Gathering... our Eternal Nature

A certain trait of social psychology intrigues me and the more I observe peoples and nations and religions and politics the more convinced I am that it is in our very eternal nature to divide into interest groups and then collect with those who are most like us. We gravitate toward those who share important characteristics and ideologies with us.

We see in the human predicament, a model of human behavior, throughout history men and women have rebelled against their oppressive rulers only to find themselves in the bondage of anarchy. Since anarchy is just as intolerable and oppressive as a tyrant individuals quickly found themselves in history after history dividing into interest groups that supported their own views and which provided a certain measure of protection. In some variations these were called tribes. In other variations we call them gangs, parties, clicks, sects, guilds, churches, armies, camps, kingdoms, neighborhoods, communities, trades, classes, companies, teams, and the like.

We divide and then gather for many reasons, based on many factors including language, ethnicity, race, religion, education level, socioeconomics, political views, values, interests, and such. We separate from or gather toward others based on how comfortable we are in their company. 

Now, saying this I realize that here are untold millions in this life who experience no mobility based on preference. They are bound by political boundaries, or economic circumstances, and are unable to go where they wish to be. They may be imprisoned or in bondage of some kind and unable to gather based on laws under which they live. Nevertheless, if they were free to choose, i would fully anticipate that they would gather with those who are like them. They would surround themselves by those that they were like and comfortable with. Some, unable to find their type but being free to move isolate themselves and live a life of solitude.

Scripture suggests as a matter of principle, "intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own..." (D&C 88:40)

Every once in a while I hear someone phrase our quest for heaven in such a way as to suggest that if we're not careful we might end up where we don't want to be. These statements always worry me because I feel what I have learned about the eternities suggests that above all else we will find ourselves in a glory the fits us like a glove. We will be exactly where we fit and feel at home. Joseph Smith described in many places, but particularly a heaven that was multifaceted and suited to the infinite complexity of the human family. C.S. Lewis described something similar when he said, " Your place in heaven will seem to be made for you and you alone, because you were made for it -- made for it stitch by stitch as a glove is made for a hand.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

For this reason I have never been one to try and strong arm anyone into accepting my beliefs, or forcing another to do what I do. Instead, I believe fully in the principle of sharing, inviting, welcoming, and allowing all who are genuinely interested in what the gospel of Jesus Christ has to offer a chance to fully embrace it. I am more than happy to share my views and to debate their virtues if someone is inclined toward them, I am even anxious to help someone see what I feel is the error of their ways. But when they are determined and resolved to be who they are, and that person is not comfortable with me and mine, then I am happy to let them be. 

John of old said it best when he declared, "he that hath an ear, let him ear." I believe this to be a call to gather. Similarly, God says "Even as you desire of me, so shall it be done unto you." (DC 11:8). Nephi tells us that "men are free to choose liberty and eternal life... or captivity and death." (2 Nephi 2:27). Alma tells us that if we know the difference between good and evil then we will recieve according to our desires (Alma 29:5 and Alma 41:5). Mormon tells us that the way we are in this life will be the way we are in eternity (Mormon 9:14). But perhaps best of all is DC 88:32 where God says that he would have given way more to those who inherit lesser glories, but "They shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received."

Along a similar string of thought, Mosiah talks about how the guilt of the wicked ultimately will cause them to "Shrink from the presence of the Lord." (Mosiah 2:38; 3:25) Referencing those scriptures, my father put it this way, "Ultimately we remove ourselves away from God to that distance where we are most comfortable, and that it is our choice. Sinful souls will not want to remain in His presence, or anywhere near. The judgment is simplified, in that we are not cast out; we choose to leave of our own accord."

God, in eternity will invite all to come unto him, knowing full well that some will gather toward, and others will gather away. That is the eternal nature of our souls. Those willing to abide a celestial law gather together and to the degree these souls are like God, the father, they will be closer to him in proximity. To the degree they desire distance he will give according to their desires. Same with those who inherit Terrestrial and Telestial glories. No one will be forcing them there. They will go happily and freely. We are who we have been for eons of time, perhaps even for always.

Truly when all is said and done, God will force no man or woman to abide his presence, but he anxiously awaits those who desire him as much as he desires each and every one of his children.

Truth Lost in Layers of Attrition

I have been trying to put into words some of the thoughts that have been coursing my mind for several years regarding the dissemination of God's word and the relative purity with which it reaches us.

I have noticed, for example, that while Moses may have received the word of God in its purity, what we have received in the Old Testament is an adulterated, corrupt, degraded, and contaminated version of the original. Nevertheless it contains precious truths, buried under layers of attrition. We therefore rely on the spirit to extract the precious eternal truths from the source. 

This caused me to reflect upon the Layers of Attrition to stand between the Word of God coming in its purity and our receiving it in its various forms.

I have concluded that Truth in its purest form must be experienced first-hand.  Each time the principles of eternal truth are taught or transmitted from one being to another they experience a measure of attrition (a breakdown from their original state of purity). This is the nature of all communications including spiritual communications. (Its like the telephone game)

When spirit speaks to spirit the communication is pure and unfettered.  Both spirits, the one giving and the one receiving are edified and rejoice together.  But when a spirit speaks to a mortal the transmission is complicated by the body because the body does not inherently understand spiritual communications but must come to learn how to understand them. Furthermore the body is subject to many temporal influences such as language, culture, education, etc. The spirit within a body must interpret spiritual communications for the body and mind, fitting to its age,  comprehension level,  language,  vocabulary,  and a host of other variables. Furthermore, the mortal experience is a veiled and intentionally limited experience that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend eternal things as they really are. We understand likenesses of eternity,  but they are shadows of reality instead of reality itself. 

