From Today's Meetings, a Little about Abominations and Redemptions -- 今日の集会から〜忌まわしいものや、贖いについての本の少し

今日の集会から、その１
From today's meetings, part (1)

教義と聖約８８書
Doctrine and Covenants 88

• ８０〜９２節：用意するが良い。物質てきは兎に角、霊的に。
  vs. 80~92: It's time to prepare — materially, yes, but spiritually.
   
• ７９節：お互いに教え合うべきこと。
  v. 79: We should be teaching each other.
  
  
• ８５節：忌まわしい荒廃（今はウクライナにて、ロシア）
  v. 85: the desolation of abominations (at present in the Ukraine, Russia)
  

 

今日の集会から、その２
From today's meetings, part (2)

モーサヤ１４書（イサヤ５３）
Mosiah 14 (Isaiah 53)

• １節：誰が私達の告げたことがらを信じたか。主の腕は誰に現されたか。
  v. 1: Who hath ^abelieved our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
  …
• ２節：…彼を慕う美しさもない。
  v. 2: ... there is no beauty that we should desire him.
  …
  
• ３節：…彼は侮られ，わたしたちは彼を尊ばなかった。
  v. 3: ... he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
  …
• ６節：…主はわたしたちすべての者の罪悪を彼に負わせられた。
  v. 6: ... the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all.
  …
• １０節：…あなたが彼を罪のささげ物とするとき，彼は自分の①子孫を見てその命を延ばし，主の御心は彼の手によって栄える。
  v. 10: ... when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his ^bseed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
  …
• １１節：…彼の知識により，わたしの義にかなった僕は多くの者を義とするが，それは，彼が彼らの罪悪を①身に負おうからである。
  v. 11: ... by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall ^abear their iniquities.
  …

ボクの（勝手な）解釈なんですが、

• 人間らしい考え方にして、イエス様が行う贖罪などが格好くない。
• イエス様のことを信じるかどうかを別にして、全ての人の罪を贖ってくださる。（つまり、人が赦される。）
• その子孫を見る意味は、イエスさまが行われる贖罪を信じて受け入て悔い改めれるほどイエス様の子孫となる。（つまり、人かやっていることが義とされる。） 

 

Oh, That I Were an Angel -- おお，わたしが天使であって

…，わたしの心の願いを遂げることができればよいものを。…
..., and could have the wish of mine heart, ...

モルモン書を通じている方なら、アルマ２９書１、２節は何とか有名なのですね。
If you're familiar with the Book of Mormon, Alma 29 verses 1 and 2 are pretty well-known, aren't they? 

１と２節の続き Verses 1 and 2 continue:

…わたしの心の願いとは，出て行って，神のラッパのように地を震わせる声で語り，すべての民に悔い改めを叫ぶことである。まことに，わたしは雷のような声で，あらゆる人に悔い改めと贖いの計画を告げ知らせ，もはや地の全面に悲しみのないように，悔い改めて①神のみもとに来ることを彼らに勧すすめたい。
... that I might go forth and speak with the ^atrump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people! Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, repentance and the plan of redemption, that they should repent and ^acome unto our God, that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth.

３節まではとにかく読んでいるでしょう？
Have you read verse 3?

しかし見よ，わたしはただの人であり，このように願うことさえも罪である。
But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish;

罪？
Sin?

…わたしは主から与えられたもので満足すべきだからである。
... for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me.

満足？今のまま？いやいや、そうではないでしょう。やる気をなくせ、と？
Content? With things as they are? Surely not! Am I supposed to just lose my ambitions?

敢えて４節を読むかな。
Do I dare read verse 4?

わたしは，公正な神の堅い定めを，わたしの願いによって乱してはならないのである。
I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God,

（英語の "harrow up" を、その農業の道具に因んで「乱す」と訳していますが、 "up" までいうと「攻める」と訳しても良かったけど。まあ、意味が実質的に変わりません。 For what it's worth, the Japanese word used for "harrow up" refers to the farming implement:「乱す」, "to cause disorder". I think, since the English includes "up", they could have used 「攻める」, "to attack" -- not that it changes the meaning significantly.） 

…人が死ぬことを望もうと生きることを望もうと，神が彼らの①望むままにされることを知っているからである。まことに，人々が救いを望もうと滅びを望もうと，神は彼らの②意のままに，不変の定めを彼らに布告されるということをわたしは知っている。
... for I know that he granteth unto men according to their ^adesire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their ^bwills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.

