Don't Burn Me at the Stake

Disclaimer: to my 5, oh wait I think 6 people read this blog now, readers if you haven't figured it out yet I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or a Mormon. This post will talk about some of the deeper issues associated with Church Doctrine concerning "original sin" or as we like to call it "the fall". This post as always is nothing more than my thoughts, they in no way reflect the CJCLDS stance on the topic. I do use sources that will give a good idea of the doctrine in question, but I in no way speech for the Church. So if you are one of my faithful readers or just some random blog encounter, you can go to http://www.lds.org/ to have any question answered about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

There is a saying in my Church, "I don't have a problem with the doctrine, I have a problem with the culture." That is to say while I believe the doctrines of my Church I don't necessarily think the way those doctrines are implemented by the members of my church is the best. Another aspect is if those doctrines are taught wrong then sometimes you get bad results. One of those doctrines I think fall into this category for me is the "Fall of Man". While I have come to an understanding of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of knowledge in a way that explains the basics, I think the way it is taught in my Church stifles a fuller understanding of the doctrine and thus the nature of God, free agency, and our own condition here on Earth.

I assume that the only time members of my Church talk about the fall of man in any meaningful manner is in Sunday School. This leads to a bigger problem I have with Sunday School in general. However I still attend Sunday School whenever possible. I still consider it a treat. For those of you who see Sunday School as a free time, then I recommend getting into a situation where you can't go or you are denied to go. The classes that were once a chore will become sweat to you when you are denied them. Also no matter what problems you have with any meeting I highly recommend you attend them. If you are not deriving benefit from a meeting then it is nobody's fault but yours. But back to the point; the perspective I am coming from is the way the topic is taught in Sunday School. I will go over what I think are the basics of the doctrine and then the way I see it being taught and understood, and eventually my concerns with those ways.

According to Lesson 4 of the "Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual, 12" titled "Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened" There are three foundations for the salvation of man: creation, fall and atonement. The way the lesson presents the pillars the fall is seen as a necessary part of our salvation. The lesson quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "said that our salvation is made possible because of "three divine events—the three pillars of eternity" (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 81)." The fall came about because of two commandments given to Adam and Eve, once again from lesson 4 :

" In the Garden of Eden, God commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Moses 2:28). He also commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Moses 3:17). As long as they did not partake of the forbidden fruit, they would remain in the garden and would not die. But they also would not be able to obey the command to multiply (Moses 5:11; 2 Nephi 2:23). Heavenly Father gave them agency to choose between the two commands."

The fall isn't all bad according to the lesson. The fall carries with it some benefits. Lesson 4:

"As you discuss these results of the Fall, emphasize how the Fall is beneficial to us. Latter-day revelation clarifies that even before the Creation, Heavenly Father intended our earth life to be a time of testing and proving so we could become more like him (Abraham 3:24–26). This required that we be mortals, able to learn to choose between good and evil, which was made possible through the Fall."

So we know that the fall was a component of our salvation and that with it there are some benefits. I want to go a little deeper. We know that there was a fall but what does that mean? Well it means that Adam and Eve disobeyed a commandment from God. However what does it mean to disobey God? In this sense we use the term transgression instead of sin. The best articulation of the difference between sin and transgression was in the April 1981 Ensign in an article titled, "Salvation: By Grace or by Works?" written by Gerald N. Lund, director of college curriculum in the Church Educational System:

