we talk about priesthood keys we are referring to the active aspects of priesthood keys, that is, what they are used for in creating the structure and organization of the Church. While this aspect of priesthood keys is very important, there is another aspect that is very commonly over looked and very poorly understood. This aspect is more passive in its effect, but is still just as necessary and central to the doctrine of priesthood keys. It also brings together many other seemingly disparate doctrines of the Church and acts as central tie that binds the doctrine together.
First I will explain the more commonly known active aspects of the keys and then I will use that to explain the less well understood passive aspects of the keys. The active aspects are those things that have to do with priesthood authority and the power to organize the various stakes of Zion, organize the work of preaching the gospel and the functioning of temples. In all these cases priesthood keys are needed in order to preside and to allow for proper functioning of the organization. In each organization (i.e. stake, mission, temple) there is a president who has the keys, or the power, to order the formation of the organization. Typically when we talk about the keys in the Church, this is what we refer to. These aspects of priesthood keys involve the calling and setting apart for callings, the blessing of the sick, the performance of ordinances and the authority to interpret doctrine and give counsel and guidance. Without priesthood keys, none of these things could legitimately be done, with authority, and with efficacy. The keys are separate from the ordination to the priesthood, in that only certain men who hold the priesthood can hold and exercise keys, and they can only exercise the keys in a presidency, in order to preside, whereas all men can hold the priesthood.
The key here (no pun intended) is that in order for the priesthood keys to become operative there must be some action taken by those who hold the keys. Without the active participation of the person who holds the keys then the keys are dormant and of no effect. In order to use the keys the holder must exercise them within a presidency, which means they must have the proper authority and calling to exercise the keys first.
The second aspect of priesthood keys is what I will refer to as passive, although there must still be action taken on the part of someone in order to make the keys operative, but the actual holder of the priesthood keys need not do anything, or even be entirely worthy to allow this aspect of priesthood keys to work. The purpose of these particular priesthood keys is not dealing with the organization of the church but rather with the spiritual blessings of the priesthood as outlined in D&C 107:18-20.
18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—In verse 19 there are several "spiritual blessings" mentioned, including receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus, but in order to enjoy these spiritual blessings someone must first "hold the keys". These blessings listed in verse 19 are what I am referring to as the passive keys of the priesthood. Not all priesthood holders will hold these keys, but for those that do they play a very important role for the rest of us. Simply by holding the keys, even if the holder do not do anything, or even if they are not entirely worthy, then the keys become operative and anyone who is faithful will have access to the spiritual blessings given in verse 19. Without someone to hold the keys, it does not matter how faithful someone is, or how righteous they are, or who they are or what they have done, if no one on the earth holds those priesthood keys, then they cannot have access to those blessings.
Furthermore, the blessings, because they are part of the Melchizedek Priesthood, are only available through a quorum. This means that in order for a priesthood holder to take advantage of these spiritual blessings then they must be a member of a priesthood quorum where the president holds the keys mentioned above. Without a quorum (and by definition a president who holds the keys of presidency in the quorum) a priesthood holder is without access to these blessings, because the keys are given to the president of the quorum, and the members of the quorum thereby have access through the passive use of the keys. It is interesting to note that this realization means that in order for a priesthood holder to have access to these blessings they must not only be a member of a quorum, but they must also be an active member of that quorum. This is to say that the more they are active and participate in their quorum, the more they have access to these blessings. But the only way they will have access is if the president of their quorum holds the keys to the blessings. The president does not need to do anything for the members of his quorum to access these blessings other than to have the keys conferred upon him.
