The Prodigal Son

A friend and I recently had a conversation about applications of the parable of the Prodigal Son in our lives (see her post) and it got me thinking on several points on the interpretation of this parable.

When asked about the interpretation of this parable, Joseph Smith taught "I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what was the question which drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable?" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 277).  The Pharisees were criticizing Christ for sitting with sinners.  He then taught several parables regarding the rejoicing over those who repent.

The parable of the Prodigal Son stands out to us among those because we get a more intimate look into their lives.

One lesson we gain by this more intimate look is that there is not just rejoicing over a lost child of God but that in their journey back they can and should aim high.  The prodigal son came back only aiming for telestial, maybe terrestrial, glory in asking to be a servant (see D&C 76:112).  The father told his son to set his sights higher, to that of the celestial kingdom, by acknowledging their kinship (see D&C 76:56-58).

Another lesson is from the Other Son.  We get the reminder to not be jealous of the rejoicing for the returned sinner (see Elder Holland, The Other Prodigal.  There is sadly a tendency though to over-analyze this son since those who would do such analysis probably see more of themself in this son than the prodigal son.  Within the overall context of the parable, one might try to make the Other Son a surrogate for the Pharisees.  President Kimball warned against being overly harsh in judging the Other Son and taught that it is better to have not sinned than to have sinned and repented (Spencer W Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, Chapter 20).

Focusing too much on the Other Son loses our focus on what the focus of this parable is (rejoicing when sinners repent and come back).  We end up incessantly playing a single note tune similar to the pitfall of gospel hobbies which Elder Packer warned about:

Some members of the Church who should know better pick out a hobby key or two and tap them incessantly, to the irritation of those around them. They can dull their own spiritual sensitivities. They lose track that there is a fulness of the gospel, . . . [which they reject] in preference to a favorite note. This becomes exaggerated and distorted, leading them away into apostasy.

Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently, p. 44

Reading the Other Son's words in context of the teaching setting, he seems to be there to fulfill the role of an "audience surrogate" (WARNING: TV Tropes) so we gain an understanding of the father's thoughts.  This doesn't diminish the opportunity to learn from the Other Son but it puts it in context to not look beyond the mark.

Analogies break down after a certain point and looking past that can lead to a skewed perspective on the gospel.  We don't see is what happens to the Prodigal Son in the long run.  The truth being taught has been covered.  We can extrapolate a couple of possibilities based on gospel truths we already know.

The first is the more sad to contemplate intepretation.  The Prodigal Son returned to the presence of his father but with his inheritance wasted much as David had fallen from his exaltation (see D&C 132:39).  I think its much better to contemplate on the interpretation that I would hope would be more broadly applicable and with much less dire results.  This interpretation ends right where Christ does.  Unlike an inheritance from an earthly father, the inheritance from our Heavenly Father is not zero-sum, to give to one son does not diminish from another.  There is infinitely more to dole out to those who squandered but repent.  There is hope for something unfathomably great for those who repent.

Giving in Life

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Matthew 16:25

I've been contemplating this principle since a talk given in church a while ago.  One specific point he brought up is the classic idea that we shouldn't cast blame on the teacher for not getting anything out of a class.  "What do I get?" is the wrong question, the wrong perspective.  We should have the perspective of "What do I give?".  It is amazing how much we grow when we aren't seeking our own growth but those around us.  In my studies recently I've come across this principle regarding multiple topics.

Regarding this topic, Marion G Romney said

We lose our life by serving and lifting others. By so doing we experience the only true and lasting happiness. Service is not something we endure on this earth so we can earn the right to live in the celestial kingdom. Service is the very fiber of which an exalted life in the celestial kingdom is made.
Knowing that service is what gives our Father in Heaven fulfillment, and knowing that we want to be where He is and as He is, why must we be commanded to serve one another? Oh, for the glorious day when these things all come naturally because of the purity of our hearts. In that day there will be no need for a commandment because we will have experienced for ourselves that we are truly happy only when we are engaged in unselfish service.

Marion G Romney, Ensign, November 1982, The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance

Below are quotes that explore this concept applied to specific principles.

