Combining blogs

As a reward for my graduation, my wife has allowed me to become a contributor to her blog, "Trust me... I'm a doctor!" We may end up merging the posts from the two blogs at some point, and redirect the URL for this blog to the other one. Just a heads-up.

Something I never knew about myself.

A few weeks ago we were in Cheyenne visiting Sarah's family. One of our nieces drew this picture for me. It's nice to know how much a part of the family I've become, but I'm a little concerned about the implications of my being a "gril."

Funny Because It's True, but Strangely Comforting

A friend of mine posted this comic on his Facebook page a few weeks ago.



If you don't get the first panel, don't worry about it, it's just a nerdy way of expressing the feeling in the last panel. I've felt about that close to graduation for about two years now, myself. At least I know the feeling is common enough to appear in a comic strip. (For those who are not familiar, "Piled Higher and Deeper" is a little like Dilbert, except in an academic setting rather than corporate America.)

References to "Nehorism" in the Book of Mormon

Here is where I will be keeping and updating my list of references to the doctrine of Nehor in the Book of Mormon, both direct and indirect, as promised in my last post:

• The aforementioned trial of Abinadi, starting with Noah's priests' attempt to trap him in his words in Mosiah 12:20-24. Note that the priests' descendants were later described as following Nehor's doctrine in Alma 21:4.


• Nehor himself, mentioned in Alma 1.


• The people of Ammonihah, attempting to trap Amulek in his words. This one isn't quite so obvious, but since Ammonihah is referred to as "Desolation of Nehors" (Alma 16:11) after its destruction, I think it's safe to include it. Zeezrom's little trap, in Alma 11:26-35, seems to consist of getting Amulek to say that God cannot save his people in their sins. Amulek seems to be anticipating the trap, since his answer contains an explanation "for it is impossible for him to deny his word." Undeterred, Zeezrom still points out that Amulek is imposing limits on God's power. The argument sticks-- his argument is prominently used against Alma and Amulek as they are accused and thrown into prison in Alma 14:5. When approaching theology from the doctrine of Nehor, which is that God has the power to save everyone regardless of what they do in life, this is indeed a contradiction to the omnipotence of God (and lying appears to have been a punishable offense during the reign of the judges).


• The Lamanites appear to have a tradition of Nehorism, as described in Alma 18:5: "Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right." (emphasis mine) Where did this idea come from? Lamoni's father (the king of the Lamanites), as it says earlier in the verse. Did he get it from his father too, or was there a more direct line to Nehor...? (See next paragraph)


• The Amalekites are also mentioned in Alma 21:4 as being after the order of Nehor. Incidentally, this is the first mention of this group of people in the Book of Mormon, however some (myself included) believe that these are the same people as the Amlicites, who deserted to the Lamanites in Alma 2-- and gee whiz, looky there, Amlici was described as being after the order of Nehor in Alma 2:1! (Perhaps this is where Lamoni got his tradition of Nehorism, but I digress.) Aaron, brother of Ammon and son of Mosiah, unsuccessfully argued with an Amalekite who challenged him over Aaron's calling people to repentance. "How knowest thou the thought and intent of our hearts? How knowest thou that we have cause to repent? How knowest thou that we are not a righteous people? Behold, we have built sanctuaries, and we do assemble ourselves together to worship God. We do believe that God will save all men." (emphasis mine)

• Samuel the Lamanite talks about priests becoming financially successful by adopting Nehorism in Helaman 13:27-28.

• ... more to come as I find them...

Agency: Have We Got It All Wrong?

How many of you Mormons have ever heard someone use, as an excuse to do whatever they want to do, "Don't you believe in free agency?" You probably had to explain further, something along the lines of: yes, we're free to choose how we act but not free to choose the consequences, like getting burned because you touched a hot stove. Which is true, don't get me wrong, but the natural consequence of feeling pain after touching a hot stove is a bit different than imposing a rule against PG-13 movies in your home. How do you justify imposing extra consequences? Isn't that forcing, since you have the power to enforce a consequence?

To draw out my point in dramatic fashion, let's imagine what might have happened in the oft-referred-to "war in heaven." Lucifer tells us he's going to save everyone by forcing us to do what is right. Let's suppose we don't dismiss him outright, let's ask him some of the details.

Me: How exactly does this work? You're going to force us to be righteous?

Lucifer: That's right.

Me: Well, suppose I get tired of being forced and complain about it. Is that a sin?