"The concept of sin rests upon the concept of law. If there were no law, there could be no sin (see 2 Ne. 2:13; Alma 42:17), because "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 Jn. 3:4). However, for purposes of understanding the Atonement better, it might be helpful to draw a distinction between two important variations in how the law may be violated. A person may violate the law in spite of his knowledge of it; that is, he breaks the law deliberately. But others may violate the law because they are unaware of its existence (ignorance) or because they do not have sufficient maturity to understand the implications of it (lack of accountability). For clarification, let us use two terms to delineate the important differences in these two concepts. Any violation of the law that is willful and knowing we shall call "sin." But any violation that results either from ignorance or lack of accountability we shall call "transgression." The scriptures do not distinguish between these two terms consistently, but such a distinction may help us understand some important points about the Atonement. For example, it helps us understand why children under the age of accountability cannot sin (see D&C 29:47). Any parent who has observed his children’s behavior knows that they often violate laws of the gospel. They hit brothers and sisters, demonstrate extreme selfishness at times, and can be unmercifully cruel to playmates. But while these are "transgressions" they are not "sins," because as Mormon points out, children are "not capable of committing sin" (see Moro. 8:8). Much the same is true of those who have reached adulthood but have relatively little or no opportunity to learn the principles of righteousness. They also violate the laws of God, sometimes horribly so, as in the case of many primitive peoples, but they are of necessity judged differently because they do not "sin" in the sense of willing and deliberate rebellion against God. (See Rom. 2:12; D&C 82:3; also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, p. 218.)"

So since Adam and Eve did not willfully violate the commandments of God then they made a transgression and thus the fall. One of the natural consequences to the human condition because of Adam's choice was the introduction of death into the world. More importantly we were severed from the presence of God.

Well that is all good and dandy, thanks for the quick lesson in Church Doctrine. Well what is my gripe? My first area of concern is the light in which the choice Adam made is given. Adam was given two choices and made one. It seems that people are of the opinion that it was the best choice or the only choice. I think this is largely due to the wording of lesson 4 and the use of the word benefits. The fact is Adam had two choices either one of which would have led to transgression. It wasn't the best choice it was a choice, a choice that had to be made. I am personally glad that I wasn't the one to be given that choice because well I don't think I could have made either. People point out that because of Adam's choice we have the current plan of salvation and exaltation, thus it was the best choice. In this regard I would like to remind people that nothing is out of the power of God and a different route that preserved our agency and provided for our salvation and exaltation could have been laid out. For if it truly were a choice it could have gone the other way, and I don't see God as one who would gamble on the possibility of failure.

The next issue that is dodged like the plague is why would God put Adam in a situation where he was going to lose no matter what? When asked this question the usual answer is well Adam made the right choice and see how everything works out now? And the class continues without an answer to the question. Once again I would like to restate my opinion that Adam made a choice. One possible answer to the question (which I have yet to discuss in any depth due to dodging of said question) is that maybe God didn't put Adam in that position because of what God was but more because of what Adam was. That is to say, it wasn't that God created, put Adam there and said, do your best which is failure; rather whatever Adam was, it was not enough in the first place so it was impossible for Adam not to fail regardless of the situation created. Adam would fail regardless of what situation created by God because of what Adam was from his first estate. There was a deficiency in Adam and all of us that would prevent us from succeeding. So grace wasn't necessary because of the choice Adam made but because of the inadequacy of what we are. Yeah God's love is deep like that.

Another issue is that of knowledge. In our first estate we chose to go with God and not the Adversary. We were rewarded for that choice by being allowed to be tested and grow on Earth. Well if we chose and the choice meant something doesn't that mean we had a knowledge of good and evil from the get go? So does that mean God took away our knowledge of good and evil? I have to say no because of our belief that Adam gained it when he ate the fruit. So what kind of knowledge of good and evil did we have in our first estate and why is it insufficient for the next estate? This is a serious question for me because if we can learn what the difference is we can learn how to shape our choices so that our understanding of good is magnified and thus our understanding of God.

Mr. Popular

So contrary to unpopular opinion, being so cold that your body can't sleep even after you haven't slept for a day isn't very cool. However, it can be very funny.

When one is so cold you try all sorts of tricks to ignore the cold. However after time you body just tells you hey buddy you have to get up, I'm not sleeping. Time seems to drag. I think that is the theme for this month, time is dragging.

Twisted Fantasies

In the middle east and I'm sure everywhere else in the world there is this amazing peach soda.

It comes in about an 8 oz bottle. It's the perfect size for sippin. They come in 6 packs. They have the perfect amount of fizzle mixed with peach sweetness. For someone who doesn't drink spirited beverages I imagine this is the closest thing you could get to a pink champagne. Lately I've been day dreaming about sitting at the edge of Crater Lake (I've never been there adding to the fantasy). There is a steep drop off so I can let my feet dangle in the water. It is about 84 degrees out. I lean back on a rock perfectly positioned to support my back. I can feel the cold water flowing between my toes. I begin sipping the peach soda. This takes about 4 hours or so. Then gently I fall asleep.

