In Good We Trust

Separation of church and state. I get it. I think it's only fair for atheists, not to mention those of Buddhist, Muslim and Wiccan faiths, to feel that religion as part of official money among other things may be hypocritical. I mean, Christians claim that gay marriage is against their religion and should be banned. A belief in God is against the "religion" of atheists. (I put religion in quotations because it is a paradoxical "religion". You know what I'm talking about). Why should we allow God's name to be on our currency, the oath in a court of law, the oath of the President and in the Pledge of Allegiance?

My non religious response is one word. Symbolism.

Everything that we put on official paraphernalia represents an idea or value that we hold precious. We being the people of Earth. Every nation's flag has on it colors and shapes and images-- symbols of iconic historical figures, deities, and events. America is no different. The stars and stripes are for the original colonies and the current 50 states. The colors symbolize courage, sacrifice and purity. We fly it above the state flags to remind us that we all have one common center that holds us together despite geographical differences and cultural heritages.

That brings us to the symbol in question: God. What does he represent to those that believe in him? Mercy. Wisdom. Peace. Selflessness. Hope. According to our founding fathers he created all men equal and gave us rights. Though philosophers have debated the logistics of the idea over the centuries, basically, God personifies that which is good and virtuous.

What would the act of removing that symbol imply?

I understand what it's like to have ideals with which you disagree shoved down your throat-- I get that every time I turn on the television, get on Facebook or see a billboard advertising alcohol or an excessively sexualized culture. I am vehemently against those, but they are commonplace. There is one ideal that I'm positive that the majority of us support which is that everyone should be the best person they can be. God represents that. In fact, Christians believe that Jesus lived a perfect life and try to realize the concept in their own efforts. I don't see why anyone would object to having that as an emblem.

My last point had to do with the most iconic American symbol: the eagle. Native tribes have a religious connection with the eagle. Does that mean that we have allowed them to force their religion on us? No. We have taken the symbol and adapted according to the dictates of our own consciences. Why can't we do the same with the symbol of God? Well, we can, but why shouldn't we? Why wouldn't we?

For purposes of preserving our heritage, I suggest we back off of the attack on the whole "in God we trust" (I'm reluctant to say) issue. There is no need that I can see to attack it unless you have a vendetta against Christianity, which is discrimination, and in turn, hypocritical.

If anyone has an explanation that falls outside of what I've perceived for went we should remove the historically significant words from our money, please.  Do tell.

If It's All A Lie

My choir director at the LDS Institute of Religion in Orem, UT has said something that has caused me to introspectively reflect on my beliefs concerning the divine mission that God and Jesus Christ gave to Joseph Smith to be the prophet during the time that they were busy restoring their Gospel in its fulness in the early 19th century. In a month or so we, as a choir, will put on a large production depicting that process and the importance thereof in the history of mankind, and I want to be as sure as ever that God and Jesus really did visit him and lead him to an ancient record of some of the inhabitants of the Americas.

What what my choir director said was along the lines of: If it is not true, than many of the truths that we hold precious are indeed false.

I want to know for myself that the Book of Mormon is not a fictional history cleverly assembled to gain praise and followers; I wish to outline here why I believe that Joseph Smith was as much a prophet of God, and as just as fallible, as all of the prophets we read about in the Bible. 

My faith personally has rather little to do with the experience that Joseph claims to have had in the Sacred Grove. I have prayed for years for a specific witness and honestly have felt slightly dissatisfied with the minimal response that I've received concerning heavenly beings visiting the earth. I cannot wrap my mind around the reality of that yet,  and it's been a deep struggle for me to stand and say that "I know that heavenly messengers have visited the earth" as we are wont to say in the LDS Church.

Rather, my belief is based on the testimony,  or witness from the Holy Spirit of God, of principles taught in the Mormon Church that could not be true unless the assertions of Mr. Smith are veritable. 

If it is all a lie:

1. Marriage the family are not eternal, and they exist just "until death do you part".
2. God and Jesus might be kind of the same person, but not really. The whole Trinity concept is what was taught in the time closest to that of Jesus, but even so, it was first accepted as doctrine by the early Christian church 300 years or so after the death of the apostles. I would get very confused as to what I should accept as the nature of God.
3. I consequently have not made a valid covenant with God through baptism by one who has the proper authority of God (the priesthood as mentioned in the Bib and should Old and New Testaments) I would therefore need to continue to seek one who does Have that authority.
4. All baptisms for the dead are sacrilegious and ineffective. 
5. Temples are evil places where people make promises devised simply to inhibit the lifestyle of church members and the peace felt there is simply the secular serenity of being in a quiet place learning positive principles.
6. The warm feeling that I get reading the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as listening to the words of people that I now believe to be prophets and apostles of God, is a feeling that is nice, but does not confirm truth and I should cease to follow any direction offered to me by those moving desires that stir in my soul.
7. I am held accountable for the sins of my forefathers, all the way back to Adam, making me responsible for the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, injustice towards wisdom, lies, deceit, unbelief in God, etc. That is the concept of original sin in which I currently do not believe.

I hold the inverse of the above statements to be true because of the tangible and undeniable confirmation that I've received from the Lord in humble prayers throughout years of questioning that the principles preached in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints indeed are the very word of God. I cannot in good conscience refuse to accept the fact that God has made it known to my soul, heart and mind that the Book of Mormon is an inspired text that has taught me so much about Jesus that I love with all of my heart. I  cannot bare to consider that the wonders He performed for my Native American ancestors never happened, and that God is letting man wander in confusion and discord about the very person that should bring us all together.

Because I believe that, I affirm that Joseph Smith didn't lie to the world about his experience in this life. I have had too many witnesses to the contrary.