Lucifer: Well, you're going against my plan, so, yes.

Me: What are you going to do about it if I complain anyway?

Lucifer: Punish you.

Me: Uhhh... I thought you were going to save me.

Seriously, how exactly would this work, if none of us are lost? I can only think of two options: either we must cease to exist so that someone else does everything for us (and if we cease to exist, that puts a damper on the whole "one soul shall not be lost" thing), or we experience immediate punishment for our wrongdoings so that we can in the end be saved (which brings us back to "enforcing consequences" = "Satan's plan").

Or, there's a third option, which is that we're misunderstanding Satan's plan entirely! I'm not a prophet, so take this with a huge grain of salt. I don't want to be promoting false doctrine. However, I will try to use the scriptures to put my point across. Here are 4 clues as to what I think the plan really was.

Clue #1: Boyd K. Packer spoke once about how the scriptures do not contain the words "free agency" (see an earlier reference here), but rather speak of "moral agency," as in DC 101:78 (emphasis added):

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

That is, we are given agency to be accountable for our own sins, not to be free to choose. Of course, "free to choose" is a necessary part of that, otherwise we don't have our own sins to be accountable for. But there's a bigger picture here. Why else would Pres. Packer make a distinction?

Clue #2: We know that Satan's plan was to destroy our agency. How do we know that? Moses 4:1, 3:

Satan ... came before me, saying---Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man ... and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down.

Is verse 3 an explanation of what happened in verse 1, that Satan rebelled and sought to destroy our agency? If so, where in verse 1 did this happen?

Clue #3: Consider Moses 7:32 (emphasis added):

The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

We clearly made choices of our own free will before the Garden of Eden, so it must be referring to something else. Something that happened in the Garden...

Clue #4: We get a description of agency in DC 93:31-32:

Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

In other words, agency and condemnation go hand-in-hand, because we have received instructions and not followed them.

The Punch Line: Are you still with me? Agency isn't about freedom of choice, it's about personal responsibility! What I'm getting at is this: Satan's plan wasn't to take away our freedom of choice, it was to let us do whatever we wanted! Let's borrow some more from Pres. Packer. He gave a talk in April 1977 in which he described his parable of the mediator, made famous more recently in a church video. (Seminary video?) Under God's plan, Christ re-negotiates the debt and offers us new terms of payment. Under Lucifer's plan, he pays off the debt and we're scot-free. Kinda makes sense how 1/3 of the host of heaven might have liked that plan a little better, huh? The problem there is, when we aren't held responsible (at least to some degree) for our actions, we never "grow up." i.e. we never become God-like. Lucifer receives all the glory, and we get what? A body that we never really learn how to use.

Oddly enough (or perhaps it's not so odd after all), this very plan gets brought up multiple times in the scriptures and in modern day. Look at Alma's first test as the Nephites' first chief judge: the teachings of Nehor. From Alma 1:4 (emphasis added):

And [Nehor] also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.

Sound familiar? After I first started thinking about this, I noticed that the Book of Mormon is chock full of prophets trying to fight against Nehor's doctrine. (As I read through it again this year, I'll try to update this blog entry with some examples. For starters, consider Abinadi trying to explain why his message of doom-and-gloom constitutes "good tidings of good" and "publishing salvation," as opposed to the Noah's priests' message of, you guessed it, "what great sins have thy people committed, that we should be condemned of God or judged of this man?")

So the next time someone asks you if punishments aren't just a continuation of "Satan's plan," perhaps it's safe to say "no, just the opposite. According to Satan's plan, I should let you get away with this."

PS: Do not misinterpret my post as advocating "compulsion upon the souls of the children of men." I can see how there may be a fine line between this and simply being a strict disciplinarian, and I won't pretend to be any kind of expert on such behavior. People should indeed be allowed to learn from their own experience, it's just that sometimes while they're still learning, sometimes they need a little extra incentive one way or the other. Same reason why we have fines for not stopping at stop signs, regardless of whether or not running one actually causes an accident.

PPS:  Is God taking away agency in Revelation 3:9 when he says "I will make them to come and worship before thy feet"?

Furniture-Moving Day

Earlier this week, I discovered that spending 6 months in the same house calls for a day to rearrange the furniture in the house. I'm glad I know this rule now. 6 months from now, I'll be better prepared by working out ahead of time and maybe doing some stretching so I don't hurt myself.

For those who would like to see the changes, here is what it looked like before the change:



And here is what we changed it to. Personally, I'm pleased.