I wake up because there is a warm gentle sensation on my feet instead of the cool waters of Crater Lake. Low and behold I'm in a hammock. What is that at my feet but it is wolf, licking my feet. If you have ever heard the audio tapes of the "Little Prince" just go to the episode where the Prince tries to tame a Fox. When you go there you now know the voice of the wolf when it begins to talk to me. It can tell that I'm quit alarmed at my sudden change of environment. The wolf puts me at ease and explains I'm at Canoe Lake in MN. (Canoe Lake National Park has the largest wolf population in the United States.). The wolf who's name is Buck points me to a camp fire where there is a skillet with hash browns on it. You know the sort of soft kind, not the patty kind you get at McDee's (though they are delicious anyways). As I eat my hash browns Buck explains I was brought here because Thomas Jefferson wanted to have a talk with me. I'm like TJ? Isn't he dead? Buck explains that there is a statue of TJ near by that can channel the spirit of Thomas Jefferson. (I know what you all are thinking if this is my day dream why don't I just meet TJ face to face? The answer I just wanted it this way.)

After eating my wonderful breakfast I go to the TJ statue. It stands about three feet high. It doesn't move at all. Then all of a sudden a voice comes out from it. It explains that it is the spirit of Thomas Jefferson. Oddly enough TJ sounds a lot like George Clinton. There we have a long talk about the impacts of the Louisiana Purchase on this nation. After learning a lot about the difficult decision TJ had to make regarding the LA purchase I make my way back to Crater Lake via a transporter device given to me by Spock.

You are so mature, unlucky you.

You know I find that kids in general give me a lot of faith in good old humanity. There has been a lot of talk among my circle of friends about how different we are. When you look at kids though you see that we have a lot of things in common. Here are some things I've notice:

If you set a kid in any given area for a period of time longer than five minutes they like to throw rocks.
Kids are insanely curious.
No matter what language or culture, when a kid doesn't get what they want, they let out the universal phrase, "awh" usually followed by some other word (in English it is usually man or dad or mom).
Kids can spot a week parent/adult a mile away (weak as in a push over).
Kids in general think it is cool when school is canceled even when it is a bomb threat.
Kids think cows are cool.

There are plenty more but those are the ones I've seen recently. You know Jesus said that (I paraphrase here) that you must be like a child to be a follower of him. When did growing up become so great? Joseph and Mary left childhood Jesus behind and had to go back to get him. Sometimes we forget things and have to return to get our childhood. (Yes I basically stole this idea from a MLK speech so sue me.)

Hey the horse deserved it.

Well I've had the ability to go online at my leisure now. One consequence of this, I get into obscure news. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not. Don't ask me how I did it but I ran across an author by the name of Kenneth Eng. He use to write for the AsianWeek (online at Asianweek.com). Kenneth is a self proclaimed Asian supremacist (no I am not Kenneth Eng). He has written such articles like: "why white people will always hate Asians", "why I hate Asians", and "why I hate Blacks". The Asian Week got a lot of heat for printing "why I hate Blacks". They deserved all the heat and them some. Just by the titles of the articles you can sort of tell that they are just going to be rubbish. You all know me, I just couldn't help read them. My premonitions about the articles where right, they were rubbish. What got me was that none of the responses to the articles seemed to be adequate. There also seemed to be a lack of understanding about some key issues that go way beyond anything limited to Asian American issues. It sort of pissed me off that no one could tear apart such a poorly written body of work. Then I started thinking could it be that so many people don't understand such basic things that would make the writing of Kenneth Eng clearly crap instead of accused crap. I concluded that people were just to lazy to write a full response to something not really worth any body's time. Because my skills are not good enough to tackle things worth peoples time I decided to address the things not worth people's time. So I would like to write about some of the issues Kenneth brings to the table.

