Fast Running Blog

Hello

Interesting question.

I'm tempted to say "become educated" as I feel that would help many (but not all) of the problems in the world: hunger, health, pollution (people would create better modes of transportation and also reduce travel), etc.  Becoming educated might not help everything, though, because of how politicians can tend to be corrupt and influence policies adversely, and politicians are generally well educated.  But it might still help, because if people are educated and well informed on the issues and the candidates, then maybe the bums (oops) wouldn't be elected.  Maybe educated people could even change the way elections are held so elections would be publicly funded (which would reduce influences from campaign contributions and would also allow a wider base of people to run); the public funds could be used so the bulk of campaigning would be done through televised and written debates.  No more mass mailings, advertisements, billboards, . . . (uh oh, a violation of free speech, I know).  Perhaps educated voters could enact legislation to do away with the huge omnibus bills and diminish the extreme partisan fighting that goes on that prevents good well written bills from being passed. 

Regarding the answers your cross country runners gave: perhaps if they spent more time thinking about the question they would have responded differently.  Did they all give answers right away? Or did you pose the question at the beginning of practice and tell them to think about it for 15 minutes before responding?  It's good to be a thinker and not rely entirely on what others tell you; they should listen to all sides and then do what makes the most sense to them.

I have always felt that if everyone followed the "Golden Rule" of treating others the way they would like to be treated, the world would be much better off.  But I don't think the Golden Rule in and of itself would necessarily help people become educated, which is what I think we need to solve many of the problems facing humanity today.

Good question - it will be interesting to hear what others have to say! 

I understand the idea that if we all had the same beliefs the world would be boring, but the interesting thing to me is the deeper philosophical question this actually entails.  We as mortal, limited humans believe that we need some sense of progression and diversity in order for there to be functionality, fascination and happiness, and of course this is so in our limited capacity.
To respond to your question, I think that if all people had the same beliefs there could still be interest because of the way we are different and would approach God. For instance, the Eskimo and the Indian and the Chinese and the American and the African all have very different cultural values and differing family life, music, and customs and so each tribes approach to a religious perspective and worship would be different, they would look, sound and feel different, and thus diverse, and thus interesting and not boring, even if they all had the same core religious belief.
On a hypothetical future note, I personally believe that the Bible prophesies that Jesus will be the physical king of the earth for a period of 1000 years, and that this will be the culmination of humanity's history on the earth.  What an end to history, technology, sociology and government for the God-Man to reign on the earth for an unprecedented time of peace and prosperity. And yet even after this, humanity and Satan will mar this until there if a final end and a new heaven and earth created without sin for all time.
But aside from this, I want to get back to the philosophically deeper issue that I raised about limitation needing progression.  We view this as absolutely necessary and it is hard for us to imagine a static state that would not be boring without progression. That is, if we had all knowledge and all power and no growth. Can you have joy with no growth? This raises deep questions about one's view of God, for if you believe He is in need of continually progressing you have shaped Him after your own view of what is necessary. If you believe He is all things and not progressing and yet can still exist in a state of happiness and joy, then we have a transcendent, mysterious view of God that we can't fully comprehend, and yet this being would truly be the perfect being and worthy of all glory and majesty and honor. Food for thought.

Rob:

I would have answered like your students, which you probably would have guessed already. I absolutely positively know that Joseph Smith saw the vision like he said he did, and that he translated the Book of Mormon from an ancient record which confirms and adds to the testimony of the Bible that Christ is our Savior and our Redeemer, and everything it says He is. I had my doubts about the Bible, and even God's existence until I received that confirmation. Therefore, I consider it morally wrong to hold back the witness that I have from others and thus I try to share it at every opportunity that I am able to spot.

With that in mind, for somebody who has this world view, naturally there can be only one religion. If you believe that what you have was handed to a prophet of the Lord through a recorded first-hand experience in not so removed past, and was continued in uninterrupted succession through a process you believe to be inspired, then that is God's will for man today. All should come and partake of it. There are rules - certain sins in particular must be abandoned. Those rules are for our benefit. Just like there are rules for joining a track team. You must show up at practices. You must do your best to live a healthy lifestyle. Having a smoker on the team, for example, who is not trying to quit and is encouraging others to smoke, would be devastating not only to him but to the team moral. That said, plenty of individual styles are allowed. Some people like to start out fast to bank some time. Others bide their time until the kick. Some are toe-strikers, others are heel and midfoot. Some run in spikes, others in racing flats, you might even have a guy that runs in Crocs, and that is OK if he can prove he can be competitive.