Sacrifice

President Gordon B. Hinckley explained: “As we look with love and gratitude to God, and as we serve others with no apparent recompense for ourselves, there will come a greater sense of service toward our fellow human beings, less thinking of self and more reaching out to others. This principle of love is the basic essence of goodness” ( Standing for Something, 9).
I have thought of this often and have reached the conviction that in a strange way those who have are actually dependent upon those who have not. Something spiritual happens to a person when he reaches out to help someone else.

Glenn L Pace, Ensign, June 1993, Infinite Needs and Finite Resources

As givers gain control of their desires and properly see other needs in light of their own wants, then the powers of the gospel are released in their lives. They learn that by living the great law of consecration they insure not only temporal salvation but also spiritual sanctification

Spencer W Kimball, Ensign, November 1977, Welfare Services: The Gospel in Action

Discipleship

It is not only important for the growth of the members involved to exercise their own claims on God for assurance about the direction of the kingdom, but it is also important for followers to prepare themselves to follow in such a way that their influence could be much more helpful to the leaders in reaching shared goals. Not only do followers who proceed, as Brigham Young said, "with a reckless confidence" fail to develop themselves in their own power and resources, but also they deprive the leaders of the kind of support they deserve and need at times from followers who are themselves developing the skills required. The 58th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants indicates that the Lord expects members of the Church to accomplish much on their own without incessant institutional insistence or prodding. It is neither realistic nor wise to expect leaders to provide all of the answers all of the time, to provide solutions to all of the problems that will arise. This would require leaders to be omniscient; further, it would require of them the kind of sustained energy and time which is simply not humanly possible to give over protracted periods of time.

Neal A Maxwell, ... A More Excellent Way: Essays in Leadership, Looking at Leadership

Love and Marriage

The teachings of Christ suggest that we should begin our search for an eternal companion with greater concern about our ability to give love than about our need to receive it. Of the Savior, John wrote: "We love him, because he first loved us"
Indeed, it may be our own capacity to give love that makes us most lovable. The greater our own personal substance is and the deeper our own mental, emotional, and spiritual reserves are, the greater will be our capacity to nurture and love others, especially our companion.

Marlin K Jensen, Ensign, October 1994, A Union of Love and Understanding

Leadership

In today's world, it is common to measure one's personal growth by ever-greater positions of responsibility in the workplace or by pay raises that signal increasing personal accomplishment. We often look at visible positions of responsibility as an indication that a person is an important contributor. It is not surprising then that many people struggle to know how best to measure their growth in spiritual matters.
I have heard many Latter-day Saints question their own standing because they have not been called to leadership positions in the Church. But is our progress properly measured by leadership callings?
In fact, leadership does not require a calling. Some people who exert the uplifting and encouraging influence that constitutes true leadership do so with no calling or position

...
Leadership callings are much like training wheels on a bicycle. The training wheels allow a child to learn how to balance and ride with confidence. A leadership calling puts people in a position to learn how to love, be patient, and persuade through pure knowledge and kindness. They may also learn that any attempt to compel behavior is accompanied by withdrawal of the Spirit and decreased effectiveness.
After our release, we will find out if we have grown and learned while in our calling. Have we learned to love and serve others without the calling being the impetus? Have we learned to serve with power as an influence for good simply because of who we have become?

Craig Merrill, Ensign, January 2012, Leadership the Lord's Way

The Marriage Discussion

I was reading a friend's blogpost and my response got a bit long (and now  there isanother post so I guess I also take too long to write also), so here we go.

As was pointed out in the comments, Elder Oaks did also speak on the subject and did mention the sisters.  The proportions spent on each topic though is telling.

I think we tend to simplify this subject a bit too much.  Many guys could probably claim the following paragraph from the post would apply to them:

"I have so many girlfriends who wrack their brains about what they are doing that's keeping them from getting married. They wonder what's wrong with them and what they should be doing differently. They think that perhaps there's something else for them to learn before they get married. It's absolutely ridiculous! And though they mean well, some friends and family members don't help at all. They will often say things like, "You should act like this, or you should wear that." They go on and on about how men are stupid, and women need to practically bend over backward and be the aggressor to get men to see what they need to do. Essentially, they are making excuses for men and telling women to do all the work."

Well, except the last two sentences.