The first question/statement I would like to point to is that the notion of Asian is sort of an antiquated notion. What does one mean by Asian? Does missing a tuck on the eye lid suffice to make one Asian. Do you have to have black hair? Do you have to be from an Asian country? If so is India a part of Asia? How about Russia? It seems that Kenneth and many Asians have fallen into the problem of making a generalization without any clear lines. In fact being Asian is a preoccupation of people in America not Asia. If you go over to anywhere in Asia and ask someone if they are Asian you will probably get the response, "I'm Korean" or "I'm Chinese" or "I'm Tia" etc.

This leads to the second point, you can't be an Asian supremacist. The fact is there are very few unifying social/cultural traits of the group "Asian" in America. Almost all of the similarities are artificial at best and make a poor basis for making a social evaluation. Lets face it a Korean would much rather hate a Japanese person than a white person. Just like in Japan you would be hard pressed to find a Japanese person that would marry a Korean over a white person. Unfortunately a lot of these notions have traveled across the ocean. In the end there are hardly any "Asians" that would consider the whole of "Asians" better than whites. You could be a Korean supremacist but not an Asian. This is just the tip of the iceberg of intra-Asian relations.

Third Kenneth makes a point of Asians sucking up to whites. One example he points to are Asians that speak with a British accent to sound more sophisticated. See the thing is everyone, whites included, speak with a British accent to sound more sophisticated. The problem here is that Kenneth seems to think that it is a bad thing for one culture to accept and ingrate a better aspect of another culture. What you say a culture can be better than another in certain respects? I figured Kenneth being a supremacist and all could have figured that one on his own. For instance if it is my culture to rob people, or burn the wives of a husband on a funeral pyre, or to do honor rapes, I think my culture could be vastly improved by adopting another culture's view on such topics. I believe it imperative that one evaluate the aspect itself to conclude if it is a positive trait to adopt. Does that mean the original culture is changed/diluted/lost? Yes but culture for culture's sake is of little value. Diversity for diversity's sake is of little value (not valueless). We have to ask does it provide benefits to society. This brings me to a topic that was lightly covered in a previous series of post involving racism, but the horse doesn't deserve that much.

Fourth Kenneth points to Asians lacking honor. He point to Asians being rather complacent about protecting one's self and standing up for "our community". The oddest thing is he points to the Japanese samurai as an example of honor. You got to be kidding me the samurai, really? I think Kenneth has been watching to many movies made by the white man about the samurai. The reality is that the samurai during the Tokugawa period were nothing but bureaucrats. These bureaucrats made it a practice to live off the broken backs of the peasant. Yes the samurai could have a peasant executed no reason at all. Most samurai were cowards. You know who did most of the war fighting in feudal Japan? The answer is, not the samurai. These are the same group of people that would have a peasant held so he could test his sword out on him. Yep a lot of honor there. Yeah and when the samurai did fight they weren't the most honorable of people. You know who most of the ninjas were? If you guessed samurai you may be on to something. This relates to another of Kenneth's points: black people are weak willed because they were enslaved for over 300 years. Sorry to say the vast majority of "Asians" were enslaved till after WWII. Now does that mean the samurai are of no value? No it just means that there are good things and bad things about every culture and sub group.

Lastly Kenneth's points seem to boil down to everybody hates Asians so Asians should hate back. No Kenneth everybody hates white people. Check that rich white people. Kenneth points to personal experiences of hatred. I got news for you Kenneth, everyone, including white people have suffered hatred of the sort you describe. A question you might want to ask is when was the last time being "Asian" negatively effected you during a job interview? How about getting into college? I have long contended that everyone is racist so we should just admit it and deal with it. Everyone one makes snap decisions about other people, the question is are we allowed to change or reinforce those decisions based upon our merits. If you look at our "Asian" average income and college attendance rates I think you can see where I'm going.

Unfortunately I am probably suffering from what every other person who bothered to respond to Kenneth Eng suffered from. Because while I could write another 5000 words about how poorly written Kenneth Eng's articles are (including style points) I just ran out of motivation. One last note as an Asian people we seriously need to get over our addiction to pop music. Come on enough is enough. I'm begging you please on my knees.