I think the world would be a great place if we can convert everybody to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and have 100% rate of faithfulness at the level of the basics. Consider the benefits:

- No alcoholism
- No drugs
- No smoking
- No divorce - spouses may disagree at times and struggle with all kinds of feelings but in the end their faithfulness to their covenants wins
- No poverty - there are enough achievers among those with even moderate earning ability that there is plenty of money in the fast offerings fund to support those that are either physically/mentally disabled or not able to earn enough for their family in spite of their best efforts
- No crime
- High level of education and motivation to use it - many breakthrough scientific discoveries as a result. Maybe we will get to fly to the stars after all.
- Very low level of disease - perhaps next to nothing as we will figure out ways to fix bad genetic codes and treat the diseases that are currently incurable through scientific achievement fueled by high levels of motivation to learn in the general population
- World records going down as people who had the genetic makeup to break them will be more motivated to do what it takes and will not ruin their chances through unhealthy lifestyle early in their lives
- No lonely people - 100% home teaching makes sure that even the most socially awkward or otherwise unlikely to go out and make friends on their own get visited at least once a month and have their needs evaluated and met
- Who knows what else - let's try it starting with ourselves.

I think I would say "sign up for the run for clean water"    ;)

Sasha, I would agree that there are many benefits to everyone following LDS beliefs and practices as you've listed. To me, however, this strikes at the fundamental issue of what religion is and what it can do. If religion is just a set of principles and practices which I can follow to a greater or lesser degree, then the world would be a better place, but I think we've seen through history and experience that the complex human cannot be constrained by this. Unless we are fundamentally changed from the inside out then we cannot practice being good and moral.
Here's a for instance: it's no secret that there is a high degree of prescription drug taking among the female LDS population as well as a higher than normal rate of people being preyed upon by Ponzi schemes in this wonderful state of Utah. Both of these examples are to me a case of trying to be changed from the outside in. Female LDS women are held to a very high standard to be a wonderful wife and mother, totally dependent upon their husbands to call them into the kingdom of heaven ultimately, and constrained to raise the perfect family, keep a clean house, be active in Relief Society, etc.
And economic value is held in near spiritual high esteem in the LDS community. Unless you are progressing economically, one is usually not considered to be very spiritually minded, thus there is pressure to make money as a show of spiritual progress, which is why I believe many fall prey to Ponzi schemes and also there are many various forms of pyramid scheme businesses. I'm not against multi-level marketing as such but the appeal to becoming rich is inherent in them.
What am I trying to say? Unless there is a change from the inside, I don't think anyone can truly look good on the outside. Any religion that changes my outside practices can only be truly beneficial if it changes me inside. And change from the inside can only come from God (from a religious perspective). My relationship to Jesus, the Son of God, and God the Father, can change me from the inside out through the regeneration (new life) given by the Holy Spirit, through my sins being forgiven completely both now and forever, and through faith and assurance in Christ. Because I love God and God loves me I can love my fellow man and look good on the outside.

Jesse:

Have you read the Book of Mormon? At the heart of the book is the message that we must change from the inside. Consider the following passages:

Alma 5:14:

"And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?"

Mosiah 3:19:

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

Moroni 10:32:

"Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God."

Change of heart is at the core of our doctrine. It is true that the core of our doctrine often does not penetrate to the heart of our members which results in the type of superficial behavior that you described above. But we try very very hard to effect that penetration. I am currently serving as the ward mission leader and every Sunday morning I attend a council meeting where we discuss the needs of the ward. The subject at the core of the discussion without exception is what do we do to help our members get the message.

If you want to appreciate to what extent we try, I suggest you do the following:

- Read theBook of Mormon
- Read, listen to, or watch General Conference
- Study Preach My Gospel - the training manual for our missionaries
- Talk to a local church leader - e.g a bishop

The question that Rob was asked, or at least the question I was trying to answer was not "What would the world be like if everybody was like the average person who makes it through the doors of the LDS church every Sunday?", but rather, "What would the world be like if everybody made an honest effort to apply what he hears once he makes it past those doors?"

And the answer to that is that you would see a fundamental change from the inside which would involve a positive change in behavior.  Applied globally and on a mass scale it would make the world a much better place, and not a boring place at all.