Some of the factors I can think of include (which some can apply to both genders)

• No desire.  Maybe it is a sampling bias but despite this one getting a lot of complaints this doesn't apply to most guys I've met.
• Desire but not priority  Sometimes we don't realize that we treat things with a lower priority those things we actually really want.  A lowered priority can be for obviously selfish reasons as "still wanting to have fun" or others like education and career.
• Asking a person on a date being read into too much.  As President Hollingsworth pointed out, 10 years ago he was struggling to get people to go on second and third dates without them reading into things, now the problem is going on first dates without them being read into.
• The 20s being the new teenage years.  This is especially the case with guys that are meandering through life rather than working to establish themselves in a career but face women around them that have or are working towards higher degrees.  Notice that I said "not working to establish" rather than "not established".  A guy actively working to establish his career whether through getting an education or growing in one's field is fine and should hold his head up.  This is also a problem spiritually.  If someone has been working to purify their desires, to fulfill the commandments, and serve those around them would they want to risk regressing through the negative influence  of someone who has not been developing themselves spiritually?
• Trying really hard but not realizing they are doing it wrong.    One example: we've seen the times when a new cute girl or guy moves into a ward and everyone of the opposite gender surrounds that person and obsesses and fights over them for the next 4 months or so.  This is made more ridiculous by the fact that the attraction is skin deep and the person doesn't really seem to match them in their personality.  Sometimes it is helpful to take a step back and stop being so aggressive over being married to explore what you want and don't want through dating a variety of people and developing friendships that can blossom into a relationship.
• And then there are the guys that girls ignore, turn down, or are even mean to.  This can because they aren't familiar with these guys, they are socially awkward, they are different but in a good way, different in a bad way, etc.  Hopefully if it is a bad way the guy recognizes this and is trying to improve but the way to improve is to be with people but others are so myopically focused on marriage they don't practice charity towards these people but see them as a waste of time on their path to marriage.

Those last two points mentioned the marriage/dating myopia and that is a topic of its own.  Sometimes it seems people's obsession over marriage is making them less ready for marriage.  I hear people talk about needing to have Christ in one's marriage and the need for selflessness.  People tend to be too focused on what they get out of a situation, who they'll get to flirt with, etc that they lose the opportunities to grow.

One example is to not be early or even being late to church.  A person then loses out on the opportunity to meditate on the atonement and the sacrament.  If they hold the priesthood they also lose out on helping prepare, bless, or pass the sacrament.  One reason people might do this is so that they can chose who they sit by and maximize time during meetings to be with them.

Another example is to just look at the amount of service offered to who, especially between two people that have needs.  Sometimes we neglect those who need it most because we get nothing out of it.  Granted there are other factors like how much the person needing service seeks help but we should be a lot more observant about these things.

Pressure to get married can be good and help push people past their hang ups with selfishness and help them take a risk but I also worry that continued pressure over the years and a social/spiritual environment that focuses mostly on socializing as a means for encouraging marriage to the detriment of service, sacrifice, etc exacerbates the marriage myopia.

I dislike not really having a purpose or conclusion to be building to so sorry for the jumble of not-fully-thought-out thoughts.

Forgiving Self and Others

Several months ago I was asked to speak during the main services of my Church.  In software development Bjarne Stroustrup stated "Starting a major project 'completely from scratch' can be exhilarating.  However, often more accurate description is 'intoxicating' and the result is a drunkard's walk through the design alternatives".  I tend to agree with that and is a something I would like to improve on.  Similar to the challenge of starting new software projects from scratch is to chose one of a myriad of topics related to the Gospel and Jesus Christ and narrowing down a focus in that topic.  So I kindly asked for a topic and was given "Forgiving Self and Others".

Someone had asked for some of material I used in my comments and I decided to go ahead and turn what I said into a post on the subject (and not just a transcript).

President Spencer W. Kimball described forgiveness as “purging of our feelings and thoughts and bitternesses” (Miracle of Forgiveness Ch 18).  I believe these feelings that we need to purge are an impediment to our living the two great commandments.  How can we "love the Lord our God" if we deny the efficacy of the atonement in the lives of ourself and others, rejecting that great sacrifice that the Christ made for us?  How can we "love thy neighbor as thyself" if we don't love ourself, if we can't forgive ourself?  How can we love our neighbor if bear a grudge against our neighbor?