まあ、ご関心のことなら、その残りをどうぞ。ボクはとても興味深いに思います。
Well, if this intrigues you, go ahead and read the rest of the chapter. I think it's quite interesting.

How I Understand the Church's 1st Article of Faith

Here's how I read the First Article of Faith of the Church of context here:

1: We beleive in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

In the current milieu, it is easy to read this simple statement as saying something almost diametrically opposed to what I understand Joseph Smith to have meant when he penned the words a hundred some-odd years ago. So I'm going to offer my unofficial rephrase, using words that I hope will be more understandable in modern English:

We believe in the Prime Paradigm -- the Eternal Progenitor -- and in the pre-eminent Child thereof, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Essence.

Except that that has just as many issues of interpretation as the original, probably more, even if they are different issues. 

Well, it's a thought. I'll leave it up there as a decoy while I ask you to allow me room to explain how I understand the principle terms of the original wording. 

(The point is, when I talk about God, I'm not talking about what certain other people say I'm talking about. Please set aside all the assumptions, images and preconceptions that people have thrown at you about God and religion, claiming to be either for or against.) 

God:

1. That which a person sets at highest priority;
2. The source of the universe around us.
   

 

Eternal:

• Existing outside the bounds of what we attempt to describe in our physical laws of thermodynamics, ergo, not bound by entropy or by its corollary, time.

 

Father/Parent:

• Progenitor, or archetype from which children are generated.

 

Son/Child:

• That which is generated or pro-created by the Parent, thus, capable of growth.
  
  1. Capable, when fully grown, of standing independent.
  2. Capable, when fully grown according to the pattern of the Parent, of standing in proxy for the Parent.

 

Jesus:

• Name which can be interpreted as "God is help." Points us to the concept that God does care, after all.

 

Christ:

• Title indicating the necessity of choice.

 

Holy:

• Not profane. In particular, not made profane by the pursuit of power, authority, fame, influence, monetary gain, or such.

 

Spirit:

• The essence of those things which we perceive by our five senses,
  
  1. somewhat corollary to the mathematical concept of automata,
  2. also somewhat corollary to software in programmed systems.
• All things have spirit.
  

Note, relevant to the current arguments concerning gender, that none of this mentions gender, other than indirectly by the implicit reference to engendering.

Note also that, none of this references an angry god-image ready to punish to the fullest all who dare breach any of his dictates. In fact, such an image simply does not fit in this concept of Progenitor, and does not match at all with the meaning of the name, Jesus.

Ham, Noah, The Curse, and Canaan

In the first part of Genesis 9, we see some discussion of Noah and God talking over what's going to happen now that the flood is done. In Joseph Smith's commentary that we call the Joseph Smith Translation, more detail is given about this, in the form of covenants God made with Noah and his children.

Then, in v. 18, the topic shifts, and the sons of Noah who "went forth of the ark" are listed: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And, for some reason not specified in the verse, it notes that Ham is the father of Canaan.

I'm pretty sure that Noah had other children, both before and after the flood, but these were the three who went into the ark with him and the three who, came out of the ark with him and rebooted the human race -- and the covenants of God with members of the human race.

V. 19 asserts that descendants of Noah's three sons spread throughout the earth.

Then in v. 20 we read that Noah got started on cultivating the ground again, in v. 21, he made wine from some of the grapes.

And, uncharacteristicly, in v.  21, we read that he drank too much and "was uncovered" in his tent. One might ask why it is worth noting.

And we often interpret v. 22 to talk about Ham being a peeping Tom and a gossip. 

V. 23 is generally taken up as demonstrating the respect which Shem and Japheth had for their father, where v. 22 is often taken as Ham not having had respect for Noah.

In v. 24, we have Noah recovering from his drunkenness, but perhaps not the overhang because he got upset at his younger son for having, we assume, seen him in his disgraceful condition, and, in v. 25, cursing, not Ham, not all of Ham's children, but Ham's son Canaan.

But a lot of things are left out of the story. I'm going to try to tie loose threads together and see if it reveals a little more. I may end up tying the wrong threads together, so I hope nobody takes this as gospel truth. 