Along the same lines, it would help if you asked this question - what would those people exhibiting superficial behaviors do had they been outside of the LDS church? At least if they are inside the church you have a hope that one day they may get the message. Otherwise they are left alone to find their natural man which without restraint will likely take them to things that are much worse that what they are doing now.

An interesting case study for you. In the Provo-Orem area we have about 90% LDS membership rate with the activity rate of about 50-60%. So you would expect a random young man to have the probability of about 50% of being active LDS, and if he was older than 21, about maybe 30% chance that he had served a mission. I suspect this holds true if you do your poll at a grocery store, although I have not tried that. However, what I have tried is ask every young man I've run with if he was LDS, if he was active, and if he had served a mission. My sample was limited to those who could run 8:00 pace or faster because otherwise we did not get to talk. Over the course of 16 years out of very many encounters - I start a conversation at first opportunity, I will even speed up to 5:20 for a mile or more to chase someone down if that means I get to run with a partner for a couple of miles after that - I recall only two encounters where the runner was older than 21 and not a return missionary. In both cases those were not members of the church that moved to Utah County from far away. I have never met someone who was inactive even though demographically we have plenty. But apparently it is extremely unlikely for an inactive member of the Church to be running and to be fit enough to be comfortable at 8:00 pace. At least here where I live. So either the Church gives people discipline to train, or those who have the discipline to train are more likely to be comfortable with the discipline required of the members of the Church, but I see a very strong correlation.

And another statistic to ponder - Utah smoking rate is around 12% while national figure is around 19%. Utah has had the lowest smoking rate in the nation for a long time. So at least while we might fail at other things, we are successful at teaching people to not smoke. Now prescription drug abuse and pornography is a different story, but we try very very hard.

Jesse,

You are correct in that there are many individuals that fail horribly in practicing what they preach (most certainly including the LDS church) and many who frankly don't care and just wear religion as a badge.  I would state that "man", however, with the help of the Lord, can eschew the natural man and become the individual on the inside that they pretend to be on the outside.  And yes, striving to better yourself on a daily basis is a struggle and can certainly bring on different levels of stress relative to your aspirations, however irrational or rational they may seem.  Stress is resolved in several different manners and many times through substance abuse of some form (i.e. alcohol and drugs).  I believe that a vulnerability to ponzi schemes can be attributed to more of a blind trust (he or she is fellow active member "they must be honest") than an economic drive to salvation.  As members we are taught to keep a budget and prepare the best we can for whatever the future may bring (salvation certainly is not bought).  As LDS we are certainly peculiar individuals and most of us are striving to be good people both in an out.

Chad 

You can't just explain away the problems with Mormonism by saying people weren't Mormon enough!

Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't privilege Mormonism above other religions. You could make the same
argument about any number of moral codes.

I personally think that anytime you make certain behaviors verboten, you're going to get unintended bad
consequences. For example, drinking alcohol in excess is indisputably bad, but I like to drink it occasionally.
I think that the ability to enjoy something in moderation is a skill that we have to practice. Another example is
ice cream. Ice cream is delicious and it makes me happy to eat it, but if I ate it all the time I would die rather
quickly, which would certainly be the end to my ice cream eating. Is the solution to cut out ice cream all the time?
Maybe so, but I think that would in general make me a less happy person and more likely to write angry rants
on the internet. The best solution is moderation, which I think takes more discipline than simply never eating it
ever. I think that not only is Mormonism too restrictive, but the all or nothing approach makes it very hard on people
who fail to live up to the arbitrary standards.

Another problem with Mormonism is the long-standing attitude towards homosexuality. Treating homosexuality
as something to be suppressed and avoided leads to some serious problems in the community. This is completely
unnecessary suffering that cannot be defended. I'll admit that I've not read the book of Mormon and it may not
mention such things, but you can't deny the stance the church has taken.

I have read the BoM. I think it's a great book, in many ways it agrees with the Bible. Alma 5:14 references John 3 where Jesus says, "You must be born again." Mos. 3:19 stems from 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Mark 10:15 and other places in the gospel where Jesus said "You must have faith like a child". Moroni 10:32 collages Titus 2:12, Mark 12:30 and 2 Corinth. 12:9 together. These are all good things. And I agree with you Sasha about discipline and the church, but this is part of the problem. Let me ask this, if one were to rank these things in order of their importance, what would the ranking be?