Forgiving Self

I contemplated reasons we might not forgive ourself.  The ones I was able to come up with include

• Incomplete Repentance
• Needing increased faith and trust that we can be forgiven by Christ through the Atonement
• Being too concerned with our perception of other's perception of ourself

To me it seems like we are in self-denial if we try to forgive ourselves without complete repentance.  I worry how much we are desensitizing ourselves to the influence of the Holy Ghost if we are trying to ignore the Holy Ghost's prodding for us to repent.

On the other hand it can seem overwhelming to look at our vast array of imperfections and to think of trying to repent of them all.    An analogy comes to mind for how to handle this.

If we were in a car accident and taken to the ER, what wounds would the doctors worry about first?  Scratches?  Your persisting foot infection you've never resolved?  A broken leg?  A pierced lung?  They would work on the life threatening injuries and as they are stabilized focus on the more debilitating damage.  They probably wouldn't even worry about the scratches until they are trying to clean everything off afterwards.  They also wouldn't focus solely on the what was initially the worst injury until it was completely healed, ignoring all others.

What sins keep us furthest from God?  Sometimes it can be quite surprising. For me an issue is "cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated." (D&C 88:124).  If I repeatedly stay up I am too tired to wake up on time in the morning.  In my rush to leave for work I then neglect caring for my body through exercise, have less alert and sincere prayers, and I cut my scripture study short.

I'll leave it to President Lee for his words on forgiving self and the atonement:

Some years ago President Romney and I were sitting in my office. The door opened and a fine young man came in with a troubled look on his face, and he said, "Brethren, I am going to the temple for the first time tomorrow. I have made some mistakes in the past, and I have gone to my bishop and my stake president, and I have made a clean disclosure of it all; and after a period of repentance and assurance that I have not returned again to those mistakes, they have now adjudged me ready to go to the temple. But, brethren, that is not enough. I want to know, and how can I know, that the Lord has forgiven me also." 

What would you answer one who would come to you asking that question? As we pondered for a moment, we remembered King Benjamin's address contained in the book of Mosiah. Here was a group of people who now were asking for baptism, and they said they viewed themselves in their carnal state: 

"And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified. ... 

"After they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience" (Mosiah 4:2-3). 

There was the answer. 

If the time comes when you have done all that you can to repent of your sins, whoever you are, wherever you are, and have made amends and restitution to the best of your ability; if it be something that will affect your standing in the Church and you have gone to the proper authorities, then you will want that confirming answer as to whether or not the Lord has accepted of you. In your soul-searching, if you seek for and you find that peace of conscience, by that token you may know that the Lord has accepted of your repentance. Satan would have you think otherwise and sometimes persuade you that now having made one mistake, you might go on and on with no turning back. That is one of the great falsehoods. The miracle of forgiveness is available to all of those who turn from their evil doings and return no more, because the Lord has said in a revelation to us in our day: "Go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth [meaning again] shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God" (D&C 82:7). Have that in mind, all of you who may be troubled with a burden of sin. 

Harold B Lee

Ensign, Oct 2008, 44-49, Stand Ye in Holy Places

If the barrier to forgiving ourself is worry over how people perceive us that sounds like some pride there.  Does the forgiveness of sins come from men or from God?  If we don't forgive ourselves due to how other's people perceive us, whose forgiveness are we considering more important?  Now don't get me wrong, repentance does involve repairing wrongs.  We should love and strengthen our fellow men.  What I am talking about is when these things are done and we are not letting go of the fact that we sinned because of this.

Forgiving Others

23 Therefore, if ye shall come unto me, or shall desire to come unto me, and rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee—

24 Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I will receive you.

3 Nephi 12:23-24

This last time I read these verses I thought about how it really would apply both to the person needing forgiveness and for person forgiving.  As I said in the beginning, how are we loving our neighbor if we haven't forgiven him?  Then if you wish to come unto the Lord and remember that you have not forgiven your brother but hold harsh feelings towards him rather than love, can you really come unto the Lord with full purpose of heart and be received by him?

Sometimes it feels like we talk of one person repenting and another forgiving as if these are strictly ordered and coupled affairs.  I'd say that these are not coupled events but are orthogonal to each other to the point where one might forgive another when that person has no sin to repent of.