I've pointed at the main loose threads I'm interested in, above:

1. Why does Canaan get so much press in here? He is the only one of Noah's grandchildren mentioned in this chapter, but it doesn't really say what he did other than that he bore the brunt of Noah's disapproval.
2. Why did Ham happen to see his father in his embarrassing state, and why did Ham himself not simply get something to cover his father with?
3. Noah is elsewhere recommended as a righteous man, on much the same level with Enoch, Seth, and Adam. Why is he then so arbitrarily angry with his son Ham, and why does he then vent his anger against is grandson, Canaan? Where is the patience of the righteous here?

It would have been helpful to us if Joseph Smith had been allowed or instructed to tell us more about this, but there is a lot of the Bible that Joseph Smith didn't seem to have the time to deal with. And this chapter already gets quite a bit of treatment for the covenants God made with Noah, which are definitely more important.

So, say Canaan had more to do with the story. Say he was something of a practical joker, and had spiked this batch of punch, and was thus the reason Noah had overheated and passed out. And say he had something of a grievance against his grandfather because Noah had not allowed Ham to teach him certain mysteries that Noah thought he wasn't ready for yet.

Yeah, pure speculation. 

(I'll note that others have followed this path of reasoning, and acknowledge the influence of one Ronald L. Dart on my interpretation here.)

But, all too often, youngsters, young men in particular, confuse certain mysteries of Godliness with talismans of power to be arbitrary -- not power to be kind or righteous, but power to be arbitrary. We see that to a certain degree in others of Ham's descendants, particularly when the first Pharoah attempts to imitate the patterns of government Ham had learned from Noah, and then later Pharoahs turn to idolatry. Reference Abraham 1, particularly noting around vs. 25-27 or so for this.

So, say Canaan had slipped his grandfather a Micky Finn, and then had snuck in and stolen Noah's priestly vestments.

Ham became aware of this and consulted with his brothers, and Shem and Japheth felt that it was at least advisable to give Noah something to cover himself with. 

(And those who pass on the story feel that it's important to assert that the elder brethren were more careful to observe forms of respect than the youngest. Note that Ham is listed in Moses 8 as being the youngest, even though the Bible tends to list him second everywhere.)

And when Noah woke up, we look carefully at v. 24 for the antecedent to "his" whose younger son had done something, and maybe the antecedent isn't Noah, but Ham. And that would explain why Noah then explains to the grandson, not Ham, that before he can access the real power of God's Priesthood, he's going to have to learn that it is not in talismans. 

And Canaan refuses to listen to anything other than Noah's displeasure, interpreting this as having been cursed.

Yes, I'm interpolating details here. The specifics don't matter much, but I'm guessing the missing details are something like my above interpolations. 

One thing I am certain of is that we rely way too much on pre-existing short-circuits in our understanding.

Ham himself is nowhere that I know of listed as being under a curse. In many places, his righteousness is noted. Only certain, and not all, of his descendents are noted as being under a curse. 

Canaan is specified in this chapter as being placed under a curse concerning the Priesthood of God, and I'm inclined to believe the reason was more related to Canaan himself than to Ham's indelicate handling of his father's embarrassment.

(And this is as far as I should go with the topic in this post.)

The Choice in the Garden

It's easy to focus on the dilemma and ask why God would place Adam and Eve in such a situation.

Multiply and replenish the Earth. 

But they can't do that in their perfect state in the Garden. Not only that, but have dominion over the earth -- dominion in the sense of the responsibility to take care of it and the plants and animals in it wisely.

Do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

But if they are going to multiply and replenish the Earth, and especially if they are going to take responsibility for it, they need that knowledge. How can they behave responsibly if they do not know good and evil?

It's just as easy to look at situations where we face a choice and think we should be able to take both paths, and ask why God would make us choose.

As a computer programmer, I have designed many programs and functions that parse a problem until the computer gets to a point where it can not proceed further without backing up. Similarly, we do our best working through problems in our lives and often find ourselves blocked from proceeding further without backing up.

Sometimes we get to a solution that seems perfect, and we get used to that solution. And then something new gets thrown at us and we discover that we have to leave that perfect solution behind, back up and out, and try a new, different path.

This isn't to say the solution was not perfect in the context in which we found the solution. We just have a new context to deal with, in which the previous perfect solution isn't enough any more. 

