In the Beginning (Gen. 01) [Not a Good Start on This]

[This is just not working. I'm trying to take a layman's point of view, but my language just is coming out too formalesque, and I'm ending up trying to be too complete in a single rant.

See https://guerillamormonism.blogspot.com/2022/11/bible-uncommentary-titleprefacetoc.html for what I hope is a better try.]

Certain critics of the concepts of God and scripture assert that Moses was trying to use esoteric (pseudo-)knowledge to scare the masses into docility when he gave the camp of Israel the first five books of the Bible. Sometimes I think many Bible scholars, religious philosophers, and such who attempt to explain the Bible might as well be in collusion with such critics, because of the mysteries, riddles, puzzles, and paradoxes without explanation that they like to focus on.

Someone I trust recommends drinking upstream from where the cows gather, rather than downstream. I think it's a good metaphor.

I blog a bit about what I believe, and the more I do so the less inclined I am to want to wade into the stream upstream from where others are going to drink. My language is not that great, and I seem to have a hard time making myself understood. It usually seems like it's going to be more effective and less of a bother to just let everybody believe what they are willing to believe and learn things on their own.

But I can also see that there is an influence that poisons the well as close to the source as it can get, using rumors, popular literature, mixed up education policies, advertising, politicking, just anything in the general domain of public discourse, to mutate the common use of important words and concepts used and referenced in the scriptures, so that the scriptures do become an opaque bundle of esoteric knowledge that can be manipulated into keeping the masses in line.

Which is my excuse for beginning a lay commentary on the Bible, in spite of not wanting to muddy the stream. So -- if you read what I write, don't take it for Gospel truth, just take it as something to maybe think about.

And let's dig in.

In the beginning ...

A lot of religious philosophizing and intellectual heat has been wasted on overloading that prepositional phrase. Was this the ultimate beginning, or was it just the beginning of things relative to this world?

When Moses told this to the people of Israel, what do you think was his intent for them to understand? 

Was he really talking about the beginning, or was he talking about God? 

This book is called Genesis. Genesis means origins. Of course he's talking about the beginning. Except,

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

Maybe Moses is talking as much about God as about beginnings. Maybe talking about origins is talking about God.

And if he isn't talking strictly about beginnings, maybe there isn't all that much of a case for that phrase requiring the heavens and the earth to have begun at the exact same time -- or, especially, for the creation of the earth to have preceded the heavens, as has often been argued.

Now, if you are not willing to consider, for the sake of argument, that there might be a core of truth in what the Bible records, you might as well not consider the Bible at all. And you might as well not be reading this.

But if you are willing to consider the Bible, even if just for the sake of argument, think about Moses standing in front of a crowd of the leaders among the descendants of a guy named Jacob and those who had thrown their lot in with the descendants of Jacob -- the camp of Israel. They have picked up a lot of mistaken ideas and bad habits from living in Egypt, and Moses wants to motivate them to examine what they understand about the world. (Borrowing from, and paraphrasing, passages in, for example, Deuteronomy,)

Hear me, oh Israel! You have worshiped idols in Egypt. You have been distracted by the idols of the people we have wandered among.

In particular, most of the idolatrous religions had their own stories of beginnings to justify worship of their made-up deities, and those origin stories tended to contain details that justified such bad practices as temple prostitution, human sacrifice (including child sacrifice), three-fold or n-fold revenge, power being a privilege instead of a responsibility, ultimate power residing with the priests, etc. 

Considering passages from other books of the Bible, I hear Moses starting like this:

I present unto you that being, entity, and set of principles which actually created all these things whose images you have been prone to worship, and even created the humans who imagined them.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is. Any creature, being, entity, force, or principle not capable of doing this is not worthy of your worship; neither is any invention of human imagination.

But what survives in Genesis of the presentation he gave was 

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. 

What he presents from there does not seem to exactly match our current scientific theories about the origins of the solar system and the earth, but there is some correlation.

The earth was without form, and void, and it was dark everywhere in the depths of space.

Go out to your garden and dig up a garden scoop full of earth -- dirt, clods, rocks. This was what was floating out there in space, along with hydrogen and hydrogen compounds at very low temperatures. No form. Not a disk, not even a sphere. Loose dirt, a few larger clods and rocks here and there, frozen water, frozen methane, lots of stuff out there floating in space, just spread way out, thin.

We don't know if Moses himself had a word for outer space, much less whether the people he was talking to would have understood had he used it. In fact, we don't know how much relevant vocabulary, much less the relevant concepts, the people he was talking to would have understood. (How much of the physics do you and your friends really understand, even now?)