Attending church and paying tithes

Attending temple and doing temple duties

Being a good spouse and parent

Having a good relationship with God

Now I admit that trying to rank good things is a bit like splitting the atom, but I believe that the most important thing is to have a relationship to God the Father and His Son Jesus through the Holy Spirit. This should be the primary emphasis, and if this is the case, then good can flow out of that. But does the bishop ask how your relationship to God is to attend temple? I would submit that paying tithes, attending church and following the Word of wisdom can actually be a hindrance to your relationship to God if you somehow think that puts you in fellowship to God.

And Moroni 10:32 actually makes me really sad. It actually goes against the Bible verses it alludes to. It seems to say: If I deny ungodliness, and love God with all my heart, then is God's grace sufficient for me and I'll know the power of God.

But God actually shows His power to me by His love in providing His Son, His grace is given to me first and then I can have the power to be godly. God is a good Father, what is the better picture of a good father, one who says, "Son, if you are good all your life, and you love me and you live the right way, then I'll truly call you my son." Or the Father who says this, "Son, I love you, and nothing you do can separate you from my love, I will love you no matter what you do. Now go and live in my love." The second son may disappoint his father, but he'll always know he is loved. The first son might not disappoint his father, but he'll always wonder if he's been proved worthy to be a son.

Now I'm not saying that being good isn't important, I actually think that the second son has more of a change to truly be good and worthy, because he's living in love and assurance and grace rather than testing and failure and unworthiness.

Isn't the parable Jesus gave of the Loving Father in Luke 15 the picture of God? This parable is otherwise known as the prodigal son. The younger son squanders his portion of the inheritance and shamefully returns home where the Father runs to him, celebrates his return and loves him fully. Even the older son who has been good doesn't understand the Father's love. This is how we're changed from the inside out, as Titus 3:5 says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy He saved us ..." 

James:

I'll start with a joke. A statistician, a physicist, and a mathematician are on a train that enters a country. They see what looks like two black sheep. Statistician: "All sheep in this country are black". Physicist : "No, only the two sheep we are seeing are black". Mathematician: "No, we can only say that the this country has two sheep that are black from one side." I must admit I sympathize with the mathematician. I've had to prove that 1*0=0 in a class assignment, and did not think it was strange that something so obvious required proof. When studying for math tests I've poured over statements like "From A it obvious that B is true" frequently spending half an hour on each in a lengthy proof getting ready to deal with a professor that would call my bluff if I had said this to him during an oral exam. So I want proof, and I will not settle for less than a real proof. Yet I believe in God, and I believe He has His church among us today, and it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This is not a dichotomy of thought - I just have received a proof that I consider satisfactory, and that proof is a witness of the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith was honest and sane in his claims to have seen the Father and the Son. With that revealed axiom in place it logically follows that Christ is the Son of God and our Savior. So do other teachings of the LDS church.

Recently as my son Benjamin got into chess, I got back into it as well. From that I learned to appreciate the importance of a solid chess position - truly solid, as opposed to what only appears to be solid. I've seen many positions that appeared solid that actually had a forced mate against the "solid" side in two or three moves or were otherwise crackable. The crack happened due to a weakness that a good but not exceptional player would not even think about.

I've been in the LDS Church for over 20 years, have thoroughly investigated its doctrine, and know not only that it is truly solid, but also why. The arguments that we need to relax our standards to accommodate the evolving ideas of the world are like an invitation to push a pawn that is guarding a critical square with the justification  that it is just a pawn. The tragedy of making such seemingly innocuous moves cannot be felt by seeing the immediate reply of your opponent or by going through the calculations, and  is not fully realized until you've lost a few games because of it.  Then you develop a sense, and know when not to give your opponent a certain square.

Jesse:

Let me ask you this. If your wife expects you to perform a task - e.g take the trash out - on a regular basis would you have the nerve to argue that the task becomes a substitute for your relationship with her and thus should not be performed lest the quality of the relationship deteriorate? I'll leave it at that, and post the rest of my thoughts should the need arise.

Sasha,

I think you misrepresent statisticians. They would say that at least 22% of sheep are black with 95% confidence...under the assumption that the two sheep represent independent samples of the larger sheep population. In any case, the mathematician is correct if we wish to restrict the conversation to things which are certain. However, this establishes a very high barrier of certainty (100%, in fact).