Sometimes, giving that perfect solution up feels like, well, dying.

This is where Adam and Eve were. They were in the perfect Garden, immortal, no sin. Innocent. Lacking knowledge. And God warned them that gaining the knowledge they needed to proceed would require them to subject themselves to death.

What God didn't explain until later, what our children (and we, ourselves) find so hard to understand without experiencing it, is that there is a point we really can't progress any further than -- if we refuse to give up really some things, including some things that were once really important things, so important that it feels like dying to give them up.

We ourselves. In a sense, we are Adam and Eve. Even though I believe the Garden story is literal enough, even though perhaps not completely recorded in the Bible, I also believe that the reason it is recorded in the Bible is that it is a metaphor for us.

Giving up is not the end of everything.

Now, we can't do it without help. This is true. But the plan was already in place when the Earth was created, that Jesus would come in due time and do what was necessary so that we could live again and move forward. 

Because Jesus suffered for us in the Garden of Gethsemane and gave up His life on the cross for us, we can live again. And when we get stuck in our efforts to learn and progress, we can back up and start over again.

Of course, it helps if, when we start over again, we keep listening to God.

And that is the reason for the two commandments in the Garden of Eden, and in our own Gardens of Eden.

By the way, what is this listening to God thing?

We all have the seed of the Word of God in our hearts. We call it conscience. And I'll stop here, because I always say a few words too many.

Inbreeding among Adam's and Noah's Children

Most of what I write below is purely referential postulating. You'll need to find the scriptures I implicitly refer to yourself. I do limit the references to Genesis, in the Bible. Stronger clues can, however, be found in the books of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.

Assuming Adam and Eve were created by God, it's probably safe to assume that He would have created them genetically perfect.

Current understanding of the necessity of genetic diversity does not contemplate genetic perfection. We don't even yet know enough about genetics to be able to define, describe, or theorize genetic perfection.

I believe some geneticists theorize that (because we can't define it) genetic perfection is impossible, but, again, we simply don't know enough to say that.

Incidentally, the rib spoken of in scripture, I consider might be a chromosomal structure. Men are "missing" a "rib" in there. My sometimes interpretation, for your amusement.

Under such conditions of genetic perfection, we should at least consider the possibility that genetic diversity itself developed out of the initial condition of genetic perfection.

Near perfect bodies would mean that it would be possible for them to maintain health to a greater degree for them than for us, including genetic health for enough generations for inbreeding to become a problem.

Early death is not described in the first generations, except in the case of Cain deliberately killing Able. Although the Bible mentions the burden on women due to childbearing, death of the mother in childbirth is also not mentioned. 

Without some attrition due to early death and death in childbirth, the initial population growth is explosive, something on the order of 

p(n+1) = p(n)+((p(n)/2) x 12)

which is a pretty fast growth rate -- a steep exponential curve.

That's assuming ordinary fecundity. Twelve children from one mother is not imposible in our day, and we can consider it as a possible average for the early, near-perfect generations from Adam and Eve. As mentioned, for the first generation, we could even consider Eve capable of triple that number of children. But we don't need to.

The second generation might have been something like just twelve, but the third would have been something like 96 (plus or minus) new individuals. Even if attrition and reduced fecundity began at this point, that's plenty to ensure survival -- if they don't immediately go to war against each other. (That's the reason Cain is promised God's protection, as I understand it, so that what he did doesn't start a war.)

The other problems of sibling marriage -- power issues and such, are fairly clearly described in the Bible's description of the first several generations. (Cain and Able, also, see Lamech, in Cain's line.) 

We also see them recur in the descriptions of the first generations from Noah -- the need for Abraham to leave his father's country, for example.

Noah would be a problem in genetics, unless we assume that, among Adam's descendants, those mentioned as heirs of Adam's instruction in each generation in Genesis deliberately chose a wife for maximum diversity. I have not found clear indication in scripture, but I have found hints, one of which I mention below.

This brings up something else, which I can mention here. We have somewhat of a record of God intervening fairly actively among some of the descendants of both Adam and Noah. Assuming God exists, we do not have any reason to assume He would not intervene as necessary, including the possibility of adjusting the genetic pool by what we would call supernatural means. 

If necessary -- I mention above a way in which in would not have been necessary, but we do not have to discount the possibility.