Relating deep space to the ocean may have been the best he could do.

... darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the power and influence of God moved things around among the clouds of hydrogen, frozen ammonia, methane, water ice and dust, gathering the stuff in the void into clumps.

So these waters are not the oceans of earth. The oceans come later.

What is this power and influence of God that was moving things around? 

If God created the heavens and the world, God-ness includes the physical principles by which the universe was created. In this case, gravity comes to mind quickly. (But it would not have been the only thing.)

The etymological root of "hydrogen" is "water" in most languages that I am aware of. I tend to read water here as indicating hydrogen and its compounds, thus ammonia, methane, and so forth.

The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters ...

and hydrogen gas gathered into clumps, with heavier stuff being swing outward as things tended to form rotating clouds, and the hydrogen gas being the most prominent component anyway. But the people he was talking to probably wouldn't have understood that, either. But over aeons of time, hydrogen conglomerated into a huge, huge, huge ball of gas, bigger than hundreds of thousands of earths,

And God said, Let there be light ...

Gravity heated things up, the sun ignited, and we had a basic solar system in the process of forming. 

I'm not putting everything in. Read along in your copy, to see if you can tolerate my reasoning.

And God saw the light, that it was good.

Stable hydrogen fusion, but, again, it's hard to believe that many of the people Moses was talking to would have understood the concept of fusion.

And God divided the light from the darkness.

I'm not going to be offended if I'm wrong about this; I'm not sure if it's the correct place to interpolate it. But it seems to me that this is roughly where the earth takes enough shape to have parts of it in shadow. But it would not have been rotating fast at this point, especially not once every 24 hours, or the operation of gravity would have been overcome, and the earth could not have formed. It would have remained stretched out in streams and clumps as another asteroid belt.

So that first day would have been a really, really long day, like millions of years in terms of time as we know it. And much of that time, the earth would have been more like a pile of slush, a huge, mushy comet-like soft mass slowing compacting and slowly hardening. 

I'm going to guess that the mass was so mushy it really didn't have a regular period of rotation for the first two days, at bare minimum.

During the second day, the earth's form improves, and the core becomes solid and heats up, and the slush remaining on the surface melts, and we get actual atmosphere of some sort. 

Are the waters above the firmament clouds? Or is it a reference to methane boiling away and escaping out into space? I'm not sure. Could be both. Anyway, the sky isn't very clear during the second day. 

Interpreting the firmament as the sky is not a great stretch, since the Bible itself says the firmament is heaven, and sky is among the meanings which the word heaven can be used to indicate.

And it's still a very long day.

On the third day, the continents finally begin to emerge from the waters beneath the firmament. The Bible doesn't seem to mention sea plants specifically, but it's not a huge interpolation to include them in the mention of things we would call plants emerging during the third day.

The fourth day take a little extra interpolation, perhaps, but I think not that much. Oxygen is being released into the atmosphere and the skies are clearing up. The sun and then the stars become distinctly visible in the sky. I'm inclined to think that the moon does not just become visible, but is captured by the earth along in this period. 

Perhaps the collision that some scientists theorize is what precipitated the atmosphere clearing up. But if that's the case, the rotation of the earth might have suddenly changed to close to the 24-hour period we now know, and the description of the fifth and sixth days doesn't seem really compatible with that. I'm inclined to lean towards a near-miss, in which the gravitational influence of the moon starts the rotation of the earth gradually speeding up. Or perhaps a multi-body collision that leaves the earth speeding up a bit and the moon in close proximity. 

But the moon changes lots of things.

Animal life begins in the oceans and sky during the fifth day, and on land during the sixth day. And humans were made during the sixth day, as well.

The wording of the Bible gets a little weird here, if you insist on certain ideas that are usually accepted among the religious philosophers who deal with the Bible. 

In one place, the Bible says

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

That is very definitely the first person plural possessive pronoun that God uses here.

Some have proposed that this is an Old Testament example of members of the Trinity discussing things among themselves, which sort-of contradicts the usual interpretations of the Trinity. 

On the other hand, interpretations of the Trinity are usually rather hard to pin down. 

Some have proposed that God is speaking to the angels, but that requires the angels to also be "in the image of God", and the Bible doesn't come right out and say that anywhere. Only we humans are created in the image of God. 

On the other hand, there are a few instances in the Bible of post-mortal humans acting as angels. And there are also hints of some of the angels being pre-mortal humans. Strong hints.