Mathematical and logical deduction is a useful tool, but using it to the exclusion of empiricism and induction will not get you far. I will take as an example your stated reason for your faith.

You start with the axiom of your witness that Joseph Smith was sane and truthful. I do not really consider this an axiom, but I shall use that word because you did. Your axiom requires several further assumptions.

1) That the Holy Ghost is always truthful
2) That you interpreted its words correctly
3) That your memory is reliable

Your statement is true only as long as 1-3 are true and so your 'axiom' is not an axiom at all. Any attempt to prove anything deductively outside of logic or mathematics will fall flat. I may agree with your logic but disagree with your starting assumptions and we will have gotten nowhere.

No, I think that you have faith that 1) is true and that you have very great certainty that 2) and 3) are true. Any human that constantly doubted their own perceptions may be justified but also probably insane. Furthermore, I think that your faith arises from, or is at least strengthened by, empirical observation of the consequences of Mormon doctrine. We need only look a few posts up to your discussion of runners in Provo.

I will get to your chess analogy...

Anyway, we weren't really debating proofs of the existence of god, but whether or not it would be best if everyone were Mormon.

On to your chess analogy. I assume this is a response to my statements about ice cream and alcohol. I think your analogy could help solidify my point.

The goal of chess is to take the other person's King, not any of their other pieces. Similarly, you may still win if you lose pieces. If you never consider the option that a pawn might be sacrificed for the greater cause, then you will limit yourself as a player. Losing a pawn may be a good idea or a terrible idea - it depends on the situation. In a real chess game, one has to think through what the actual repercussions of a move are. It is not helpful to follow the general rule 'don't let the other person take your pawns'. The general rule may be wrong more often than it is right, but it must be broken occasionally by a truly skilled player.

Finally, you didn't explicit address my complaint about the LDS church's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage. Was I missing the point of your chess analogy? If that was really the point of your analogy then you are begging the question. You are assuming that deviation from specific church doctrine is bad. That is what we are debating in the first place.

I just read through that recent comment thread on your blog. I think most people were debating reasonably, but some of the comments were a bit rude. I enjoying hearing/reading your take on things and I just hope that you don't take offense at my posts. Sometimes things can get lost in translation on the internet.

Sasha: 
When Jesus was asked by a rich young ruler what he must do to inherit the kingdom of heaven, Jesus replied, "Sell all you have and give it to the poor." The man went away sad for he was very rich. It seems that Jesus put in his path the very thing that the rich man could not and would not do. Jesus also said, "Why do you call me good, don't you know that no one is good but God?" (Matt. 19) Now why would Jesus turn this man away, this seems to be an excellent teaching moment! This guy seems to want to do the right thing! Jesus made this man sad because he still didn't understand the unapproachable distance between an Only Good God and a sometimes good man. What does it require to live up to the standard of heaven? Absolutely everything.

To answer your illustration, doing tasks for my wife would be beneficial to my relationship with her, but what if she expected perfection in everything I did for her, and of course I failed her constantly, I would have no relationship to her. Because God is as Jesus said, "the only good one" then nothing I can do can approach Him. Now I admit this doesn't sound like a good and loving God if perfection is required and it is unattainable on my part, but that's what makes the provision of Jesus coming to earth so powerful. God, knowing that we needed perfection to approach Him, gave us perfection in the form of Jesus. He died for us and lives for us. My imperfections have been put to death with Jesus. When I take this perfect gift of deliverance, salvation, rescue from my sin, I can have a relationship with God. I need righteousness, this has always been true.

Remember Abraham? Judaism, Islam, and Christendom all recognize and claim Abraham as a patriarch. How did Abraham approach God, was he good? When God called Abraham from the land of Haran, it's very likely that he was worshiping false gods, his father Terah was. But Abraham left his land and family and believed what God promised, and what does Genesis 15:6 say, "And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Abraham's long journey of faith culminated in him being called a friend of God.

So look at it from God's perspective, He said from the beginning that righteousness can only be achieved through faith in Him, in the free gift of eternal life that Jesus extends, John 6:47 "He who believes has eternal life." Of course God wants me to do good things as a result of my relationship to Him, but those good things don't merit my relationship to Him. To put it in the analogy of a husband and wife, a doctor can save my wife from death through his skill as a surgeon, but that doesn't mean he has a better relationship with her than I do. Look at Matthew 7:21-23 Many who did great things for God will hear God say, "Depart from me, I never knew you."