Previously I stated that the person who holds the keys need not be entirely worthy to allow the passive keys to be operative. What I meant by that is that the ability of the individual members of the quorum to access the blessings is not entirely determined by the righteousness of the president but rather the individual members. This means that someone's ability to receive blessings is not determined by the level of spirituality of the holder of the keys. But having said this, by the very nature of priesthood keys these blessings cannot be accessed by an individual, no matter how righteous or faithful he is. These keys are only operative when the individual is an active member of his quorum. And the quorum is only active and conducive to the dispensing of the these blessings when the members, particularly the president are involved with each other, and living righteous lives. Thus while a faithful individual will not be denied the blessings as long as someone holds the keys, they will only be able to reap blessings in proportion to the activity of their quorum.
A good analogy would be the level of peace in a community. An individual may be at peace with himself and others, but unless those around him are also at peace then the individual, no matter how good, or how peace-like he is, will not have peace in his community and will not be able to enjoy the blessings or advantages of living in a peaceful community. But the more peace-like those around him are, the more peace the individual will be able to enjoy.
So in conclusion, the keys of the priesthood are manifest through the active aspect, namely the calling and setting apart of individuals for the organization and guidance of the Church, and the passive aspect, which requires no action on the part of the holder of the keys, but the level of blessings (as given in D&C 107:19) that are available are directly proportional to the righteousness of the individual members of the quorum and more particularly the president of the quorum. They key lesson here is that while these blessings are given to individuals, and thus depend of the righteousness of the individual in order to receive the blessing, it is not possible to access the blessings as an individual, but only through the community of saints. Individuals receive the blessings, but individuals cannot provide access to the blessings. No man can gain salvation or receive blessings or knowledge from God alone.
As a final note, there are other keys of the priesthood not mentioned in D&C 107 but are mentioned in D&C 110 that are not operative only in priesthood quorums, but are operative through out the world, both inside and outside the Church (some of them more particularly outside the Church). Again these things would not be possible if it were not for the fact that someone holds the keys to these special things. The holder of the keys need not do anything in particular to make these things operative other than hold the keys. These things include the gathering of Israel and the spirit of Elijah, both of which are fairly extensive topics, which I will not cover here. These keys are different from the other keys mentioned, because these keys are not typically delegated to the local quorum presidents, but reside with the presiding high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood, who is the president of the Church. While these keys are not "local" they are operative because someone holds them. The blessings, the work and the effects of these priesthood keys would not be seen if it were not for the presence of the keys on the earth.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Case for Self Improvement
If we are content with ourselves as we currently are, if we are content to say, "That's the way I am, and I see no need to change." then we will ultimately end up being worse than we would normally be. This video clip comes from a talk given by Viktor Frankl in Canada in 1972. He has some remarkable insights.
The example of the crosswind is very true. The standard approach taken by too many people in our society today is to aim at the middle mark. In order to do this they attempt to remove all standards and expectations of morality, the things that keep us focused on a goal that is higher than we should be, and the result it that we end up being worse (more immoral, lazy, selfish etc.) than we should be. The same people that preach that the traditional standards of morality and ethics are unnecessary or too restrictive, are, oddly enough, the same ones who express shock, horror and dismay when those who have learned from them end up acting a lot worse.
The example of the crosswind is very true. The standard approach taken by too many people in our society today is to aim at the middle mark. In order to do this they attempt to remove all standards and expectations of morality, the things that keep us focused on a goal that is higher than we should be, and the result it that we end up being worse (more immoral, lazy, selfish etc.) than we should be. The same people that preach that the traditional standards of morality and ethics are unnecessary or too restrictive, are, oddly enough, the same ones who express shock, horror and dismay when those who have learned from them end up acting a lot worse.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The Principle of Continuing Revelation
Just a quick thought I had. One of the frequent attacks against the Church is that it changes its doctrine to suit its needs. The Church's detractors always bring up examples such as blacks and the Priesthood and polygamy (but for some reason they seem to fail to mention the reorganization(s) of the Seventy, the formation of the Relief Society and Primary, the Perpetual Education Fund, the Proclamation on the Family, Preach My Gospel, and not to mention all of this stuff, but I digress). Those who participate in this form of Mormon bashing seem to take a delight in pointing out that Church leaders will teach different things (i.e. have revelations) than what was taught before. The accusation is that if the Church changes its doctrine then it is not really true because the doctrine of God should not change.