For example, God asks Job, 

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

This is usually considered to be a rhetorical question, with the assumed answer that Job wasn't there, but God continues, 

... when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Job would be a son of God, so it sounds more like Job was being reminded that he was, in fact, there, rejoicing with the rest.

Very strong hints.

I understand that one of the names of God used in the Bible, Elohim, is plural in form.

I have reason to lean towards the idea that the Father and the pre-mortal Jesus and a number of pre-mortal humans were there, including Job and you and me, when the creation of our world began. But we, including Jesus, if I understand this right, were pre-mortal, with mortality and resurrection still between us and the state of being which could have included us in the plural reference of "Let us create man in our own image."

It gets a little stranger. 

So God created man in his (own) image, in his image created he him, male and female created he them.

If we remember that at the time the Bible was translated to English the masculine pronouns did double duty as neutral pronouns, we can partially untangle that, and, indeed, translations into languages other than English do usually opt for gender neutral grammar when referring to God in this verse. But God is still singular in languages that count nouns in the subject position, and the Bible doubles the emphasis on our being created in his image, and then says male and female.

Is God the Father both male and female? 

Thinking about the possibility that God might be hermaphrodite is entertaining, but we would then be in partial images of God as males and females, looking forward to, perhaps after the resurrection, attaining the characteristics of the other sex.

But there would then be no real need of becoming "one flesh" with our spouse. Marriage would not be necessary. We would have lost our best means of understanding how we can be different but still be united in our purposes and plans.

Marriage

Sometimes I have wondered whether the Holy Spirit might be the female component, but that really doesn't fit well.

 

Another example is that directly following the use of the first-person plural pronoun humans are given "dominion" over the earth and pretty much every thing in it. 

Dominion is usually used to indicate the right to determine what happens with no reference to responsibility. But other places do talk about our responsibilities towards those things which we are given dominion over. Dominion is clearly about responsibility, not a right to behave arbitrarily.

Vegetables and fruits are given to be our meat in yet another place, but that's actually fairly straightforward. Meat in this case is

Among many members of my church, the prevailing thought is that, at first, the days of the earth are a thousand years according to our present time, and the first through sixth days were primarily planning rather than implementation.

If the firmament is the atmosphere, the earth must have obtained its form by this point. If the firmament is heaven, or outer space, then we don't know for sure whether the earth has form at this point.

But in the third day, waters under the heavens are drawn off the surface of the continents, so the form of the earth must be stable by this point. In fact, it must be stable enough to allow plant life to develop. Even if God has seed from some other source and doesn't have to use energy from the storms that raged over the

 

 

 

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not Damnation

Somebody on Twitter asked a question that showed up in my feed that misunderstood the "Mormon" concept of damnation as binary. It was essentially, 

Mormon damnation is being prevented from progressing. Why would a just God force us into a situation where we would have to be impossibly perfect to avoid damnation?

Some of my friends have expressed similar questions.

Digging deep into these kinds of questions means you have to choose between abandoning the hope of finding meaning in life -- or abandoning binary interpretation. I think it's wiser to abandon binary interpretations.

The following is what I understand about this. It works for me, but it may not work for other people.

Before I dig into what I understand about damnation, I want to point out a couple of things Joseph Smith reported revelation on.  One, the pre-mortal Jesus said this to Moses,

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Pearl of Great Price -- Moses 1: 39)

The other, Abraham explained why he broke away from the idolatry around him:

... finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, ... (Pearl of Great Price -- Abraham 1: 2)

And we have this familiar verse in which Jesus taught this about what is the most fundamental commandment:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(Matthew 22: 35 - 40.)

Given the parable of the Good Samaritan, neighbor basically includes everyone, regardless of race, religion, ideology, creed, or whatever.

More background, Joseph Smith described the fundamental Gospel of Jesus Christ as follows:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

These are the first four of what we call the Articles of Faith. When they were written about 190 years ago, they were fairly easy to understand. But the common use of English, and the common semantics about religion and Christianity have changed so much that they seem to mean things that they do not.

My interpretations of these four articles goes something like this:

(1) The Parent/Progenitor is the principle of creation and procreation, but, because of limits in human language, we have usually called the Progenitor principle the Father. The principle is both abstract and tangible, and there are individual beings who take on the role of Father/Progenitor. Relative to our world (and maybe the solar system) there is a specific Individual who generally assumes the role of Father/Progenitor. 

(We sometimes refer to that Being as "Elohim", but that name is also used for certain idolatrous gods, so I won't use it here.)