My relationship to God is not like a husband and wife, it's more like a rich man giving his servant a blank check, all the servant has to do is sign the check and all the inheritance of the kingdom is his. But if the servant comes to God and says, "Look, I've worked hard for you all my life and I've saved up a million dollars for your kingdom."
"That's great," the rich man says, "but what about the wonderful gift I gave you?"
"I wasn't sure about your gift, I decided to see what I could do."
"Don't you know I am far richer than you could ever be, why didn't you accept my wonderful gift, don't you know how much I love you?"

How much can I as an imperfect man do to get to God? How much can a perfect God do to reach down to me? God wins every time.

So...it's wrong for people to try to better themselves or be good? Why bother doing anything?

Why bother being good? Because we have a conscience, because God is good, because we can feel good, because we can get along socially, because we will be rewarded both now by a God who made the earth and in heaven by a God who made heaven. The issue is not whether we should be good, it's how good is good enough.

When it comes to earning a heaven made by an infinitely good God, there is no good good enough. But that's exactly why this infinitely good God gives the free gift of entrance into heaven to all those He's made simply by believing "that He is and that He rewards those who seek Him." (Hebrews 11) This is the only way a good God can truly be good and loving to all and maintain His standard of good.

Imagine the arrogance of Jesus' statement, "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 16:4) But Jesus could make this statement because He was the only Son of God, God Himself, and He offered Himself for all who believe to come to the Father.

How good is good enough? If you're working your way to heaven you will never have assurance that you're getting there, you will possibly never be good enough. If you accept God's free gift by faith, you can have assurance that you have eternal life right now.

And when you have assurance of heaven, of a Gracious God, I don't prove to Him that I'm good enough, but I certainly please Him by living well in this good earth that He's made and looking forward in hope to heavenly reward as well.

Jesse you are now arguing with yourself. I am done here.

I'm truly sorry if I seem unclear. It comes down to this, are you trusting in your good works to be your salvation, or are you trusting in a good God to be your salvation? If I adopt a son he can either accept my love and live like a son or he can act like he's always trying to please me and prove that he's worthy to be my son. Wouldn't I want my son to live in my love, he doesn't have to prove anything to me? He pleases me because he accepts my love, and out of that love he can live a great life, not perfect of course but he can be assured he has a loving Father who will always be there for him.

Many people didn't believe in Jesus even when he was on the earth, in fact it seems that more didn't believe than did. They were tripped up by Jesus' simple message of God's unconditional love and receiving eternal life by faith. They wanted to be validated in their own goodness, their own works, by following the Jewish law, by being good enough. They couldn't understand a God who was so good and so loving, this is biblical Christianity. Every religion in the world says, "Do good and live." Jesus says, "He who believes in me has eternal life."

Jesse,

I understand what you're saying, it's just that it has no relevance to what this thread was originally about. We were discussing whether or not it would be better if everyone were Mormon. I don't disagree with your interpretation of the bible, but it is irrelevant. From the standpoint of someone who does not believe the bible to be true, using quotes from the bible to make your point makes no sense.

Jesse,

From my perspective it appears the issue you are having is related not to the doctrine of the LDS church, nor that taught in the Book of Mormon, but rather to a common misunderstanding of our doctrine espoused by members and non-members alike.  The following video does a good job of explaining our stance on grace and works.  It is a speech entitled "His Grace is Sufficient" which was given at a BYU devotional in 2011.

http://www.byutv.org/watch/49475abb-10d4-4f45-a757-7000b9945468

James:

Have you ever lost a chess game by moving the wrong pawn at the wrong time?  Better yet, have you lost it because of it, but did not realize it at the moment you made the move and only figured it out when somebody with more experience showed you the significance of your mistake (e.g. through a crushing response)? I do not have the time now to find a position where a faulty pawn move is absolutely disastrous, but it is sufficiently subtle that a class D player will never see the punishment on his own, class C player will see it given 5 minutes to think, class B sees it in 2 minutes, class A in 1, expert in 30 seconds, national master in 15,  and international master and above sees it as fast as they see a knight fork on a king and a queen. I'll try to find one - I think until we go through it I cannot quite communicate my point.