This would be a valid and interesting point if you first assume that the Church already has and understands all of the truth from God and that God cannot, will not or is uninterested in continuing to speak to His children and given them counsel, advice and direction. In short, these accusations only make sense if you deny the principle of continuing revelation, which is a foundational principle of LDS doctrine. While we do affirm that the invariance of the truth from God, that invariance does not make Him immutable or merely muted. We believe in continuing revelation from God, and that God had guided, counseled and commanded His children, and that He does so today, and will continue to do so, "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles." (Mormon 9:9-10)
Some would use this verse and others like it to make God immutable and dumb, but in doing so they would deny current, and future (and by extension, past) revelation. By arguing that the the Church cannot have current revelation and direction, is to argue that the doctrine, as taught by Joseph Smith, was whole and complete in the first instance, and that nothing could ever be added to it, by way of clarification, extension, and further commandments to aid us in our lives. That is, to deny continuing revelation is to deny that God is interested and invested in who we are and what we are doing. It is to imagine up a disinterested God that does not care about His children, despite the assurances given that, "the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee."(3 Nephi 22:10)
To finish I will include part of an article written by President James E. Faust about continuing revelation. (James E. Faust, “Continuing Revelation,”Ensign, Aug 1996, 2)
This would be a valid and interesting point if you first assume that the Church already has and understands all of the truth from God and that God cannot, will not or is uninterested in continuing to speak to His children and given them counsel, advice and direction. In short, these accusations only make sense if you deny the principle of continuing revelation, which is a foundational principle of LDS doctrine. While we do affirm that the invariance of the truth from God, that invariance does not make Him immutable or merely muted. We believe in continuing revelation from God, and that God had guided, counseled and commanded His children, and that He does so today, and will continue to do so, "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles." (Mormon 9:9-10)
Some would use this verse and others like it to make God immutable and dumb, but in doing so they would deny current, and future (and by extension, past) revelation. By arguing that the the Church cannot have current revelation and direction, is to argue that the doctrine, as taught by Joseph Smith, was whole and complete in the first instance, and that nothing could ever be added to it, by way of clarification, extension, and further commandments to aid us in our lives. That is, to deny continuing revelation is to deny that God is interested and invested in who we are and what we are doing. It is to imagine up a disinterested God that does not care about His children, despite the assurances given that, "the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee."(3 Nephi 22:10)
To finish I will include part of an article written by President James E. Faust about continuing revelation. (James E. Faust, “Continuing Revelation,”Ensign, Aug 1996, 2)
The responsibility for determining the divine validity of that which one of the oracles of God may state does not rest solely upon him. President J. Reuben Clark, formerly a member of the First Presidency, stated, “We can tell when the speakers are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’ only when we, ourselves, are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’ ” (J. Reuben Clark: Selected Papers, ed. David H. Yarn Jr. [1984], 95–96). This is in harmony with the counsel of President Brigham Young:
“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1941], 135).
Revelation was required to establish this Church. Revelation has brought it from its humble beginnings to its present course. Revelation has come like flowing, living water. Continuing revelation will lead it forward to the windup scene. But as President Clark told us, we do not need more or different prophets. We need more people with “a listening ear” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1948, 82).
We make no claim of individual infallibility or perfection as the prophets, seers, and revelators. Yet I humbly state that I have sat in the company of these men and I believe their greatest desire is to know and do the will of our Heavenly Father. Those who sit in the highest councils of this Church and have participated therein as inspiration has come and decisions have been reached know that this light and truth is beyond human intelligence and reasoning. These deep, divine impressions have come as the dews from heaven and settled upon them individually and collectively. So inspired, we can go forward in complete unity and accord.