The Child is the principle of being created. Again, because of limits in our language, we usually refer to the principle of the Child as the Son here. The role of the Son, for our world, is filled by Jesus Christ. (But, being perfect, He can also fill the role of Father for us, and He often does.) Being, as it were, our Elder Brother, he can stand as mediator between us and God when we need it.

The Holy Spirit is the influence of God throughout the universe. It is the medium by which information flows. It is also the origin and core of the human conscience. 

(Emphasis on core. We get a lot of false traditions and stuff layered on top of that core as we grow up in this world.) 

The physical interpretation the Holy Spirit is also valid. Without the Holy Spirit, there would be no exchange particles and no thermodynamics, among other things. (This should not be seen as a threat, because, quite clearly, God makes the rain to fall and the sun to shine on both believers and non-believers.)

On the reasonableness of believing that there could be beings who could fully embody the principles which underlie the creation and operation of the universe, in other words, embody all principles of truth, I suggest that, if we can conceive of extraterrestrial intelligent species, we have to consider that our own species is at a point where we are either going to destroy ourselves or evolve past the mad competitive nature that now consumes most of our energies. If we are not alone in the universe, surely other worlds have preceded us well beyond the decision point we now face, and it may well be that some of them evolve so far as to find no meaning except in helping new worlds evolve, and that they would probably stay as much behind the scenes as possible.

(2) There is a difference between punishment and consequence. We all take on damage as a result of the sins of our parents and the sins of society around us. But that is collateral damage, not the punishment of God.

The punishments and rewards of God are usually simply the natural consequences of our own choices, actions, and words. In some cases, God does alter the natural consequences to help us change our behavior.

Ultimately, though, when we stand before God to be judged, the judgement we receive is based on what we ourselves have done with what we have been given. God is both just and fair, even though it sometimes seems He is asking way too much of us.

Sometimes way too much. Well, we have to trust Him, particularly in this idea that there is a next life where the injustices of this life will be taken care of. 

(Why do we have to trust Him? I've noticed that many who refuse to trust God begin to believe that the universe itself is out to get them. But that is not the real reason. No God who is not the embodiment of all truth is worth being called God. I'd personally prefer to trust the truths I don't yet understand long before I'd want to trust something that I know is not true.)

(3) Obedience is a hard thing to understand, because we tend (again, because of things we get taught in this world) to believe that obedience is about doing what someone else tells us to do -- some mortal human no better than ourselves.

God put us here and commanded us to figure out what is right and wrong. It is a commandment to use our own judgement. Listening to others is a good idea, but being obedient to people who are not God may or may not end up being obedient to God.

How can we be obedient to God? 

It often requires us, for example, to dig through lots of layers of false understanding that have been wrapped around our conscience by this imperfect society in which we live. 

It requires that we learn truth, and that we follow the truths we learn.

(4) In some ways, you could say that the fourth article is the summary of the Gospel. It does make a good summary if you understand it right, not so much if you don't.

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ --

The name "Jesus" can be interpreted in several ways. Some interpret it as "God is our help.", with emphasis on "our", believing that God helps no one else but them. This is not correct. God helps anyone willing to be helped, although He doesn't just solve our problems for us magically. (Have you ever seen magical solutions actually help anyone?) He helps us when we have done what we can.

And sometimes the help isn't what we thought we wanted, but if we are patient, we eventually see what He has done for us, and the faith we have to have is that it will lead us to better things. Some people talk about trials that help us be stronger. Some people talk about the world not being to supposed to meet the limited ideals that we humans invent. Life can be really, really hard, but that doesn't mean God isn't there. Again, it's a matter of trust, and of willingness to believe that this world is not all there is.

The name "Christ", as I understand it, is indication of the requirement that we ultimately choose for ourselves to follow Him or not.

Repentance --

We get all sorts of false ideas about repentance from misled and misleading religious teachers and philosophers (and irreligious teachers and philosophers, as well). 

Repentance is not about suffering and punishment. Repentance is changing our minds, turning our hearts towards God, and letting the change in our thoughts and hopes change what we do. 

Yeah, change can be brutal. But suffering is not really the point. 

Suffering now because we hope for something better can be good. But the real point is the change, even if the change seems to portend worse suffering until we can see the results of the changes.

This is the purpose of faith. It's the faith that makes us willing to change.

Jesus taught us the way to turn ourselves towards God, both in word and example, and he said, "Come unto me." and "Follow thou me."