The beginnings of race really ought to be considered as the result of continued close inbreeding that occurred after the third generation, both from Adam and from Noah. 

Indeed, we might consider the wife that Ham took with him on the ship to have been a deliberate choice to preserve diversity, partially undone in the next generation after Ham, and somewhat carelessly recorded in negative light because of what occurred in the generation after Ham.

Now, even though I can hypothesize the above, I am not going to say that I know that this is the absolute truth, or that I know that other interpretations are wrong, such as that Adam was the first human to be willing to accept God's teachings, and thus the first son of God in that sense. 

I just offer this for those who prefer keep fairly close to the Biblical text, specifically considering Genesis 3: 20, and Genesis 5: 3 and 4. 

Damage Done to/by the Church or the "church"

Someone on Twitter posted a complaint about a quote from the then-president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Ezra Taft Benson, in the October session of the General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Specifically, he said the talk did him and his a lot of damage -- misguided advice kind of damage, the kind that can be very hard to quantify and thus very insidious.

(Ezra Taft Benson was later the President of the Church. Wikipedia has an article on him.)

The talk in question was at the end of the Relief Society session of Conference.

Here's the quote, 21st paragraph if I counted it right:

It is a misguided idea that a woman should leave the home, where there is a husband and children, to prepare educationally and financially for an unforeseen eventuality. Too often, I fear, even women in the Church use the world as their standard for success and basis for self-worth.

Here's my response to the tweet, a little more carefully stated than originally tweeted, and without the artificial length limit on tweets:

I would say far more damage was done by leaders and teachers who failed to read the whole talk, who failed to pray while preparing and giving lessons – who would basically grab this one quote, present it to the class, and then spend the rest of the time talking about other things -- shooting the breeze about sports, cars, work, fashion, academics, laundry, cooking, ..., anything but the Gospel, all sorts of things that would lead the unsuspecting member to apply the standards of the world when interpreting even this one quote -- instead of hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit teach what it means.

Yeah, if you pass over the first part where Elder Benson acknowledges that many members have non-ideal situations, and then take the rest according to the standards of the world instead of God's standards, the quoted part will do damage. 

Any single part of the whole thing will do damage. It should be taken as a whole and read/listened to/parsed carefully according the Holy Spirit.

Truth is like that. Half-truths can do far more damage than outright lies. 

Follow-up thoughts, also a bit more carefully stated, and without the tweet length limits that make it impossible to converse coherently (I'm pretty sure that these follow-up thoughts will not be more palatable to some, for being more coherent):

1. The president of the Quorum of the Twelve is not the prophet as long as there is a living president of the First Presidency -- different callings, different blessings. The prophet has some specific blessings and restrictions about what he should say, especially at conference. Others, even the next guy in line, do not have the same blessings and restrictions, and may well speak to specific contexts. That is the case here.
   
   
2. You've heard it before, and you've heard that people use it as an excuse to quit listening at all and therefore say it must not be correct, but from Joseph Smith to the present, every prophet has reminded us to study and follow faithfully and prayerfully, to get our own testimony, to get our own instructions from God.
   
   It is true that the counsel we receive from God will not contradict instruction from the prophet, but it may well contradict what appears to be instruction and counsel from others besides the prophet. It may even appear to contradict counsel from the prophet, when the prophet gives counsel to people in situations not our own.
   
   Borrowing from the language of mathematics, when we start implementing things, context is very important. That's why we need that Holy Spirit to guide us in our implementation, and all the general counsel in the world is not enough to tell us every little thing about specific implementation. We need the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
   
   It remains true, and when the outward church – the social church – teases members for getting their own instructions because, oh my goodness, we can't be THAT different, the social church partakes of the spirit of the great and abominable.


3. What Elder Benson said was not exactly wrong. He mentioned, didn't he, that Adam and Eve labored together? Both labored. Together.
   
   Maybe he seems to have failed to emphasize enough that a man should not be leaving the home entirely to the woman, but at least he repeats and emphasizes the necessity for cooperation.
   
   In not just a metaphorical sense, neither one should be leaving the home.
   
   In a more literal sense, the woman will naturally and generally be the one to be more directly responsible in the home -- that is, in the statistically usual case. The general case is theoretical. Actual particular cases vary from the general case in different degrees, and variance from the hypothetical general case is not a sin in and of itself.
   