First, I'll look at the ordering when both are needed.  President Kimball taught that we must be willing to make the first move. “we must forgive, and we must do so without regard to whether or not our antagonist repents, or how sincere is his transformation, or whether or not he asks our forgiveness” (Miracle of Forgiveness).  Our forgiving of another is an expression of love that can help elevate that person even to repentance.

This idea of love elevating another is expressed by Dr Victor Frankl in the following powerful but dry language

By the spiritual act of love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in him, that which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of what he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.

Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning

This same concept was expressed by Goethe when he said "Treat a man is he is and he will remain as he is.  Treat a man as he can and should be and he will become as he can and should be".  The musical Man of La Mancha (which I sadly can't recommend) also expresses this idea.  Don Quixote saw the beautiful virtuous Dulcinea when the reality was a women named Aldonza but this has a transforming affect on her.  As Don Quixote is dying, Aldonza comes and pleads for him to see her as he did before.  "Won't you please bring back \ The dream of Dulcinea... \ Won't you bring me back \ The bright and shining glory \ Of Dulcinea... Dulcinea...".

Now on to my second point about needing to forgive a person when there might not be need of repentance.  Is sometimes the offense we are forgiving really in our self, that we judged them harshly and took offense where none was meant?

A great example of this is the correspondences between Moroni and Pahoran.  Moroni's armies had not been receiving the needed supplies to defend and retake lost territory.  His first letter to Pahoran receives no response.  After losing even more territory and lives, he writes again and accuses Pahoran of joining in with others in their effort to overthrow their republic with a monarchy.  Pahoran responds humbly that such a overthrow did happen but that he was a victim of it and was gathering strength to retake the kingdom if it be right to turn against their own people.  When sending the letter Moroni probably expected himself to be needing to forgive Pahoran to only find out there was no offense in Pahoran.

Regarding this concept, President Spencer W Kimball quotes the following in Miracle of Forgiveness:

"There is but one quality necessary for the perfect understanding of character, one quality that, if man have it, he may judge-that is, omniscience. Most people study character as a proofreader pores over a great poem: his ears are dulled to the majesty and music of the lines, his eyes are darkened to the magic imagination of the genius of the author; that proofreader is busy watching for an inverted comma, a misspacing, or a wrong font letter. He has an eye trained for the imperfections, the weaknesses. …

"We do not need to judge nearly so much as we think we do. This is the age of snap judgments. … [We need] the courage to say, 'I don't know. I am waiting further evidence. I must hear both sides of the question.' It is this suspended judgment that is the supreme form of charity"

William George Jordan

Orson Scott Card in the Ender series has a societal role called "Speaker for the Dead" who seeks to understand a person's life and correct the misunderstanding of us proof readers.  The idea that we see through a glass darkly lit is and can come to understand and love others is a powerful running concept in that series.

Forgiving someone does not mean that they not face the consequences of their actions.  Going through the consequences, paying the price for their actions, is a portion of what need to go through as part of repentance.
President Kimball speaks of a son talking to his father’s murderer “Tom, you made a mistake for which you owe a debt to society for which I feel you must continue to pay, just the same as I must continue to pay the price for having been reared without a father”.

Just as King Mosiah guarded his kingdom against his sons falling back to sin (See Moshiah 29:6-7), we need not put ourselves back in a position to be hurt.  It is a tough balance to meet, forgiving someone and recognizing they can repent and be a different person while not putting oneself in the path of their destruction while they are still in error or at risk to return to their errors.

Whether we properly administer mercy these two above cases comes down to whether we are loving the person as Christ does.  In addition to the son forgiving his murderer, another great example of these principles is the Nephites protecting themselves, both passively and actively, against the Lamanites without seeking for revenge.  When the Nephites act out of revenge is when their nation is on decline and on the verge of destruction.

Recompense to no man evil for evil … Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Romans 12:17, 19

The most important element I have left for last, the healing power of Christ's Atonement.  Christ's Atonement does not just offer us a healing balm for our sins but for our heart.  Elder Featherstone has provided one of my favorite descriptions of this and I will leave it to him.

Lately I have decided that I need to talk more about justice. We don't understand justice completely, and there is so much out in the world that seems unjust and unfair that it is probably a good time to discuss this.