Baptism -- 

Baptism is a covenant and an ordinance. It is the way we make a formal commitment to God, committing to faith and repentance and following Jesus's teachings. In exchange for our commitment, God is better able to help us.

And the pattern of baptism is symbolic. It is not just about washing away our sins. We have to understand what is actually sinful about our sins before we can put our sins away. When we put them away, we can rise out of the water, either literally or symbolically, with new hope and the will to actually change, one step at a time.

The gift of the Holy Ghost --

The better help that God can give us when we accept baptism is essentially given through the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The written scriptures are useful to help us get an idea of whether we are on the right track or not. They can be very useful when we take the time to understand them.

But, ultimately, what has been written before by others in situations that were often similar, but were never exactly the same as ours, is not sufficient guidance for our day-to-day needs. The Holy Ghost can give us guidance through our conscience. 

The general principles as I have given them above are rather abstract -- the love of God and neighbor, faith in a God that helps us, turning our hearts and actions towards God, committing to continue, and being guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the guidance of the Holy Spirit that enables us to apply these principles in our individual situations, in the details of our own lives.

The gift of the Holy Ghost is more constant than just occasional guidance. 

We eventually to learn to distinguish between what we wish were true and what really is true, but it takes experience.

As we try to change, to live according to our best understanding, the Holy Spirit can help us peel back false expectations and understandings that have built up over our conscience and our minds, that have prevented us from fully understanding and correctly following the teachings of God. This is an important part of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The gift of the Holy Ghost can help us to set aside the commandments of men -- the limited and false ideals and ideologies that mortal men and women have taught us, so that we can follow God.

We don't have to assume that these ideals and ideologies were all taught in bad intent. Many of those who have taught us have simply passed on to us what they learned for their situations, but their situations are not ours.

We don't have to judge intent. We can simply say, maybe those ideals and ideologies will help me and maybe they won't. And we can seek the better way through the Holy Spirit.

The gift of the holy Ghost is that God can help us better when we have really decided we want to be helped.

Yes. I know that doesn't sound like a sure bet. But, in spite of what the slick sales approaches of other philosophies say, there really isn't anything else that is secure. Nothing else can take you beyond the limits of what you understand today.

If I seem to be disparaging other religions, I'll repeat, we don't have to assume bad intent. 

Also, our 11th article of faith is this:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

If what other people believe helps them, I don't want to try to force them not to believe it, any more than I want them to try to force me not to believe what I believe. The purpose of faith is to help us move forward from where we are, not from where we aren't. Maybe it will help if I mention this:

... he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. (Book of Mormon -- Alma 12: 10)

If we accept what we have been given, God will give us more.

Incidentally, the following verse sort-of explains that damnation can  be seen as something that we do to ourselves:

And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Book of Mormon -- Alma 12: 11)

So the trick -- no, not the trick -- the path to salvation is to accept what you are given, and keep your heart open for when God wants to give you more.

Damnation is being stuck in the limits of what you understand today, with no way out, because you refuse, or perhaps because you don't know how, to reach out to God for help. Hanging on to old, limited, and false ideals and ideologies is definitely one pattern of damnation.

The Gospel is not about being absolutely perfect immediately, now. That would damn us all.

The Gospel is about believing that God will help us to find better happiness in being better people, if we just try to do what we understand today and keep believing that God can help us understand how to be better as we go.

Sharing

One of the young adult members talked during the meetings today about sharing the Gospel in a way that has me examining myself. 

It's harder to share the things you believe in if you don't want the person you're sharing them with to find greater happiness in what you share.

Unpacking that a bit: 

To have the love of Christ in you is to want other people to be happy. 

To feel the love of Christ towards you is to believe you can and should be happy, and to want that happiness yourself.

If what you believe it isn't making you happy, why should you want to share it?

Or, rather, if you aren't sharing it with them out of the love of Christ in you for them -- out of the desire for them to find greater happiness in what you share -- it's going to be that much harder to share.

This may have something to do with why people seem to be a little stand-offish when I tell them about what I know is true. I really need to think about my attitude towards life, God, and other people.

Drinking Upstream from the Cows, Not Downstream

J. Richard Clarke, at the time, 2nd counselor in the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, gave a talk on the scriptures in the October session of conference in which, among many useful things, he mentioned a bit of colorful advice that Elder Marion J. Romney apparently gave on several different occasions in public and in private. It was advice that resonated with me, and still resonates with me (and many others):

I don’t know much about the gospel other than what I’ve learned from the standard works. When I drink from a spring I like to get the water where it comes out of the ground, not down the stream after the cattle have waded in it. … I appreciate other people’s interpretation, but when it comes to the gospel we ought to be acquainted with what the Lord says.