You will too if you sincerely study the subject from its source and not its enemies. The source is God, and therefore his enemies are, knowingly or not, fighting His purpose, which is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)

#whyibelieve 

Values

Why does the word "value" have two different meanings? One means "worth" and the other means "moral belief". How are the two connected? Have you ever speed to think about that (before I asked you to)?

Let's begin with the idea behind "worth". Worth means that there is a cost that you would be willing to pay to keep or obtain an object or ideal. The idea of supply and demand is that a seller will only be successful if they place the price on the line of what the buyer feels the product is worth. Though you would make insane amounts of profit based on the proportion of building cost to revenue, only a child would drop $1,000,000 on a candy bar, so placing the price that high is stupid. If you place the price of a car at $1, the buyer will suspect that the car is worthless and won't go for it.

Value is affected by not only production costs, but by the acknowledged need for what is being sold. I sell animated Bible videos for a job, and in order for me to inspire people to buy they must understand the importance of having good media choices for their children at home. Once that is understood and taken to heart as a priority other things become less important and the sale is made. The value increased once the need became a reality to them.

Now, about the other definition of "value": moral belief. When you say that someone has values you assert that they hold true to certain principles. Common examples of phrases concerning this idea are family values, Christian and other religions' values as well as just the secular moral values.

So what happens when we fuse the two concepts into one?

A moral belief, if it truly has worth, merits sacrifice to uphold; otherwise is has no "value". There is a certain cost that one will pay to maintain personal integrity, and that confirms the declaration that he or she veritably has "values".

For many these days, religious values don't carry with them validity. These people seem to say that those who hold true to such beliefs are bigoted or old fashioned. I contest that these people have forgotten the literal meaning of the word "belief" because some throw it around lightly and without conviction. Those who flee pain by breaking their values and bending their own personal rules figuratively sell their  moral cars at $1. This causes a decrease in the marketable price of morals when many people lower lower their moral standards in exchange for money, power and popularity. That signifies that few are willing to stand up for what they see as right anymore; the world at large won't pay the price if money and power are cheaper emotionally and spiritually.

Don't sell your values for less than what they are worth. A universal value is that life is precious. You wouldn't kill yourself to eat garbage, so don't succumb to loud protests of others to achieve popularity in exchange for your soul.

Here is a test to try out for yourself: prioritize your beliefs. What is most important to you, and what is of lesser value? Go on and write it out and reassess you current actions to see if you are being honest with yourself. 

10 Questions For Personal Reflection Concerning Your Open-Mindedness

Often we look at others and claim that they are closed to any new thought that challenges what they believe or what they have learned from their trusted sources. Let's leave those others alone and take some time to help you ascertain where YOU yourself are on the scale.

1. Do you ever assume that people that believe differently than you have evil intentions because they are "rejecting the truth"?

Frequently people assert that one priority is more important than another, thinking thoughts like, "good people place this as top priority, and bad people don't." This is a way to close yourself off right from the start. For instance, both sides of the gun control argument want safety for, but they argue about which method is safer in the long run.

2. Are you honest-to-goodness willing to admit when someone else is right and you are wrong, or do you always have to "win" the argument?

No one "wins" an argument. Truth prevails, so fighting for your point of view excessively, especially when you know that you are wrong in some sense is without avail. It's okay to admit when you are mistaken. 

3. Do you ever simply contradict somebody's point by asserting the opposite without asking why they believe that way?

This is Class A verbal violence. Think of the Monty Python argument sketch and how pointless their conversation is. If someone says something you disagree with, show some evidence that they may not have had access to instead of saying 

4. Do you associate yourself only with people that believe just like you, or do you also coexist with those of differing faiths and political affiliations?

I sometimes end up being around people that are on a similar part of the spectrum as me because it means less contention. That suggests that I can probably do better at getting along with others, but my friends and I tend to like the same activities, so it doesn't mean that I have to change my close circle of friends. 

5. Do you ever take the time to just listen to what others believe, or do you assume that they hold certain truths inevitable?

Don't assume that you know what someone else is trying to say or what they hold near and dear to them. Ask. It's that simple.

6. When was the last time you sat down and asked yourself  what you can do to better understand a religious or political standing that you know little about?

Do some research and develop your own knowledge of things as they really are.

7. Do you get defensive, or snarky when someone disagrees with you, or do you here them out?

If you start saying "but but but but" you aren't listening. If you flip around and make accusations you are struggling to own up to the truth of the matter. Also, sarcasm indicates a lack of willingness to understand.

8. Would you agree that it is wrong to degrade others based on their beliefs, even when those beliefs oppose what you stand for?

This one is hard because we often associate attacking those who support an idea with proving them wrong, but all it really does is portray hate on our part, even if we really don't hate them.

9. Do you accept others for who they are regardless of political difference/indifference, lifestyle or religious disagreement?

You don't have to constantly argue and bicker with your neighbor because you are Catholic and they are Atheist, or because they aren't Republican and they like the Patriots. You can let it slide.

10. Do you ever label those people as "stupid", "ignorant", "haters", "racist", "bigoted", "self righteous", etc.?

Name calling is the most common way that we learn to manipulate others into agreeing with us. Politicians love this one, and many activists use it, too. The labels we put on things and people can drastically affect the way we look at them. If you call someone a Nazi, you bring all of the emotion behind the Holocaust into play. If you call someone "racist" you affirm that they discriminate based on skin color or nationality alone. If you ever use terms like this, be sure to not only have evidence that they really are racist, you should have be able to sincerely and completely refute any evidence that they aren't racist. Remember that some irrefutable evidence is required in court in order to convict. Act likewise. Playing the devil's advocate against your claim will help with this one.