Who suffers most, the guilty or the innocent? The adulterer can go see the bishop. If he or she has truly repented, the bishop can say, on behalf of the Church, "You are forgiven." And they leave the office and that burden is lifted. What about the innocent? Who suffers most, the adulterer or the mother and father with a wayward son or daughter?

When will that hurt and suffering go away? It won't--not until the straying son or daughter comes back home. Should the innocent suffer? The parents quite often are innocent; and they hurt and they ache and they pray, and the pain will not go away.

Who suffers most, the incest perpetrator or the incest victim? Little ones are sometimes violated at a very tender age.

Who suffers most--the fornicator? the thief? those involved in drugs, homosexuality, and other perversions--or the innocent? Or do sometimes the innocent suffer more--the paraplegic, the quadriplegic, those with debilitating diseases, the "innocent" man or woman who has been involved in divorce, and dozens of others?

I believe sometimes the innocent suffer far, far more than the guilty--and that would not be justice, would it? It wouldn't be fair.

Now then, if the sinful one can go in and sit down with the bishop and have the burden relieved, then why should not the innocent? There are those who watch a spouse slowly die with cancer--a husband eventually becomes a widower or, if a man dies, a wife will be left alone. There are those who have other kinds of debilitating diseases--for instance, the quadriplegic who goes through a difficult life that way--isn't it only just that somehow the Atonement cover that kind of suffering? The innocent must be able to find the same relief as the guilty; that would only be just.

In Alma 7 we discover that the Lord suffered not only for the transgressions and sins of the world but for our afflictions and our illnesses and the sicknesses of the world. That is the part of the Atonement that I have missed somehow, and I want to suggest to you it is not left undone. Justice according to the supreme goodness of God will be satisfied. When we have a heart like unto God's own heart, we know justice will take place. Now, the innocent ones must do the same thing that the guilty do; that is, they must go to him who has a right to lift that off of their hearts.

President Harold B. Lee said, "I came to a night, some years ago, when on my bed, I realized that before I could be worthy of the high place to which I had been called, I must love and forgive every soul that walked the earth" (CR, October 1946, p. 146). If you have been violated, if you have been abused as a child or as an adult, or if you are later on in this life, would you remember that we must forgive the offending one? Justice "according to the supreme goodness of God" means that we do turn it over to him. It will not be left undone. We can have that absolute assurance. That would only be just. We must take it off of our hearts. Some modern psychiatrists might say, "Well, you don't get healed that way," but you do. You do get healed by turning justice over to God and forgiving the offender. We must be merciful if we would obtain mercy. The Lord can lift all burdens from us. Once we turn it over to him and simply say, "It is between that person and God. I forgive," then the burden will be lifted quietly and easily. If you are sitting here today and have had those problems in the past and can in your heart forgive and simply turn justice over to the Savior, then through his Atonement those sicknesses and illnesses and the abuses will be lifted from you. That would only be just.

The innocent must forgive the perpetrator, then transfer the burden to the Savior; and that is justice. That, again, does not mean that it is left undone; it just means that we have turned it over to the Savior.

Vaughn J Featherstone, “A Man After God’s Own Heart”

"Antenna-gate", Fanboys, and Trolls

I just saw a good post on this from the Google Testing Bog.

Despite my dislike of Apple and their treatment of developers (and my disgust that developers are flocking to receive their flogging) I think we should be careful how we react to this.  Problems happen.  There is both good and bad to how Apple handled this. If we feel a bit annoyed in how they handled this we should have that same annoyance no matter the source rather than giving in to fanboy-ism

Do we look at this and think how much better our platform is but get annoyed when others point out the problems with our platform of choice?

This is a general problem whether it be long standing technology flamewars (VI is better btw), to religion, or to politics.  Sometimes the very nature of having two groups forms an automatic antagonism (see also George Washington's Farewell address).

I find Krister Stendahl's rules for religious understanding to be very applicable to all of these areas of our life:

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
3. Leave room for "holy envy."

Mordecai

In my previous post I quoted from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints's Articles of Faith.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Article of Faith 12

I wanted to clarify what this means for when those beliefs are in contradiction to the law that we are meant to sustain.

Some aspects of our belief are encouraged practices and precedence is given to local law, like how we bury the dead.  Others are essential but not contradictory like when laws require a civil marriage to be performed, couples have performed separately their civil marriage and their sealing of their marriage for time and all eternity.  Even though we see the Gospel as being essential to everyone's happiness and eternal salvation, we proselyte only in countries that legally allow it.