He quotes a bit more from counsel given to seminary and institute coordinators in 1973. I've linked it up there, go read it.

Elder F. Burton Howard was another who quoted Elder Romney on this, in an article in the New Era from 1985, although his version was from private conversation. (Good article on giving and getting, although some may think the language dated.)

Think about this:

Get the water where it comes out of the ground, not downstream where the cows have been wading in it.

And I'm tempted to wax eloquent (or not) about this, but, to make the point more clear, I'll stop here.

Isaiah, the Jews, and All Their Lands of Promise, and the Marvelous Work and Wonder

Some verses from the Book of Mormon are of interest to me, to start with, starting with 2nd Nephi 1:

1 And now, my beloved brethren, I have read these things that ye might know concerning the ^acovenants of the Lord that he has covenanted with all the house of Israel—

2 That he has spoken unto the Jews, by the mouth of his holy prophets, even from the beginning down, from generation to generation, until the time comes that they shall be ^arestored to the true church and fold of God; when they shall be ^bgathered home to the ^clands of their inheritance, and shall be established in all their lands of promise.

A few interesting points to be gleaned from this, 

• One, is that there are more than one land of inheritance, and more than one land of promise. 
• Two, is that the covenants of the Lord are with all the house of Israel.

Continuing, we can examine Jacob 5, a chapter which many consider rather long and tedious, but, which to careful perusal contains nothing if not a careful and rather complete allegory showing that the ten lost tribes of Israel have been hidden in plain sight -- throughout the world. Drawing from a couple of representative verses, perhaps I can encourage the reader to examine the chapter for him- or herself:

63 Graft in the branches; begin at the ^alast that they may be first, and that the first may be ^blast, and dig about the trees, both old and young, the first and the last; and the last and the first, that all may be nourished once again for the last time.

...

67 And the branches of the natural tree will I graft in again into the natural tree;

68 And the branches of the natural tree will I graft into the natural branches of the tree; and thus will I bring them together again, that they shall bring forth the natural ^afruit, and they shall be one.

And finally, before entering into my primary thought from the Sunday School lesson today,  from 2nd Nephi 26:

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he ^ainviteth them ^ball to ^ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ^ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ^ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the ^fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Black and white, bond and free, male and female, Jew, Gentile, and heathen, all are alike unto God.

Which of the human races of this earth is the chosen human race? The entire human race.

With that in mind, we were studying Isaiah today.

My reading of Isaiah chapter 1:

1 The ^avision of ^bIsaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning ^cJudah and Jerusalem in the days of ^dUzziah, ^eJotham, ^fAhaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Every tribe, every country and people of this world has its own land of promise;  every land of promise has its City of Peace, its Jerusalem and its New Jerusalem.

2 ^aHear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have ^brebelled against me.

All God's children, the entire human race, is brought up and nourished by God, and then we all of us rebel.

3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s ^acrib: but Israel doth not ^bknow, my people doth not consider.

How many humans do you know that refuse to consider the possibility that they are themselves children of God?

4 Ah ^asinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, ^bchildren that are ^ccorrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto ^danger, they are gone away backward.

What is the anger of God besides the natural consequences of our own bad choices? If we chose to walk off the edge of a cliff, the pain of the sudden impact at the end of the journey is nothing more or less than the anger of a just God, giving us the consequences we, by our choices, persist in asking for.

5 ¶ Why should ye be ^astricken any more? ye will ^brevolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart ^cfaint.

We don't like it when the results of our choices are painful to others and to ourselves. 

You know, we tend not to mind so much the pain others endure because of our decisions and actions, but we do mind the reminders. 

And we shouldn't. We complain when the good results we expect are denied us, why should we complain when the bad results are not? In truth, bad results are good if they lead us to repent -- to turn ourselves to return to God. And good results are bad if they lead us away.

6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been ^aclosed, neither bound up, neither ^bmollified with ointment.

How many wounds have you tried to heal lately? How many have you made worse?

7 Your ^acountry is ^bdesolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, ^cstrangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.

(Biting my tongue, here.)

8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a ^avineyard, as ^ba lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.

9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small ^aremnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

The daughter of Zion? That's you and me.

10 ¶ Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of ^aSodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

What good does it do for us to seek power over others when we refuse to exercise power over ourselves to any good purpose?

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your ^asacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I ^bdelight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

What should we do with our formalities, our laws and rules that we use to hedge up the way of others and keep them from knowing heaven?