James:

Here is the promised position, sort of. It is not quite of the level of difficulty as I promised - I did not have the time to search for one, so I just made it up. With me being only a class B player myself in a matter of minutes I could only come up with something of a limited level of difficulty. In this particular position, I would expect class C player to see the punishment for white moving the pawn from d4 to d5 in 10 seconds. I tested in on Benjamin who is also a class B player (maybe in reality class A based on a few of his recent games, but he still has to prove it and earn it officially) - he saw the punishment instantly.

So take a look at this:

http://asksasha.com/chess1.gif

White to move. It is tempting to play d4-d5 forking the knight and the rook. But it is a game losing blunder. Can you tell me why?

I can't get that link to open, but I'll take your word for it.

My point is that losing pawns is sometimes necessary even if it is sometimes catastrophic. Really though, it's at this point that the chess analogy becomes weak. In chess, there exist better players that can be asked for advice. These players are easily identifiable thanks to the chess rating system. The rating system relies on the fact that in each game there is a clear winner and loser. Moreover, both players agree on who won as everyone agrees on the rules and the objectives. This is not the case with life, which is why we like to spend so much of our time/energy playing games.

Here are a couple of thought experiments:

Suppose you become busy with work and you don't have time to teach your younger children how to play chess. You trust their ability to learn on their own, but you want to give them some good advice. You decide to write up a set of guidelines (similar to your advice on running a sub 2:30 marathon). Would you write this up as a set of 'guidelines' or a set of 'rules'? I would think that you would right it up as a set of guidelines. You would hope that your children would start by following your advice, but then they would come to learn situations where 'rules' could be bent or even broken and they would be better players for it.

Another way to think about it. Suppose you set out to prove me wrong and right out a set of 'rules that will never be broken even by a grandmaster'. I imagine this set of rules would be extremely long. It would be incredibly difficult to write and almost impossible to read. But let's suppose that your child is smart enough and patient enough to use it correctly. You give this super book to Stephen and tell him to always follow it no matter what. You give the a simpler set of guidelines to Matthew. To begin with Stephen always wins swiftly. Matthew learns much simpler from studying Stephen moves as well as your own guidelines but can never win. But who is really the better chess player in this scenario? Who would win if you took away their aides. And given that the number of possible chess games far exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, what happens when the limit of Stephen's super book is reached? I would argue that Matthew wins in the end and ends up the better player.

Many years later Stephen and Matthew are the two greatest chess players on Earth. Someone shows up from another planet and challenges our planet to a battle of wits, similar to the movie Space Jam but with chess instead of basketball. However, this space chess has weird rules. For example, the starting position of the knights and bishops might be mixed, the pawns move diagonally except when capturing, the board is a giant sphere, etc. These rules subtly change the game to the point that the super book is now useless or close to useless.

James:

What browser are you using? This is a GIF file. Try Firefox or Chrome. I feel my point is not complete without that position.

Now we are not talking about losing a pawn here - just moving it onto a square that appears very attractive, and, unless your rating is 1500 or higher, you will struggle somewhat understanding how to punish such a move.

In chess we can ask grandmasters for advice. In matters of morality we can ask the Lord. And there are winners and losers. Except you have to die to know "scientifically" who won and who lost. Just like in a chess game - if you  make a bad move, you might not find out it was bad for a long time. But you can know by faith, and that is the whole point of living here. This is why the Bible and the Book of Mormon come to us in a simple book form and not delivered to everybody in some spectacular manner. Are we able to read those books and recognize their origin through the Holy Ghost?

Assuming your rating is significantly below 1500 (if not replace the position I created with something harder that is appropriate for your level). Look at the diagram. Now suppose you have a grandmaster advising you on your moves, but you do not know who he is. You are about to play d4-d5. He is screaming at you. He is hysterical.  You do not understand what's wrong with him. You think he is nuts. This looks like a great move - you are going to win a piece. You dismiss him as some crazy guy and make the move. Now it is your opponent's turn. He listens to his grandmaster adviser. What does he do?

Ironically, I was using chrome. Then I tried internet explorer and it worked! Yes, I see sacrificing the pawn would lead to a check mate on the next turn with the knight and the queen.

I accept that, if this were a more complicated example, then I would require advice. I also accept that, in such a situation someone who listened to a grand master would beat me. But what if the chess player ONLY ever did what the grand master said? Would they really be a good chess player? For one thing, they would never be able to beat the grand master? In this way, listening to the grand master serves as a crutch in place of real skill.