Mordecai, Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-nego are great examples for when the Kings and laws contravenes our right to worship.  Rather than rising up in rebellion, Mordecai and the people fasted, prayed, and petitioned the King.  Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-nego all broke the law but honorably faced the consequences of their decision to do that without losing faith.

Please note, these observations are mine alone and are not meant to represent any of the people I am quoting

"It's because people are stupid!"

It was reported that when Dr. Willard Richards ... first saw a copy of the Book of Mormon he opened it in the center and read a few pages. He closed the book with this statement: "That book was either written by God or the devil, and I am going to find out who wrote it."

A Marvelous Work And A Wonder, pg 81
By LeGrand Richards

I've occasionally played catch up with BYU's Tuesday Morning Devotionals. Recently I read "Scholarship and Faith" by Ross Spencer. I'd like to start off with his introduction to Dr Henry Eyring and Dr Eyring's comments:

Dr. Henry Eyring, the great LDS chemist and father of President Henry B. Eyring, was a great example of how to combine professional excellence with faith and humility. He was world-famous for his work on chemical reactions and was also known both to his scientific colleagues and to members of the Church as a man of faith and devotion. He said:
...
So this, then, is sort of the picture that I would give you and end on the note that I can’t see any difference between the kinds of arguments that you make to support religion and the arguments that you make to support science. I understand, of course, that there are contradictions of all kinds in science, and there are contradictions between science and religion, and there are contradictions between various parts of religion in every human mind (but not in God’s mind; in a billion years you’ll have your problems solved, if you can wait). [Henry Eyring, “You Don’t Have to Make All the Mistakes There Are,” speech given at Brigham Young University, no date, Henry Eyring Papers, Manuscript Division, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, box 20, folder 23;quoted in Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist, 302]

I know that there is a God. I do not feel the need to conform my religion to science or science to my religion. I feel confident in holding two views in my mind that some may feel are opposite. I've not always felt that confidence and sought to bring them together but I've come to understand that of the vast universe I have an insignificant knowledge of both and that it would be futile for me to take my limited and incorrect perception of God and His Laws (moral and physical, if they can even be divided like that) and conform it to my misunderstanding of a bunch of observations and mathematical predictions we've made about the world around us.

Even if I interpret the written and spoken word to be contradictory to established theories of Science I still see value in learning from those theories for even if they happen to be incorrect they provide valuable insight into how God's creations work. Sometimes it seems both "religious communities" and "intellectual communities" are far from learning the valuable lesson that Ross Spencer learned from Isaac Asimov:

I received a similar message from a rather unlikely source early in my career. When I was just out of graduate school, I attended my first meeting of the American Physical Society in New York City. It was a heady experience, and a highlight was a special event arranged by the conference organizers: the great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov had been invited to speak to us.

He began by telling us about something that had happened to him when he was a young student. He was hired to help a historian do research on social resistance to technological change. Hour after hour he wrote down the stories he found in books in the university library about people protesting the invention of things like machines to spin thread and to weave cloth, steam-powered trains, automobiles, airplanes, etc. All of these advances were perceived by the general public either to be physically dangerous or to be a threat to the livelihoods of workers in trades that were about to be destroyed by these advances.

He regaled us with these stories for a long time, and they were very funny, but it went on so long that I began to wonder where he was going. Finally he got to the point. He said that when he started to write science fiction, he remembered all of this work he had done. So while his fellow writers were all rhapsodizing about the thrill of rockets and space travel (long before such things were possible), he wrote a story about how the local populace showed up at the launch site with torches and pitchforks in opposition to space travel. Years later, when rockets and travel outside of the earth’s atmosphere became possible, there were protests, and many of Mr. Asimov’s colleagues were astounded that he had predicted so far in advance that this would occur.

“Why,” Mr. Asimov then asked us, “among all of these talented and visionary writers, was I the only one who was able to predict that this resistance to change would occur?” He let us think about the question for an uncomfortably silent minute, then leaned into the microphone and said in an intense voice that I still vividly remember: “It’s because people are stupid!” And he included himself. He said that if he hadn’t had this idea pounded into his head daily for several months, he was sure that he wouldn’t have been able to foresee it either.