13 Bring no more ^avain ^boblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and ^csabbaths, the calling of ^dassemblies, I cannot ^eaway with; it is ^finiquity, even the ^gsolemn meeting.

14 Your new ^amoons and your appointed ^bfeasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am ^cweary to bear them.

What should we do with our traditions that celebrate what should not be celebrated?

15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many ^aprayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of ^bblood.

Why should we try to claim truth is on our side when there are truths that we refuse to claim?

16 ¶ ^aWash you, make you ^bclean; put away the ^cevil of your doings from before mine eyes; ^dcease to do evil;

17 ^aLearn to do ^bwell; seek ^cjudgment, ^drelieve the oppressed, ^ejudge the fatherless, plead for the ^fwidow.

If we repent, if we turn our hearts and minds towards God, if we change our choices and begin to do the good things that we can do, 

18 Come now, and let us ^areason together, saith the Lord: though your ^bsins be as scarlet, they shall be as ^cwhite as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

...

Skipping forward a bit, 

13 ¶ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people ^adraw near me with their ^bmouth, and with their lips do ^chonour me, but have ^dremoved their ^eheart far from me, and their ^ffear toward me is taught by the ^gprecept of men:

We love to talk about truth and science with our lips while we reject the very source of truth and object of scientific study with our moment-to-moment choices.

We teach the way men teach -- we put on a show, we dazzle the eyes, we appeal to the intellect. Our respect of truth and nature is taught by the precepts, or wisdom, of human understanding. 

Trying to touch the infinite with our finite minds, with our hearts veiled by mortality, is not really bad, or it would not be, if we never forget that we have not yet touched as long as we are still mortal, as long as we are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, no matter how far we go before we pass through the veil of death and find that entropy is only for mortals.

We cannot comprehend it all and remain in this life. Why do we pretend to?

14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a ^amarvelous ^bwork among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the ^cwisdom of their wise men shall ^dperish, and the ^eunderstanding of their ^fprudent men shall be hid.

A marvelous work and a wonder ...

In Japanese, a marvelous work is 「驚おどろくべきわざ」。 Odoroku-beki waza. A work which must cause surprise, must be marveled at. 

And a wonder is 「不思議ふしぎ」。 Fushigi. A (righteous) thing rarely, if ever, seen.

It is a wonder that the human mind should ever consider the journey complete, should ever believe that all the evidence is in.

It is even more of a wonder that God will forgive us when we put our arrogance aside and ask if there isn't something more to be learned. 

It is a thing rarely seen when we set aside our ambitions for power to do things that help us not.

It is even more of a wonderful thing that God will always help us when we do, if we are patient enough to really set aside those ambitions.

15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their ^acounsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who ^bseeth us? and who knoweth us?

16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the ^awork say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

17 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?

18 ¶ And in that ^aday shall the deaf hear the words of the ^bbook, and the ^ceyes of the blind shall see out of ^dobscurity, and out of darkness.

19 The meek also shall increase their ^ajoy in the Lord, and the ^bpoor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.

The poor among men.

What is it about the wealth of the world that keeps us out of heaven every day?

Hmm. Giving it all away and starving oneself to death is not usually recommended, even for the obscenely rich. Not usually.

It's rather simple, although it usually incurs the wrath of the board of directors when the board of directors is a bunch of mortal humans who are still controlled by their ambition, their passion for power that will help them not to be happy.

Start by cleaning up after your industry. Carbon footprint would not matter nearly as much if we weren't busy spewing it out randomly and recklessly in the environment. 

Start by paying your workers something close to what they are really worth. If they quit working, you think you could replace them, but it costs to replace them, and you lose something when they go. You can't really pay them what they are worth, because they are worth more than your profits. But you can get a bit closer, if you're willing to let some of that profit that does not really profit get away from you. 

If you let that profit go to those who make it for you, it ends up coming back to you. That's one of the ways that industry beats entropy and increases value in the economy.

Start by reaching out to those important to you, family, friends, neighbors, and go from their.

This is the marvelous work and a wonder.

Lake of Fire and Brimstone, Child of Hell

Lake of fire and brimstone is the warm death of maximum entropy, but it is also the psychological/emotional state of those who refuse to allow God to help them.

Child of Hell when Jesus uses the term is not a insult. It is, again, a description of the psychological and emotional state of people who don't know how to let God help them.

I know because I have been there.

Hell is a state of mind. If you find yourself there, it's time to believe that God really isn't your enemy. It's time to reach out and let Him help you.