Now in this analogy if 'the grand master'=God, then this is not really a problem. If someone lives their life getting advice directly from God and following it perfectly then, assuming that God really is omnibenevolent, that's the best you can possibly do.

In most religions the source of advice isn't just God. There are books, priests, etc. Not only that their are so many of them from different religions. Maybe their advice is really, really good. But in some cases it seems to be just wrong, it seems like the prejudices or the flaws of the individual have corrupted it. Consider what Brigham Young said about Africans. It took until 1978 for this policy to change, because, apparently people were more interested following what the church had always done rather than what God told them to do. I'm quite sure that the vast majority of Mormon's at that time were NOT racist...so perhaps they would have been better of following their conscience.

James:

I want to make sure you really understand the position as it was not clear from your comment about the mate with the queen and a knight. Can you post more specifics? So White plays 1 d5 - what does black do? 1 ... ?  Assuming black responds correctly the next move is forced. 2 ? 3 ? Then what? Did you realize what role the queen is playing in the mate assuming white defends correctly after the 1 d5 blunder?

Once you get those details figured out, explain the job that the pawn was doing on d4 that made the above punishment impossible.

Let's move beyond chess comparisons.  I am really and truly honest if the world would be better off is everyone was LDS, it seems as long as your a straight white male it's great.  But the continued discrimination based upon gender, race and sexual orientation is worrisome at best.  I will say LDS probably stands somewhere in the middle of religions on the issues of tolerance, but I think that says more about the institutional shortcomings of religion in general. 

Why do you say LDS is the best choice? Why not Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, some variety of Protestant, or another religion that more than 0.2% of the population has agreed is the right path to God or Gods.

Sorry, I should have been more specific

W: d4-d5 (This is a mistake because it opens up the White Queen so it can trap the King)

B: knight g4 to f2 Check (I originally thought this was checkmate, but now I see it blocks the Queen again)

W: Forced to move King H1 to G1

B: knight F2 to E4 check (queen this time)

W: Has two options at this point King goes to either F1 or H1

B: Knight e4 to g3 checkmate no matter where the King is.

So 3 moves instead of one.

And remember, this is not a debate about which religion (if any) is true.

James:

After King goes to back h1 and knight goes to g3 with a check it is not a mate because the pawn on h2 takes the knight and that alone gets him out of check (careful reading of the last clause will reveal a clue for the solution). Check with the knight of f2 was correct, though, and the idea of a discovered check by moving the knight after that  was correct as well, but you need to find a better square for the knight.

Kevin - hold your horses. I believe that we will have a much better discussion when we engage our minds thoroughly and vigorously in the process of constructing an argument - something the young generation is somewhat loathe to do nowadays. We will move beyond chess once this problem has been properly understood. As evidenced by what we have seen, it has more depth than James initially observed, and he is the only one who tried so far.

Ok, I think I got it this time.

Knight goes to the vacated H1.
Then Q goes to F2.

If we were really playing I definitely would have messed that up.

Is your point that moving the white pawn was a bad move? So sometimes the smallest, seemingly insignificant mistakes can be catastrophic?

James - that does not work either. King takes the knight on h1 to get out of check - he can since black does not have a strike on that square at that point. Remember - the king is a strong attacking piece. His restriction is just that he cannot be in check, which make him weaker when there are a lot pieces around, but if the queens are gone or if he finds an enclave of relative safety he is full of trouble.

You have not demonstrated it yet, but pushing the d4 pawn is nevertheless a bad move. We are not at the end of this problem yet, but by this point you should have gotten my point at about 20% already seeing how difficult it has been to prove that this move is bad indeed.  However, I want to continue the discussion after you've gotten my point at 100%.

Hint - look for a double-check in the next move. Double-check is very powerful because you cannot resolve it by capturing a checking piece. Since you cannot take two pieces at once taking one still leaves you in check from the other. So the only way out of a double-check is to move the king.

I showed this to Jenny and Julia. They are both Utah scholastic tournament rated at around 800, but Jenny is sharper tactically - her tactical skills are at around 1200 level. Julia saw the first two moves correctly, but then without moving the pieces could not see the continuation (she is 10 years old). Jenny being older (12) could see better and without moving the pieces gave me the full solution taking about 5-10 seconds to think about each move. Joseph - 8 years old - scholastic rating around 350 - saw the first move correctly, but then did not know what to do after that without moving the pieces. I did not test Julia or Joseph in a setup where pieces could be moved.