   But if either the man or the woman sets the responsibility for the home aside in trade for the things of the world, they are choosing the lesser thing. They are choosing the world over God.
   
   
4. So much of the semantic burden of the metalanguage Elder Benson uses here has since been turned backwards and/or upside-down by changes in common English usage.
   
   Specific to this case, interpreted according to current common usage, it may seem like he is advocating for self-forced subservience for women.
   
   But he says both parents should be sacrificing for the family. Not just one.
   
   And self-forced subservience is at total odds with the Gospel. God will forgive people who make this mistake concerning themselves, who try to force themselves into a subservient position, when they learn and accept the teaching that service is usually not really the best kind of service when it is subservient or forced.
   
   God will not easily forgive people who make the mistake of deliberating pushing others into subservience, especially into self-reinforced subservience. But if they sincerely turn back to Him, they can be forgiven, too.
   

Jesus explained something relative to this to the twelve when James and John asked to be allowed to sit on His right and left:


And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. (Mark 10: 44.)


I'm not making this up. It is repeated elsewhere in scripture.

If we understand this principle, it is easier to understand what Elder Benson is saying in this talk. If we don't understand that priesthood is not supposed to be about personal glory and pomp, it may well be easier to misread this talk, precisely because, in the meta-language of the world, priesthood is about aggrandizement and the trappings of power, not about service.


Too much of the outward social church accepts the metalanguage of the world, in spite of all the cautions we receive against that twice a year in conference talks.

Hey. Elder Benson cautioned about this very thing in at least two specific places in this talk.

I'm not saying anyone is to blame for misunderstanding this talk, although a man who uses it to try to put himself above his wife will be under condemnation from God for other reasons, if not for deliberately misunderstanding this talk. That may be why it was given in the Relief Society session instead of the general session, so that the men who wouldn't listen carefully would be less likely to be tempted to abuse themselves and their wives by it.

[Adding a bit after the initial post:] More to the point, it was in fact about this time that women in the Church began to be counseled specifically to prepare for the unforeseen. Not to "leave the home ... to prepare educationally and financially for an unforeseen eventuality", but to take advantage of opportunities to develop marketable skills in case something untoward happened. 

There is a reason for the timing here. The context of the "average Mormon" family during the sixties through mid-eighties was an unusually stable context. That stability started to crumble in the mid-eighties. [End of addition.] 

[It's after one in the morning here, I should be hitting the shower and getting to bed, but I think I need to add just a little bit more:] There have been several points of inflection in my life, where I could accuse myself of allowing outward/social church teachings to influence me to be lazy and take the easy way out, to the detriment of my (then-) future career, which have (theoretically) left me less able to be a "proper" bread-winner for my family.

One is when I let the understanding that rock concerts tend to be a type of idolatry, and the understanding that trying to be a non-idolatrous pop star would take more experience and wisdom than I had as a teenager in the 1970s, to influence me away from trying to learn an instrument and form a band. (Should I note the errors in logic in such thought processes? I'm sure they're fairly obvious.)

Another is when I chose physics over football in high school. (But, for the record, I think I learned much more important things -- for my own health -- by then filling the gap left by lack of football with modern dance. I'm still a fan of American football, but the things I learned from dance would not have been available to me in West Texas Football programs.)

Yet another is when I let my decision to serve a mission turn me away from attending MIT on scholarship in the late 1970s. My high school counselors were seriously frustrated with me on that point. (Again, what errors in logic are there in asserting that it was a mistake for me to go to Japan in 1979 instead of MIT in 1978?)

Many such inflection points.

The football decision may be a little easier to look at because it does not directly involve over-the-pulpit or by-the-book Church teachings. Each person makes trade-offs in the decisions we make on our way through life. Those trade-offs do us "damage", I suppose. But it would be more accurate to say that closing one door opens another. [End of second addition.]

Anyway, yes, if you want to be saved in the kingdom of God, your testimony of the Gospel has to go beyond your testimony of the truth of your fellow members' testimonies. 

Just because everyone in the Relief Society or Priesthood lesson seems to agree that a particular conference talk means X does not mean that any member of the Relief Society or Priesthood quorum should accept X without prayer, especially when it runs against conscience.