Another layer of attrition happens when we hear of someone else's experience without having experienced it ourselves. We walk away only with a sliver of the precious truth they experienced. Our perspective is limited to our retention level, our comprehension level, as well as the degree of experience with which we can relate to that which was shared. If what was shared is completely outside the realm of our experience then it is far more difficult for us to make sense of it. It is better therefore to experience the spirit first-hand than to hear of someone else's experience. 

Another layer of attrition occurs when we are removed from the experience by time, space,  language,  culture,  or all of the above.  

"Better" in the following statements refers to being less prone to attrition in the transmission of truth. These are not necessarily ranked.

1. It is best to receive revelation first-hand. In other words, the word of God is purest when received directly from the source.

2. It is better to receive words of Revelation from a living witness than a dead witness. In other words, the Word of God is purest when we can relate on many levels with the one who received it.

3. It is better to receive words of Revelation from a witness in your own era than an ancient witness for the same reasons and previously mentioned. 

4. It is better to receive words of a witness speaking your native language than one speaking another language that must be translated. Translation from one broken language to another is inherently full of problems that corrupt the purity of God's original word It is better, therefore, to receive a witnesses words of revelation that have only gone through one translation than those who have gone through many translations.

5. It is better to receive an ancient witness that has been translated multiple times,  from a foreign culture,  so that all that is left is a partial perspective of the original witness,  than to receive no witness at all. 

Why have I written this?

I have concluded that without the Spirit's assistance, reading the scriptures from a secular perspective would be a waste of time because too much is lost. However, if the scriptures are used as a catalyst to bring the spirit into our lives then we begin to experience divine communications at their highest level, directly with the source where it is purest. The same can be said of General Conference. If we attend general conference seeking to understand from a secular view what these good men and women have to offer, we will likely be disappointed, not having experienced and gained what they have experienced and gained through a lifetime of discipleship and divine communications. But if we use the talks as a springboard to having our own spiritual experiences, focusing on what the spirit has to teach us instead of what the man has to teach us, then we get the word and will of God in its purity, unfettered by any of the layers of attrition that might occur when we rely upon the arm of the flesh.

This is something of course we take for granted within the Church, not placing credit where credit it due. The reason we flock to conference again and again, year after year, season after season is because it provides the perfect environment to be taught from the source... the receive the word of God in its purity directly from the Spirit rather than the good men and women sharing their experiences and perspectives. 

The words of life given to us from our current watchmen and those given to us from ancient watchmen are meant to be only a stimulus to our personal relationship with God from whom we should be seeking the living water that if we drink we shall never thirst again.

How to work with the homeless

I found this article on helping the homeless encouraging.
http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183
Published by Terrance Heath on Saturday 18 January 2014

Utah is Ending Homelessness by Giving People Homes 

Earlier this month, Hawaii State representative Tom Bower (D) began walking the streets of his Waikiki district with a sledgehammer, and smashing shopping carts used by homeless people . “Disgusted” by the city’s chronic homelessness problem, Bower decided to take matters into his own hands — literally. He also took to rousing homeless people if he saw them sleeping at bus stops during the day.

Bower’s tactics were over the top, and so unpopular that he quickly declared “Mission accomplished,” and retired his sledgehammer . But Bower’s frustration with his city’s homelessness problem is just an extreme example of the frustration that has led cities to pass measures that effective deal with the homeless by criminalizing homelessness.

• City council members in Columbia, South Carolina , concerned that the city was becoming a “magnet for homeless people,” passed an ordinance giving the homeless the option to either relocate or get arrested. The council later rescinded the ordinance, after backlash from police officers, city workers, and advocates.
• Last year, Tampa, Florida  — which had the most homeless people for a mid-sized city — passed an  ordinance allowing police officers to arrest anyone they saw sleeping in public, or “storing personal property in public.” The city followed up with a ban on panhandling downtown , and other locations around the city.
• Philadelphia  took a somewhat different approach, with a law banning the feeding of homeless people on city parkland. Religious groups objected to the ban, and announced that they would not obey it.
• Raleigh, North Carolina  took the step of asking religious groups to stop their longstanding practice of feeding the homeless in a downtown park on weekends. Religious leaders announced that they would risk arrest rather than stop.
• This trend makes Utah’s accomplishment even more noteworthy. In eight years, Utah has quietly reduced homelessness by 78 percent, and is on track to end homelessness by 2015.

How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved homelessness by giving people homes . In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker. So, the state began giving away apartments, with no strings attached. Each participant in Utah’s Housing First program also gets a caseworker to help them become self-sufficient, but they keep the apartment even if they fail. The program has been so successful that other states are hoping to achieve similar results with programs modeled on Utah’s.

It sounds like Utah borrowed a page from Homes Not Handcuffs , the 2009 report by The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and The National Coalition for the Homeless. Using a 2004 survey and anecdotal evidence from activists, the report concluded that permanent housing for the homeless is cheaper than criminalization. Housing is not only more human, it’s economical.

This happened in a Republican state ! Republicans in Congress would probably have required the homeless to take a drug test before getting an apartment, denied apartments to homeless people with criminal records, and evicted those who failed to become self-sufficient after five years or so. But Utah’s results show that even conservative states can solve problems like homelessness with decidedly progressive solutions.