Dialog About God, part A

(Two primary grade teachers preparing lessons at neighboring desks.)

 J: How can people even believe in God?

M: (Says nothing.)

J: I mean, what proof do they have?

M: I've always known God exists.

J: (Frowns.)

M: (Keeps working.)

J: So are you saying you've seen God or something?

M: What if I say I have? Would you believe?

J: No. 

M: You would accuse me of deluding myself, or of being duplicitous, would you not?

J: Proof is proof. What kind of proof do you have?

M: I have no proof I can offer you.

J: But you've always believed.

M: I didn't say that.

J: (Shakes her head.) You just said that you've always believed in God.

M: I said I have always known that God exists.

J: So you've always believed.

M: I didn't say that.

J: I hate talking to you about anything. It always ends up going in circles.

M: Conversation should be two-way, shouldn't it?

J: So tell me.

M: So listen.

J: Okay, so what is this "always"?

M: (Looks up and meets J's questioning gaze.)

J: I mean, always means back in high school? middle school? grade school?

M: Before grade school. Way before.

J: How can a kid that young understand God?

M: (Goes back to work.) I don't know any adults who understand God very well.

J: (Also returns to work.) Just you, huh?

M: Did I say that?

J: But that's what you mean.

M: What's what I mean?

J: Going around in circles again?

M: I'm guessing I'm going to have to guess at what you are asking. When I say I don't know any adults who understand God well, I include myself.

J: But not really. 

M: No. Really.

J: But you understand God better than me.

(Both work in silence for a few minutes.)

J: You do think you understand God better than me.

M: Is that what it boils down to, a question of pride?

J: So I'm supposed to be humble, but you're not?

M: (Stops working and turns to face J.)

J: (Keeps working.)

M: You're better at teaching math than I am.

J: True.

M: You help me when I ask.

J: Of course.

M: I don't complain when I have to ask you for help, do I?

J: Sometimes.

M: (Thinks for a moment, then nods his head.) Okay, maybe I do. (Returns to working.)

(Both work in silence for a minute or two.)

J: But you've always believed in God.

M: How many of the children that you teach know that one plus one makes two?

J: There are a couple of kids who can't always seem to remember it, but what's that got to do with anything?

M: How many actually believe it?

J: (Laughs.) Good point. More than half don't really believe it means anything. They're just good at memorizing and repeating the arithmetic.

M: How many understand the full implications of addition and subtraction of integers?

J: (Thinks for a moment.) Actually, I have a couple of students who seems to get the concept of a ring, and of a series within a ring.

M: The students all have different understanding of what numbers are, right? And yet most of your students can do basic addition and subtraction.

J: They all can, most of the time.

M: Does that mean that any student is any smarter than any other?

J: Smarter at math.

M: Smarter at one part of math, maybe not at other parts.

(Again they both work in silence for a half a minute.)

J: So I'm too dumb to do basic theology.

M: Theology is man's study of God. It often has little-to-nothing to do with God, as I understand God.

J: So you know more than the experts.

M: Well, for my purposes, I guess I know more than most of the so-called experts. For their purposes, I don't think I do, and I'm not sure I care. They have different purposes from me.

J: And you just generally don't trust experts anyway.

M: Especially about religion.

J: So that makes you the expert.

M: No, but I do know more about what I know than the experts know about what I know.

J: What does that have to do with God? You don't own God.

M: Excellent question.

J: (Thinks for a moment.) But now it sounds like you're saying that whatever you believe is just fine.

M: (Doesn't say anything.)

J: But you can't really be saying that. 

M: You -- (Stops and starts over.) People have to start with what they know and what they can believe.

J: What if we don't want to start going that direction?

M: Then you don't.

J: And that's fine?

M: Well, yes.

J: You're lying.

M: Not (Pauses.) telling the whole truth, but not telling lies.  

J: So what's the whole truth?

M: Everybody dies eventually.

J: And that's the end.

M: Of this life. Not of the soul.

J: And, according to you, I have to face the justice of God when I die, so I'd better be a good little girl in this world.

M: Did I say that?

J: You were going to.

M: Let me ask you, what does it mean to be a good little girl?

J: Follow your rules.

M: Not my rules.

J: Your God's rules.

M: (Thinks for a moment.) My God or your God?

J: I have no God. I don't believe.

M: Because you don't want to give me a chance to say you have to obey my rules?

J: No. Because there is no God. (Looks up at the wall clock.) I've got to get to my class.

M: Ah. Me, too.