I witness humbly that I know the Lord guides His Church through His servants. I know them to be noble, righteous, dedicated servants of the Lord. I pray that we may be responsive to His Spirit and be found listening to the oracles He has appointed. I so pray because I know that we mortals, without the aid of revelation, cannot know the purposes of God.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Corazón Americano
Esta es un gran poema que me gusta mucho, y abajo es un video de la canción, interpretada por Soledad Pastorutti.
Corazón Americano
Canta, corazón, canta más alto,
que tu pena al fin se va marchando;
el nuevo milenio ha de encontrarnos
juntos, corazón, como soñamos.
Más de cinco siglos transitamos
sobre nuestra tierra como extraños,
si logró la historia separarnos
este canto hoy quiere juntarnos.
Canta, sueña, vuela,
corazón americano,
ya no habrá dolor que nos detenga;
somos ante Dios todos hermanos.
Vuela corazón, vuela más alto,
como el cóndor de la cordillera,
que nuestro destino está marcado
y la libertad es nuestra herencia.
Mira, corazón, al fin de cuentas
somos el solar de la esperanza,
si todas las razas del planeta
son en esta tierra cobijadas.
Canta, sueña, vuela,
corazón americano,
ya no habrá dolor que nos detenga;
somos ante Dios todos hermanos.
Canta, sueña, vuela,
corazón americano,
ya no habrá dolor que nos detenga;
somos ante Dios todos hermanos.
Canta, canta, canta, sueña, vuela,
corazón americano,
ya no habrá dolor que nos detenga;
somos ante Dios todos hermanos.
Canta, corazón, canta más alto,
que tu pena al fin se va marchando;
el nuevo milenio ha de encontrarnos
juntos, corazón, como soñamos.
Más de cinco siglos transitamos
sobre nuestra tierra como extraños,
si logró la historia separarnos
este canto hoy quiere juntarnos.
Canta, sueña, vuela,
corazón americano,
ya no habrá dolor que nos detenga;
somos ante Dios todos hermanos.
Vuela corazón, vuela más alto,
como el cóndor de la cordillera,
que nuestro destino está marcado
y la libertad es nuestra herencia.
Mira, corazón, al fin de cuentas
somos el solar de la esperanza,
si todas las razas del planeta
son en esta tierra cobijadas.
Canta, sueña, vuela,
corazón americano,
ya no habrá dolor que nos detenga;
somos ante Dios todos hermanos.
Canta, sueña, vuela,
corazón americano,
ya no habrá dolor que nos detenga;
somos ante Dios todos hermanos.
Canta, canta, canta, sueña, vuela,
corazón americano,
ya no habrá dolor que nos detenga;
somos ante Dios todos hermanos.
For those of you who don't speak Spanish, you can find a translation here.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Firefox thinks Mozilla spreads viruses
Apparently Firefox thinks that mozilla.org should be blocked.
Monday, June 21, 2010
You Sir, Mr. Spock, are Most Illogical
Part of the reason why Spock is so well known is that his logical approach to things resonated with a lot of people. When people watched Star Trek they were able to connect to the characters in one way or another. The personalities of the characters was intentionally chosen to represent common stereotypes that we have as a society, and furthermore they were chosen to portray and extreme representation of the stereotypes. Thus in our society while we do not typically find people that are actually as logical as Mr. Spock, we still connect to him because to some degree we act like that. In short, Spock is well known and looked up to because we see our own thought processes in his manner of thinking.
While logical thinking is generally a good thing, Spock does make a few fundamental flaws in his thinking that make his basic approach self-contradictory and therefore illogical. My motivation in writing about this topic is not based on a nerdy desire to split hairs about how the writers of Star Trek (and to a large degree Leonard Nimoy) represented a logical character like Mr. Spock, but rather to point out a flaw in many people's thinking that is very pervasive in our society today. So while the logical nature of Spock is admittedly an extreme archetype, his personality is exhibited throughout our society to a lesser degree in most individuals. This means that all aspects of his personal philosophy, and therefore logical flaws, are reflected in our society.
