From Chapter Four of Joseph Conrad’s A Personal Record:

This must have been in the year ‘70. But I really believe that I am wrong. That book was not my first introduction to English literature. My first acquaintance was (or were) the “Two Gentlemen of Verona,” and that in the very MS. of my father’s translation. It was during our exile in Russia, and it must have been less than a year after my mother’s death, because I remember myself in the black blouse with a white border of my heavy mourning. We were living together, quite alone, in a small house on the outskirts of the town of T——. (more…)

Someone who works for a major city’s department of homeland security recommends everyone having a pack of these.

https://www.nukepills.com/potassium-iodide/   (more…)

There is male space, and then there is male space.

This is my attempt to explain it (for non-Mormons) in five statements.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/what-do-mormons-mean-by-saying-that-we.html

Comments/ corrections are welcomed.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/a-teleological-metaphysics-for-biology.html

“I’m going to start out by talking about the doctrine of intelligences. This is, I think, unique to Mormonism. It talks about that we existed as intelligences and that it can’t be created and it can’t be made. We’ve always existed in this way. But, we chose to ally ourselves with God. We had personality and we had volition, and we chose to ally ourselves with a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who could put us on the road to exaltation. So, they gave us a spirit body. ”

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/womans-church

(Excellent talk – BTW)

This is no big deal – nothing terribly important hangs upon it. But just from interest – how many would say that this is the probable order of events? I mean that as intelligences we chose to ally with God?

I have until now assumed that we chose to ally with God after we became intelligences.

My reasons are:

1. I don’t think we could choose this until after we were spirit bodies – I don’t think our capacity for choice was there as intelligences.

2. I think the evidence for this is that Satan and the fallen angels chose to reject God after they had become premortal spirit bodies. If they had chosen to ally with God as intelligences, then this decision would have to be non-binding, reversible – which perhaps isn’t much of a decision.

3. On the other hand – it is clear that we can, during mortal life, chose to reject out alliance with God (i.e. choose damnation).

So it could be (as the above speaker implies) that at each stage (including intelligence, spirit body and mortal incarnation) we can choose to reject our alliance with God. So I am currently reconsidering my previous ideas on this topic. No conclusion as yet.

Thoughts?

His Majesty has been much preoccupied lately.

(more…)

I do not seriously observe Lent, I must admit; but as a constructive gesture in that direction I have this year decided to read scripture daily, focused on some (by me) neglected portions – therefore I am carefully re-reading ‘Isaiah’ from the Old Testament, and ‘Mormon’ from the Book of Mormon.

What strikes me for the umpteenth time is how incredibly evil the God sometimes seems to be who is depicted in some parts of such writings; that is, when judged by the absolute standard of the ideal loving Heavenly Father and how he would be expected to behave towards his children — that is assuming that the motivations imputed to God by scripture are taken at face value as necessarily valid in the way which strikes moderns.

For example, from Isaiah 13:

Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty. Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man’s heart shall melt: And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames. Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible… And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land. Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Now, what kind of a Father would have this attitude to his beloved children? This passage describes God as cruel, sadistic and an advocate of extreme psychological and physical torture.

To any reasonable non-Christian, a God with this kind of personality and these kind of motivations is nothing short of a monster. This is, very reasonably, a serious stumbling block for the prospective Christian – and demands an honest, robust, clear, simple, non-evasive response.

So how may we provide this – how to remove the stumbling block?

The first step is to make absolutely clear that God is our wholly loving Heavenly Father who regards and treats us at least as well as the most loving earthly father ever did his precious sons and daughters. So anything which may contradict, or seem to contradict, this is certainly wrong in some way.

Therefore, either we are misunderstanding what is written (quite likely) or the people who write are misunderstanding the ultimate nature of the situation – and are either imputing mistaken motivations to God for things which happen (e.g. projecting their own emotions onto him); or else are describing a situation in terms which people of that particular time and place would understand because they would not understand the reality.

But what must be made clear is that, whether or not we personally can ever sort out what was really intended and was really going-on in the situations described in scripture is variable; the principle of God’s love for His children is not up for debate.

Sometimes we can make a good guess at a proper understanding, at other times not. Often, it seems to me, the inevitable effect of unrepentant gross sin is being accurately described in a causal fashion (e.g. saying that if you carry on doing X, then Y will follow). But often the divine motivations for this are being misrepresented; perhaps for good reasons, but sometimes for bad reasons; e.g an excessive zeal for emphasizing the power of God – to the point of wanting to make everything that happens a direct consequence of His direct will – even when this is at the expense of His Goodness.

But we should never, ever let go of the core fact of God’s nature being wholly loving towards us – and we should make clear to those who find these horrific descriptions of angry smiting to be a stumbling block to faith, that this principle cannot be compromised.

Therefore, it is far better to assume error in the writing or translation scriptures, the understanding of those who wrote them, and/ or the interpretation of scriptures — than for anyone to come away with the idea that our God is the kind of personage who would take pleasure in misery, torture, torment and destruction; or who would wreak such things for no better reason than extreme anger at our disobedience.

First things must come First; and that God is our wholly-loving Father is one of the things that comes first, and about which there can be no compromise at all – nor even an impression of compromise.

About the man himself, there isn’t much to say that Ross Douthat didn’t already say. I’ll only add that his iconic status should really go beyond the political or the legal. He’s the patron saint of swimming against the tide and doing it magnificently. The tide moves on nonetheless.

As far as the political fallout goes, everyone on the right suddenly has a strong principled opposition to confirming SCOTUS nominations in an election year. Everyone on the left suddenly has a strong principled stance that the president has an absolute right to have his nominees confirmed no matter how much time is left in his term.

This is silly. Everyone knows that if Ruth Ginsburg had died in early 2008, they’d all be arguing the reverse. The Constitution is silent on the matter, so spare me the arguments from abstract principle.

Here is the real argument for blocking Obama’s nominee: The Left’s main path for crushing its enemies has been through the courts. One more leftist on the court gives them free rein. Any Republican who lets in an Obama nominee through the Trojan horse of comity and tradition is a traitor to Christians and everyone else not under the left-wing umbrella, and should be treated accordingly.

wanna go to church with me?

I don’t expect much of politicians, and yet they never stop finding ways to disappoint:

“Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all said or suggested they’d support women being required to enroll in Selective Service and be eligible for the draft, since female service members can now serve in combat roles. Cruz was not asked.

“‘It was striking that three different people on that stage came out in support of drafting women into combat in the military,’ Cruz said. ‘I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was: Are you guys nuts?'” (link)

Keeping in mind that these ruminations are purely speculative.

(more…)

Is it possible for a Christian to be a Liberal – that is a Leftist? Yes.

Is it possible for a Leftist to be a Christian? Well, no – not really. (more…)

[Note: The following is from my ‘Notions’ blog, and attempts to explain something to non-Mormon Christians – especially those who try to ‘explain’ Mormon theology in terms of a borrowing and synthesis of various forms of paganism and Christian heresies such as Arianism and Pelagianism… but it may be of interest here… especially since I am trying briefly to summarize some implicit aspects of Mormon theology which are seldom taken much notice of by active members of the CJCLDS – and indeed why should they be?]

***

When people talk about ‘free will’ they are implicitly referring to an uncaused cause – in other words, the ability to act (e.g. to think a thought) without that act being caused but coming from within. (more…)

The willingness to assume well of other people.

(more…)