There are many aspects of Spock's approach that are not problematic, such as his analytical approach to problems, and his desire to make the correct, or the most expedient decision, given the circumstances. But the problem arises in his basic approach to achieving these desirable goals. His basic method in achieving these attributes is to disassociate himself from all emotions. The relative merits of ridding one's self of emotions and passions can be debated but where Spock's contradiction comes in is in his denial of emotion as nothing more than an illogical aberration. At many points in the show and in the Star Trek movies, Spock reacts to the emotions of others as "most illogical". With this I admit Spock does have a point, to some degree. There are those who take actions based on their emotions, of hate, fear or greed, that lead them to do or say some rather irrational things, but the problem arises when Spock asserts that people (primarily himself) should not have emotions.
It is one thing to ague about the relative merits of how our emotions influence our decisions, but to assert that logic demands that we not have emotions, or that our decisions should not be dictated in any way by our emotions, is to deny reality. And denying reality is by definition illogical. Logic does not determine how things should be, but how we approach them.
Let me use a simple example to illustrate this. This example is a type of a reductio ad absurdum argument. Consider two towns, Fairfield and Halifax, on opposite sides of a mountain.
The problem here is that the "logical" person is not using his logic to figure out how things work, or how to get from Fairfield to Halifax, but rather to make a statement to the universe in general that, "I think things would be better and easier if the universe worked in such and such a manner. Until then I will claim that the offending mountain [emotions] is illogical and an obstacle to reality."
It is one thing to say that it would be easier to travel from Fairfield to Halifax if there were no mountain in the way, it is another to say that the very existence of the mountain is illogical simply because it makes the journey difficult or even impossible. It is the same way with emotions. People who make decisions based solely on their emotions, or an emotional response, rarely make a rational decision. But to say that emotions themselves, or rather the existence of emotions, is inherently irrational and illogical is to deny the very existence of emotions, which by definitions is illogical.
Again I emphasize the point that the role of logic is not tell us how the universe should be, or how things should act in the universe, but rather how things relate to each other. As the ghost of Christmas past put it in A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, “[Things] are what they are, do not blame me!”
So let us consider what we have. We must acknowledge that people have emotions. On this point both Spock and I are in agreement. Where we disagree is in the implications of these emotions. To Spock, ideally people should not have emotions because it causes them to make seemingly irrational decisions. Thus the ideal case for Mr. Spock is to get rid of his (and everyone else's) emotions. But this view is inherently illogical because it is just like our logician from Fairfield, standing at the base of the mountain saying to the mountain, "You are illogical!"
The key difference here is that in the approach taken by Spock, all emotions must be done away with (i.e. the logician wants to tear down all the mountains). But in reality emotions cannot be done away with, and they must be incorporated into our logical understanding of the world. Perhaps I can make this point with a quote from Richard Feynman:
[Transcript of the critical part: "You will have to accept it, because it is the way nature works. If you want to know the way nature works...we looked at it carefully, that's the way it looks! You don't like it? Go somewhere else. To another universe where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy. I can't help it! OK?! If I'm going to tell you honestly what the world looks like to the human beings who have struggled as hard they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like, and I cannot make it any simpler."]
My point is, while dealing with human emotions may be very frustrating, and while they may lead people to make seemingly irrational and illogical choices, they are still part of reality and therefore it is illogical to deny them or to refuse to work with them. As Dr. Feynman puts it, "You will have to accept it, because it is the way nature works."
This does not mean that we just have to accept our emotions the way they are, because we also learn from experience that we can change and affect the way our emotions work. We are not completely at the mercy of a set of random emotions, or biological impulses. We have the power to change that, but we must also realize that we are what we are and we cannot change reality. Now as I mentioned at the beginning, the degree that we should let our emotions or our passions have rule over our decisions is open to debate, but to deny them completely, as Mr. Spock does, is most illogical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)